Moreover it seems to apply to murder cases only. But as you said yourself, thanks for playing.
From the begining of his posts, the person your replying to has played fast and very loose with his claims. When called out he changes his story and claims he already proved his point. I'm done being dragged through the pasture with him. Good luck if he comes back to wriggle around more.
From the begining of his posts, the person your replying to has played fast and very loose with his claims. When called out he changes his story and claims he already proved his point. I'm done being dragged through the pasture with him. Good luck if he comes back to wriggle around more.
Nothing has changed. Try again. It's in print and therefore easily verified.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
I agree the DA should have made sure they were confidant beforehand. Yesterday I read they came to the conclusion(finally) that they were and are moving ahead.
If I were the target of a warrant the first thing I would do would be to hire an attorney. It would not however be the original person my comment was replying to. That kid makes very little sense but pretends he does.
I agree the DA should have made sure they were confidant beforehand. Yesterday I read they came to the conclusion(finally) that they were and are moving ahead.
If I were the target of a warrant the first thing I would do would be to hire an attorney. It would not however be the original person my comment was replying to. That kid makes very little sense but pretends he does.
You know nothing about criminal legal procedure, precedent or otherwise, but still vaguely comment and point fingers. Nothing you have said has been anything but a repetition of what someone else has said.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
And fwiw I'm a big proponent of shield laws and I do consider Jason Chen a journalist. But from what I have read I have my doubts that it will apply in this case. However, as you said none of us have all the facts in this case so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
And fwiw I'm a big proponent of shield laws and I do consider Jason Chen a journalist. But from what I have read I have my doubts that it will apply in this case. However, as you said none of us have all the facts in this case so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
I agree the DA should have made sure they were confidant beforehand. Yesterday I read they came to the conclusion(finally) that they were and are moving ahead.
If I were the target of a warrant the first thing I would do would be to hire an attorney. It would not however be the original person my comment was replying to. That kid makes very little sense but pretends he does.
Edngadget has already been addressed via possible charges of conspiracy, hence the possibility of Apple investigating more bloggers. Are you really willing to sacrifice civil liberties to be right? They would not be shielded either as they published pictures of what they obviously knew to be stolen property as well, via your logic.
Are you willing to allow anarchy in the name of some bizarre interpretation of the Judicial Shield laws?
The Judicial Shield laws are a good thing. Sometimes, they result in things being kept secret that would be better revealed, but overall, the balance appears to be positive for society.
However, Judicial Shield does not protect journalists from committing a crime - and it never has. If you commit a crime, you can not rely on Judicial Shield to protect you. And, again, I think that's a good thing.
If you take the position that you are apparently taking - that EVERYTHING a journalist does should be protected by judicial shield, then ANYONE can commit nearly any crime they wish by writing a blog. Sorry, that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
Example:
I'm going to start writing a blog about fancy cars. To do so, I'm going to offer a reward for anyone who brings me one. If someone brings me a Ferrari, I'll give them $5 K. Then, I'll call my local mechanic and ask him if he knows who lost a Ferrari. Then I'll drive the car all I want, claiming that I'm looking for the owner. I'll disassemble the car, and if the police come to see me, I'll say that I'm covered by Journalist Shield, so they can't take my stuff.
None of that is legally any different than what you're suggesting Gizmodo should be allowed to do.
And fwiw I'm a big proponent of shield laws and I do consider Jason Chen a journalist. But from what I have read I have my doubts that it will apply in this case. However, as you said none of us have all the facts in this case so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
I agree that Chen is likely to be found to be a journalist. It would be hard for the state to pick and choose who they consider journalist on an ad hoc basis, raises all kinds of questions. I think the real question is going to center on how the transaction was structured, what knowledge Chen actually had at the time the phone was turned over to him and what he was precisely told by the person giving him the phone. I suspect also the actual interpretation given to California law. Finally at some level it's going to turn on the atmospherics.
However, I think there are some interesting issues that the case raises. Some regarding press freedom, others concerning property rights. It might be helpful to see it played out. I seriously doubt that it will [if I were a betting man I would bet against charges being brought against Gawker or Gizmodo], but we will see.
Are you willing to allow anarchy in the name of some bizarre interpretation of the Judicial Shield laws?
The Judicial Shield laws are a good thing. Sometimes, they result in things being kept secret that would be better revealed, but overall, the balance appears to be positive for society.
However, Judicial Shield does not protect journalists from committing a crime - and it never has. If you commit a crime, you can not rely on Judicial Shield to protect you. And, again, I think that's a good thing.
If you take the position that you are apparently taking - that EVERYTHING a journalist does should be protected by judicial shield, then ANYONE can commit nearly any crime they wish by writing a blog. Sorry, that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
Example:
I'm going to start writing a blog about fancy cars. To do so, I'm going to offer a reward for anyone who brings me one. If someone brings me a Ferrari, I'll give them $5 K. Then, I'll call my local mechanic and ask him if he knows who lost a Ferrari. Then I'll drive the car all I want, claiming that I'm looking for the owner. I'll disassemble the car, and if the police come to see me, I'll say that I'm covered by Journalist Shield, so they can't take my stuff.
None of that is legally any different than what you're suggesting Gizmodo should be allowed to do.
That car analogy had been used repeatedly and to no avail.
The matter still stands that via your logic Endgadget had knowledge they were publishing pictures of property reported stolen and therefore should be held in the same contempt that Chen and Gizmodo are held.
The law should apply equally to all, or not at all, and as legal precedent shows (in most cases) it does.
You are taking the stance it arbitrarily applies to one party but not the other.
Endgadget should have reported to Apple or the authorities where they obtained their media (they probably already have) but should not have attempted to profit from the same property (they did), therefore you cannot say that due to their not having possession they are protected by said shield law, as if Chen is not then neither are they.
That car analogy had been used repeatedly and to no avail.
Only because you don't like it. You haven't shown any reason why my Ferrari analogy doesn't apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn
The matter still stands that via your logic Endgadget had knowledge they were publishing pictures of property reported stolen and therefore should be held in the same contempt that Chen and Gizmodo are held.
The law should apply equally to all, or not at all, and as legal precedent shows (in most cases) it does.
You are taking the stance it arbitrarily applies to one party but not the other. .
No, I'm not. You are simply confusing the facts.
The Journalist Shield law covers information. In fact, there's an 'exception to the exception' that says that if the only crime is gathering information, then you can't be charged.
Engadget merely engaged in gathering information -as far as has been publicly announced. As journalists, they are allowed to take pictures of things shown to them. If they know it's stolen, it's a bit sleazy, but not illegal.
Gizmodo did something entirely different. They PURCHASED a stolen device. That is a crime in and of itself. Unless you can't tell the difference between 'information' and 'a physical device', there's a world of difference between the two situations. Engadget can rely on the exception to the exception. Gizmodo can not - since they too possession of a physical device.
Now, if Engadget actually took possession of the device, then they lose their Shield, as well, but so far, there's no public evidence of that.
I agree that Chen is likely to be found to be a journalist. It would be hard for the state to pick and choose who they consider journalist on an ad hoc basis, raises all kinds of questions. I think the real question is going to center on how the transaction was structured, what knowledge Chen actually had at the time the phone was turned over to him and what he was precisely told by the person giving him the phone. I suspect also the actual interpretation given to California law. Finally at some level it's going to turn on the atmospherics.
i.e.: Malice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigelian
However, I think there are some interesting issues that the case raises. Some regarding press freedom, others concerning property rights. It might be helpful to see it played out. I seriously doubt that it will [if I were a betting man I would bet against charges being brought against Gawker or Gizmodo], but we will see.
Only because you don't like it. You haven't shown any reason why my Ferrari analogy doesn't apply.
It's a ludicrous 12 year old's fantasy of an analogy that holds no merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No, I'm not. You are simply confusing the facts.
How so? I utilize the same facts you have, unless you have more, being closely associated to the case and such.
You just choose to interpret them to your liking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The Journalist Shield law covers information. In fact, there's an 'exception to the exception' that says that if the only crime is gathering information, then you can't be charged.
Engadget merely engaged in gathering information -as far as has been publicly announced. As journalists, they are allowed to take pictures of things shown to them. If they know it's stolen, it's a bit sleazy, but not illegal.
Gizmodo did something entirely different. They PURCHASED a stolen device. That is a crime in and of itself. Unless you can't tell the difference between 'information' and 'a physical device', there's a world of difference between the two situations. Engadget can rely on the exception to the exception. Gizmodo can not - since they too possession of a physical device.
Now, if Engadget actually took possession of the device, then they lose their Shield, as well, but so far, there's no public evidence of that.
Malice.
Engadget obviously had knowledge, which is why they elected not to accept it, but still took advantage by posting the pictures, in hopes to be first. They still attempted to profit from knowingly stolen merchandise (hits/site visits), via your logic.
As I said previously, the only difference is no one visits their site.
Conversely, via later, unsubstantiated, reports Gizmodo DID NOT purchase the phone, but paid for access.
I would not be surprised if SJ became Willy Wonka after this affair, which I am pretty sure will not turn out in the favor of the State or Apple, but that is to be addressed at a later date.
It's a ludicrous 12 year old's fantasy of an analogy that holds no merit.
Your inability to come up with a rational rebuttal of my analogy is noted.
Funny how you can manage to call it ludicrous over and over again, but you've never been able to explain why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn
Engadget obviously had knowledge, which is why they elected not to accept it, but still took advantage by posting the pictures, in hopes to be first. They still attempted to profit from knowingly stolen merchandise (hits/site visits), via your logic.
As I said previously, the only difference is no one visits their site.
No, the only difference is that Engadget is covered by the Shield law since they didn't purchase stolen property -as I already explained to you. Your inability to comprehend the simple facts is not a defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn
Conversely, via later, unsubstantiated, reports Gizmodo DID NOT purchase the phone, but paid for access.
Sorry, Gizmodo publicly stated that they paid for the phone. They can't change their story just to try to stay out of trouble.
Not to mention, of course, that they're going to get a perjury charge added for all their trouble. They told Apple that they were in possession of the phone and it was Gizmodo who returned it. They also held onto it for 3 weeks, disassembled it, and published the results of their examination. If they were only paying to look at it, how did it end up in their possession?
Once again, I'm convinced that they looked around for the only lawyers in the country who weren't good enough to make the Psystar team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn
I would not be surprised if SJ became Willy Wonka after this affair, which I am pretty sure will not turn out in the favor of the State or Apple, but that is to be addressed at a later date.
I see that you've completely given up on any attempts to discuss the matter rationally. I'm not surprised - you weren't very good at coming up with rational arguments, anyway.
Yes, Gizmodo did invoke "neener neener" repeatedly until they realized they were being watched by the grown ups. They then shifted to the "did not" defense, but when hit with the "did too" charges, they quickly shifted to the "waaaa, waaaa" position.
Jury will be supplied with crying towels during closing arguments.
And when the judge / jury reads the verdict, they'll do the ever popular - la la la la I can't hear you.
Your inability to come up with a rational rebuttal of my analogy is noted.
Funny how you can manage to call it ludicrous over and over again, but you've never been able to explain why.
One cannot rebut something that has no merit. It is fantasy and nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No, the only difference is that Engadget is covered by the Shield law since they didn't purchase stolen property -as I already explained to you. Your inability to comprehend the simple facts is not a defense.
Prove a purchase occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sorry, Gizmodo publicly stated that they paid for the phone. They can't change their story just to try to stay out of trouble.
They stated they paid $5k. They did not say they purchased it outright. In court, semantics matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not to mention, of course, that they're going to get a perjury charge added for all their trouble. They told Apple that they were in possession of the phone and it was Gizmodo who returned it. They also held onto it for 3 weeks, disassembled it, and published the results of their examination. If they were only paying to look at it, how did it end up in their possession?
On what grounds? They have not been arrested or been placed under oath, which is where perjury applies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Once again, I'm convinced that they looked around for the only lawyers in the country who weren't good enough to make the Psystar team.
I won't comment on Fanboyism. I own a Mac and an iPhone and am willing to admit Apple is not perfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I see that you've completely given up on any attempts to discuss the matter rationally. I'm not surprised - you weren't very good at coming up with rational arguments, anyway.
Again, on what grounds? Because I don't bow down and agree with YOUR point of view?
One cannot rebut something that has no merit. It is fantasy and nothing more.
The rest of your post was snipped. You're obviously either incapable or unwilling to stick to rational debate. My analogy was almost exactly the same thing as Gizmodo did - and all you can say is 'has no merit'. Explain why my analogy is not the same.
Then you get into your flagrant distortion of the truth. Gizmodo publicly stated that they BOUGHT the phone. They're now trying to revise that - and you're asking for proof that they bought it. Sorry, but their own statements are sufficient. But let's look at Gawker's OWN WORDS:
They got it for $5,000. Not the right to use it - that has only been added later - in spite of your rampant attempts to deny the truth.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. It's also a crime to knowingly possess stolen property - which Gizmodo clearly did. We don't have any evidence that Engadget actually possessed the phone - all we know is that they took pictures of it, but the 'finder' could have retained possession while Engadget took the pictures. So until there's evidence that Engadget actually DID take possession, their situation is entirely different.
There's no point arguing with you. You're only interesting is 'neener neener' crap and haven't been able to provide a single rational argument.
The rest of your post was snipped. You're obviously either incapable or unwilling to stick to rational debate. My analogy was almost exactly the same thing as Gizmodo did - and all you can say is 'has no merit'. Explain why my analogy is not the same.
Then you get into your flagrant distortion of the truth. Gizmodo publicly stated that they BOUGHT the phone. They're now trying to revise that - and you're asking for proof that they bought it. Sorry, but their own statements are sufficient. But let's look at Gawker's OWN WORDS:
They got it for $5,000. Not the right to use it - that has only been added later - in spite of your rampant attempts to deny the truth.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. It's also a crime to knowingly possess stolen property - which Gizmodo clearly did. We don't have any evidence that Engadget actually possessed the phone - all we know is that they took pictures of it, but the 'finder' could have retained possession while Engadget took the pictures. So until there's evidence that Engadget actually DID take possession, their situation is entirely different.
It's not point arguing with you. You're only interesting is 'neener neener' crap and haven't been able to provide a single rational argument.
So you snip a point by point response because it doesn't fit your view? Are you a congressman?
And to have knowledge of a crime and not report it is also a crime, which Endgadget would be guilty of, by YOUR view.
Basically everything you present falls apart when that statute is introduced.
So you snip a point by point response because it doesn't fit your view? Are you a congressman?
And to have knowledge of a crime and not report it is also a crime, which Endgadget would be guilty of, by YOUR view.
Basically everything you present falls apart when that statute is introduced.
There WAS no point by point response. You simply said "your analogy is no good" - with no point-by-point rebuttal. How am I supposed to respond to something that doesn't exist.
And as for reporting a crime, you apparently have forgotten the Journalist Shield law. If Engadget's writer is a journalist and covered by the Journalist Shield law, they are most certainly NOT obligated to report a crime if they have knowledge of it.
Geez, you don't even understand the basics - yet you clutter this site with your inane whining.
Comments
What? Since when does a government organization have a "board" and where does it say that Apple is on this board?
http://reacttf.org/10701.html
Actually the term is "malice aforethought." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...e+aforethought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought
Moreover it seems to apply to murder cases only. But as you said yourself, thanks for playing.
From the begining of his posts, the person your replying to has played fast and very loose with his claims. When called out he changes his story and claims he already proved his point. I'm done being dragged through the pasture with him. Good luck if he comes back to wriggle around more.
From the begining of his posts, the person your replying to has played fast and very loose with his claims. When called out he changes his story and claims he already proved his point. I'm done being dragged through the pasture with him. Good luck if he comes back to wriggle around more.
Nothing has changed. Try again. It's in print and therefore easily verified.
You HAVE changed your story frequently though.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
I agree the DA should have made sure they were confidant beforehand. Yesterday I read they came to the conclusion(finally) that they were and are moving ahead.
If I were the target of a warrant the first thing I would do would be to hire an attorney. It would not however be the original person my comment was replying to. That kid makes very little sense but pretends he does.
I agree the DA should have made sure they were confidant beforehand. Yesterday I read they came to the conclusion(finally) that they were and are moving ahead.
If I were the target of a warrant the first thing I would do would be to hire an attorney. It would not however be the original person my comment was replying to. That kid makes very little sense but pretends he does.
You know nothing about criminal legal procedure, precedent or otherwise, but still vaguely comment and point fingers. Nothing you have said has been anything but a repetition of what someone else has said.
There are xerox machines for that.
What? Since when does a government organization have a "board" and where does it say that Apple is on this board?
http://reacttf.org/10701.html
Actually the term is "malice aforethought." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...e+aforethought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought
Moreover it seems to apply to murder cases only. But as you said yourself, thanks for playing.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eqb...page&q&f=false
Remove the "aforethought" and it's implication is the same as mine.
Semantics.
Gotta love the UCMJ.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
And fwiw I'm a big proponent of shield laws and I do consider Jason Chen a journalist. But from what I have read I have my doubts that it will apply in this case. However, as you said none of us have all the facts in this case so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
And fwiw I'm a big proponent of shield laws and I do consider Jason Chen a journalist. But from what I have read I have my doubts that it will apply in this case. However, as you said none of us have all the facts in this case so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
Story changed, again.
I agree the DA should have made sure they were confidant beforehand. Yesterday I read they came to the conclusion(finally) that they were and are moving ahead.
If I were the target of a warrant the first thing I would do would be to hire an attorney. It would not however be the original person my comment was replying to. That kid makes very little sense but pretends he does.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...zmodo_warrant/
There isn't one story printed that states the DA is proceeding with case against Gizmodo or Chen.
If there is, link it.
Edngadget has already been addressed via possible charges of conspiracy, hence the possibility of Apple investigating more bloggers. Are you really willing to sacrifice civil liberties to be right? They would not be shielded either as they published pictures of what they obviously knew to be stolen property as well, via your logic.
Are you willing to allow anarchy in the name of some bizarre interpretation of the Judicial Shield laws?
The Judicial Shield laws are a good thing. Sometimes, they result in things being kept secret that would be better revealed, but overall, the balance appears to be positive for society.
However, Judicial Shield does not protect journalists from committing a crime - and it never has. If you commit a crime, you can not rely on Judicial Shield to protect you. And, again, I think that's a good thing.
If you take the position that you are apparently taking - that EVERYTHING a journalist does should be protected by judicial shield, then ANYONE can commit nearly any crime they wish by writing a blog. Sorry, that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
Example:
I'm going to start writing a blog about fancy cars. To do so, I'm going to offer a reward for anyone who brings me one. If someone brings me a Ferrari, I'll give them $5 K. Then, I'll call my local mechanic and ask him if he knows who lost a Ferrari. Then I'll drive the car all I want, claiming that I'm looking for the owner. I'll disassemble the car, and if the police come to see me, I'll say that I'm covered by Journalist Shield, so they can't take my stuff.
None of that is legally any different than what you're suggesting Gizmodo should be allowed to do.
And fwiw I'm a big proponent of shield laws and I do consider Jason Chen a journalist. But from what I have read I have my doubts that it will apply in this case. However, as you said none of us have all the facts in this case so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
I agree that Chen is likely to be found to be a journalist. It would be hard for the state to pick and choose who they consider journalist on an ad hoc basis, raises all kinds of questions. I think the real question is going to center on how the transaction was structured, what knowledge Chen actually had at the time the phone was turned over to him and what he was precisely told by the person giving him the phone. I suspect also the actual interpretation given to California law. Finally at some level it's going to turn on the atmospherics.
However, I think there are some interesting issues that the case raises. Some regarding press freedom, others concerning property rights. It might be helpful to see it played out. I seriously doubt that it will [if I were a betting man I would bet against charges being brought against Gawker or Gizmodo], but we will see.
Are you willing to allow anarchy in the name of some bizarre interpretation of the Judicial Shield laws?
The Judicial Shield laws are a good thing. Sometimes, they result in things being kept secret that would be better revealed, but overall, the balance appears to be positive for society.
However, Judicial Shield does not protect journalists from committing a crime - and it never has. If you commit a crime, you can not rely on Judicial Shield to protect you. And, again, I think that's a good thing.
If you take the position that you are apparently taking - that EVERYTHING a journalist does should be protected by judicial shield, then ANYONE can commit nearly any crime they wish by writing a blog. Sorry, that's not the kind of society I want to live in.
Example:
I'm going to start writing a blog about fancy cars. To do so, I'm going to offer a reward for anyone who brings me one. If someone brings me a Ferrari, I'll give them $5 K. Then, I'll call my local mechanic and ask him if he knows who lost a Ferrari. Then I'll drive the car all I want, claiming that I'm looking for the owner. I'll disassemble the car, and if the police come to see me, I'll say that I'm covered by Journalist Shield, so they can't take my stuff.
None of that is legally any different than what you're suggesting Gizmodo should be allowed to do.
That car analogy had been used repeatedly and to no avail.
The matter still stands that via your logic Endgadget had knowledge they were publishing pictures of property reported stolen and therefore should be held in the same contempt that Chen and Gizmodo are held.
The law should apply equally to all, or not at all, and as legal precedent shows (in most cases) it does.
You are taking the stance it arbitrarily applies to one party but not the other.
Endgadget should have reported to Apple or the authorities where they obtained their media (they probably already have) but should not have attempted to profit from the same property (they did), therefore you cannot say that due to their not having possession they are protected by said shield law, as if Chen is not then neither are they.
That car analogy had been used repeatedly and to no avail.
Only because you don't like it. You haven't shown any reason why my Ferrari analogy doesn't apply.
The matter still stands that via your logic Endgadget had knowledge they were publishing pictures of property reported stolen and therefore should be held in the same contempt that Chen and Gizmodo are held.
The law should apply equally to all, or not at all, and as legal precedent shows (in most cases) it does.
You are taking the stance it arbitrarily applies to one party but not the other. .
No, I'm not. You are simply confusing the facts.
The Journalist Shield law covers information. In fact, there's an 'exception to the exception' that says that if the only crime is gathering information, then you can't be charged.
Engadget merely engaged in gathering information -as far as has been publicly announced. As journalists, they are allowed to take pictures of things shown to them. If they know it's stolen, it's a bit sleazy, but not illegal.
Gizmodo did something entirely different. They PURCHASED a stolen device. That is a crime in and of itself. Unless you can't tell the difference between 'information' and 'a physical device', there's a world of difference between the two situations. Engadget can rely on the exception to the exception. Gizmodo can not - since they too possession of a physical device.
Now, if Engadget actually took possession of the device, then they lose their Shield, as well, but so far, there's no public evidence of that.
I agree that Chen is likely to be found to be a journalist. It would be hard for the state to pick and choose who they consider journalist on an ad hoc basis, raises all kinds of questions. I think the real question is going to center on how the transaction was structured, what knowledge Chen actually had at the time the phone was turned over to him and what he was precisely told by the person giving him the phone. I suspect also the actual interpretation given to California law. Finally at some level it's going to turn on the atmospherics.
i.e.: Malice
However, I think there are some interesting issues that the case raises. Some regarding press freedom, others concerning property rights. It might be helpful to see it played out. I seriously doubt that it will [if I were a betting man I would bet against charges being brought against Gawker or Gizmodo], but we will see.
I've made this point repeatedly.
Only because you don't like it. You haven't shown any reason why my Ferrari analogy doesn't apply.
It's a ludicrous 12 year old's fantasy of an analogy that holds no merit.
No, I'm not. You are simply confusing the facts.
How so? I utilize the same facts you have, unless you have more, being closely associated to the case and such.
You just choose to interpret them to your liking.
The Journalist Shield law covers information. In fact, there's an 'exception to the exception' that says that if the only crime is gathering information, then you can't be charged.
Engadget merely engaged in gathering information -as far as has been publicly announced. As journalists, they are allowed to take pictures of things shown to them. If they know it's stolen, it's a bit sleazy, but not illegal.
Gizmodo did something entirely different. They PURCHASED a stolen device. That is a crime in and of itself. Unless you can't tell the difference between 'information' and 'a physical device', there's a world of difference between the two situations. Engadget can rely on the exception to the exception. Gizmodo can not - since they too possession of a physical device.
Now, if Engadget actually took possession of the device, then they lose their Shield, as well, but so far, there's no public evidence of that.
Malice.
Engadget obviously had knowledge, which is why they elected not to accept it, but still took advantage by posting the pictures, in hopes to be first. They still attempted to profit from knowingly stolen merchandise (hits/site visits), via your logic.
As I said previously, the only difference is no one visits their site.
Conversely, via later, unsubstantiated, reports Gizmodo DID NOT purchase the phone, but paid for access.
I would not be surprised if SJ became Willy Wonka after this affair, which I am pretty sure will not turn out in the favor of the State or Apple, but that is to be addressed at a later date.
It's a ludicrous 12 year old's fantasy of an analogy that holds no merit.
Your inability to come up with a rational rebuttal of my analogy is noted.
Funny how you can manage to call it ludicrous over and over again, but you've never been able to explain why.
Engadget obviously had knowledge, which is why they elected not to accept it, but still took advantage by posting the pictures, in hopes to be first. They still attempted to profit from knowingly stolen merchandise (hits/site visits), via your logic.
As I said previously, the only difference is no one visits their site.
No, the only difference is that Engadget is covered by the Shield law since they didn't purchase stolen property -as I already explained to you. Your inability to comprehend the simple facts is not a defense.
Conversely, via later, unsubstantiated, reports Gizmodo DID NOT purchase the phone, but paid for access.
Sorry, Gizmodo publicly stated that they paid for the phone. They can't change their story just to try to stay out of trouble.
Not to mention, of course, that they're going to get a perjury charge added for all their trouble. They told Apple that they were in possession of the phone and it was Gizmodo who returned it. They also held onto it for 3 weeks, disassembled it, and published the results of their examination. If they were only paying to look at it, how did it end up in their possession?
Once again, I'm convinced that they looked around for the only lawyers in the country who weren't good enough to make the Psystar team.
I would not be surprised if SJ became Willy Wonka after this affair, which I am pretty sure will not turn out in the favor of the State or Apple, but that is to be addressed at a later date.
I see that you've completely given up on any attempts to discuss the matter rationally. I'm not surprised - you weren't very good at coming up with rational arguments, anyway.
Yes, Gizmodo did invoke "neener neener" repeatedly until they realized they were being watched by the grown ups. They then shifted to the "did not" defense, but when hit with the "did too" charges, they quickly shifted to the "waaaa, waaaa" position.
Jury will be supplied with crying towels during closing arguments.
And when the judge / jury reads the verdict, they'll do the ever popular - la la la la I can't hear you.
Your inability to come up with a rational rebuttal of my analogy is noted.
Funny how you can manage to call it ludicrous over and over again, but you've never been able to explain why.
One cannot rebut something that has no merit. It is fantasy and nothing more.
No, the only difference is that Engadget is covered by the Shield law since they didn't purchase stolen property -as I already explained to you. Your inability to comprehend the simple facts is not a defense.
Prove a purchase occurred.
Sorry, Gizmodo publicly stated that they paid for the phone. They can't change their story just to try to stay out of trouble.
They stated they paid $5k. They did not say they purchased it outright. In court, semantics matter.
Not to mention, of course, that they're going to get a perjury charge added for all their trouble. They told Apple that they were in possession of the phone and it was Gizmodo who returned it. They also held onto it for 3 weeks, disassembled it, and published the results of their examination. If they were only paying to look at it, how did it end up in their possession?
On what grounds? They have not been arrested or been placed under oath, which is where perjury applies.
Once again, I'm convinced that they looked around for the only lawyers in the country who weren't good enough to make the Psystar team.
I won't comment on Fanboyism. I own a Mac and an iPhone and am willing to admit Apple is not perfect.
I see that you've completely given up on any attempts to discuss the matter rationally. I'm not surprised - you weren't very good at coming up with rational arguments, anyway.
Again, on what grounds? Because I don't bow down and agree with YOUR point of view?
Inflated opinion of self worth maybe?
One cannot rebut something that has no merit. It is fantasy and nothing more.
The rest of your post was snipped. You're obviously either incapable or unwilling to stick to rational debate. My analogy was almost exactly the same thing as Gizmodo did - and all you can say is 'has no merit'. Explain why my analogy is not the same.
Then you get into your flagrant distortion of the truth. Gizmodo publicly stated that they BOUGHT the phone. They're now trying to revise that - and you're asking for proof that they bought it. Sorry, but their own statements are sufficient. But let's look at Gawker's OWN WORDS:
http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple...he-next-iphone
"Weeks later, Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash."
They got it for $5,000. Not the right to use it - that has only been added later - in spite of your rampant attempts to deny the truth.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. It's also a crime to knowingly possess stolen property - which Gizmodo clearly did. We don't have any evidence that Engadget actually possessed the phone - all we know is that they took pictures of it, but the 'finder' could have retained possession while Engadget took the pictures. So until there's evidence that Engadget actually DID take possession, their situation is entirely different.
There's no point arguing with you. You're only interesting is 'neener neener' crap and haven't been able to provide a single rational argument.
The rest of your post was snipped. You're obviously either incapable or unwilling to stick to rational debate. My analogy was almost exactly the same thing as Gizmodo did - and all you can say is 'has no merit'. Explain why my analogy is not the same.
Then you get into your flagrant distortion of the truth. Gizmodo publicly stated that they BOUGHT the phone. They're now trying to revise that - and you're asking for proof that they bought it. Sorry, but their own statements are sufficient. But let's look at Gawker's OWN WORDS:
http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple...he-next-iphone
"Weeks later, Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash."
They got it for $5,000. Not the right to use it - that has only been added later - in spite of your rampant attempts to deny the truth.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. It's also a crime to knowingly possess stolen property - which Gizmodo clearly did. We don't have any evidence that Engadget actually possessed the phone - all we know is that they took pictures of it, but the 'finder' could have retained possession while Engadget took the pictures. So until there's evidence that Engadget actually DID take possession, their situation is entirely different.
It's not point arguing with you. You're only interesting is 'neener neener' crap and haven't been able to provide a single rational argument.
So you snip a point by point response because it doesn't fit your view? Are you a congressman?
And to have knowledge of a crime and not report it is also a crime, which Endgadget would be guilty of, by YOUR view.
Basically everything you present falls apart when that statute is introduced.
So you snip a point by point response because it doesn't fit your view? Are you a congressman?
And to have knowledge of a crime and not report it is also a crime, which Endgadget would be guilty of, by YOUR view.
Basically everything you present falls apart when that statute is introduced.
There WAS no point by point response. You simply said "your analogy is no good" - with no point-by-point rebuttal. How am I supposed to respond to something that doesn't exist.
And as for reporting a crime, you apparently have forgotten the Journalist Shield law. If Engadget's writer is a journalist and covered by the Journalist Shield law, they are most certainly NOT obligated to report a crime if they have knowledge of it.
Geez, you don't even understand the basics - yet you clutter this site with your inane whining.