Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 2 days, 9 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 2 days, 11 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 3 days, 2 hrs ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 4 days ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 5 days, 6 hrs ago - more...
Wanker |
2010-04-27
, 07:11
|
|
Posts: 4 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#31
|
Another apple publicity stunt.
|
|
2010-04-27
, 07:16
|
|
Posts: 31 |
Thanked: 26 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#32
|
Originally Posted by Joorin
There are local 'shield' laws in most states, but no federal law. In general they're drafted broadly enough to cover professional bloggers. For example the California example protects:
"can be considered"... "(according to some)"...
If there are laws in the US of A protecting every blog as if it was a newspaper, I surely have learnt something today.
If there are no such laws, the journalist claim goes out the window.
A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication
Interestingly, that article talks about the precedent in California law for bloggers' protection and look who was involved:
California's shield law protects a person "connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication." In an important case, O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), a California appellate court held that the shield law applies to persons gathering news for dissemination to the public, regardless of whether the publication medium is print or online. In that case, Jason O'Grady operated an "online news magazine" about Apple Computers. He published confidential information he received about a new Apple product. Apple wished to sue the person who divulged the confidential information to O'Grady and subpoenaed him for information about the identity of his confidential source. The court applied the shield law, and O'Grady did not have to identify his source.
Last edited by jutl; 2010-04-27 at 07:19.
|
|
2010-04-27
, 07:29
|
|
Posts: 1,751 |
Thanked: 844 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Sweden
|
#33
|
Originally Posted by Joorin
I though the US had free speach.. apparently not. Nothing that Apple would like anyway.
"can be considered"... "(according to some)"...
If there are laws in the US of A protecting every blog as if it was a newspaper, I surely have learnt something today.
If there are no such laws, the journalist claim goes out the window.
 |
|
2010-04-27
, 07:32
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#34
|
Well, anyone who uses an Apple product in public should be sent to jail...
|
|
2010-04-27
, 07:46
|
|
Posts: 5,795 |
Thanked: 3,151 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Agoura Hills Calif
|
#35
|
Originally Posted by AlMehdi
I think there is no defense for buying stolen property, journalist or not. The defense will be that they didn't pay for the phone but for the information they got by looking at the phone.
I though the US had free speach.. apparently not. Nothing that Apple would like anyway.
The real question will be whether their testimony about the phone can be compelled, say with a $10,000 fine per day of their refusal to testify. They will plead the Fifth and they will be given immunity, and they will have to testify at some point or go bankrupt.
Last edited by geneven; 2010-04-27 at 07:50.
|
|
2010-04-27
, 08:00
|
|
Posts: 41 |
Thanked: 62 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#36
|
They should have paid the guy for his story on how he got the phone and then had him lend it to them to look at.
Then they would have been OK, but once they paid for the phone they screwed themselves im my opinion.
If someone happened to find a prototype BMW sitting on a street corner and sold it to Motor Mag for $100K and they took it apart and published all the photos about it I am sure most would consider that theft. Doubt Apple will win any fans for having the DA and cops go after them but they did it all wrong.
Then they would have been OK, but once they paid for the phone they screwed themselves im my opinion.
If someone happened to find a prototype BMW sitting on a street corner and sold it to Motor Mag for $100K and they took it apart and published all the photos about it I am sure most would consider that theft. Doubt Apple will win any fans for having the DA and cops go after them but they did it all wrong.
 |
|
2010-04-27
, 08:00
|
|
Posts: 551 |
Thanked: 507 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ North West England
|
#37
|
Grey area to me. They are not buying a stolen item because it was found left in a public place, surely?
Once they had bought it and taken all the pictures they wanted, the best course of action would have been to approach Apple, maybe at the same time the details were published, with the fact they had what appeared to be an Apple prototype and offer to return it if they could prove it was theirs.
If Apple accepted, proof is there, then fight a legal case to take the details down, but of course it is too late as everyone will have seen it anyway.
If Apple declined, then not a problem.
If the police are involved because of outing the product, not for buying a stolen item, then surely every single car magazine could be pursued in the same way for publishing pictures of prototypes on test tracks?
Once they had bought it and taken all the pictures they wanted, the best course of action would have been to approach Apple, maybe at the same time the details were published, with the fact they had what appeared to be an Apple prototype and offer to return it if they could prove it was theirs.
If Apple accepted, proof is there, then fight a legal case to take the details down, but of course it is too late as everyone will have seen it anyway.
If Apple declined, then not a problem.
If the police are involved because of outing the product, not for buying a stolen item, then surely every single car magazine could be pursued in the same way for publishing pictures of prototypes on test tracks?
|
|
2010-04-27
, 08:05
|
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#38
|
Originally Posted by Wanker
If so, it'll only backfire.
Another apple publicity stunt.
Mind you, I know that they got the phone via dubious methods; however they were interested in bringing a scoop. Just imagine each time a scoop landed in somebody's lap and they got arrested or their stuff seized.
If anything, I wonder exactly what will it take to give Apple zero coverage since they've treated AppleInsider.com as such and now... Gizmodo.
|
|
2010-04-27
, 08:06
|
|
Posts: 29 |
Thanked: 22 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#39
|
Originally Posted by geneven
The phone wasn't stolen, it was lost/found.
Anyway, I guess if The New York Times paid $10,000 for a prototype Volt that it knew was stolen, it would be liable even if the person buying the stolen car had a Ph.D in something.
|
|
2010-04-27
, 08:06
|
|
Posts: 1,751 |
Thanked: 844 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Sweden
|
#40
|
Originally Posted by geneven
Thats true. If they bought a stolen device and knew about it they could be prosecuted for fencing. It can't get worse than that.. a petty crime. If they have profe.. which i don't think they have.
I think there is no defense for buying stolen property, journalist or not. The defense will be that they didn't pay for the phone but for the information they got by looking at the phone.
The real question will be whether their testimony about the phone can be compelled, say with a $10,000 fine per day of their refusal to testify. They will plead the Fifth and they will be given immunity, and they will have to testify at some point or go bankrupt.
Anything els and the US law system got a big problem...
Last edited by AlMehdi; 2010-04-27 at 08:09.