But stealing a phone (under CA law, it IS stealing) and purchasing stolen property isn't?
Every time you try to shoot down the car analogy, you only manage to prove how right on the money my analogy is. Thanks.
Nope, not quite. The method and techniques used to gain the property might be protected. Let's go back to the New York Times v. United States. The government never tried to prosecute the NYTimes for publishing the story. Why? because first amendment issues may have been implicated.
There is also a second issue, If Gizmodo took apart the phone for the sole purpose of publishing the story...again, first amendment issues might be implicated and therefore might fall within the journalist shield law. Remember, what we're talking about here is the breaking into the journalist house and executing a warrant.
I think a strong argument can be made that the shield law is implicated and that confiscating the equipment computers etc., may be in contradiction of that law. The law does not provide immunity from criminal action, but it just might make it impossible to prosecute because the evidence collected as part of the warrant might get tossed.
Nope, not quite. The method and techniques used to gain the property might be protected. Let's go back to the New York Times v. United States. The government never tried to prosecute the NYTimes for publishing the story. Why? because first amendment issues may have been implicated.
There is also a second issue, If Gizmodo took apart the phone for the sole purpose of publishing the story...again, first amendment issues might be implicated and therefore might fall within the journalist shield law. Remember, what we're talking about here is the breaking into the journalist house and executing a warrant.
I think a strong argument can be made that the shield law is implicated and that confiscating the equipment computers etc., may be in contradiction of that law. The law does not provide immunity from criminal action, but it just might make it impossible to prosecute because the evidence collected as part of the warrant might get tossed.
So if he keeps the Ferrari and the computers he blogs with in the same building they can't get a warrant?
Edit: Ferrari sure is gonna be pissed seeing their car car taken apart on the web.
So if he keeps the Ferrari and the computers he blogs with in the same building they can't get a warrant?
Well, duh. Where else am I going to keep them? After all, I stole, err.... borrowed them with the intent of returning them some day, so I have to keep them safe in my garage.
So, according to Rigelian's logic, my plan is OK? Cool.
Which can be read any way you wish, but can still be explained as Apple utilizing it's influence for a desired affect by ANY good attorney.
I will address the Malice Aforethought once I find precedent, though you are incorrect in it being just murder. It is also utilized in assaults violence against individuals historically. Wounding and assault with a foreign object (horses and vehicles) also historically applies.
This is like Battleship or chess. Very much enjoyable.
That link says that Apple _might_ be a part of the informal steering committee which offers technical advice, but then goes on to say that they have no record of Apple actually being involved recently. Hardly evidence that Apple is running the show.
And there is a big difference between violent crimes and receipt of stolen property. Malice aforethought sounds cool, but I think the term you want is just "criminal intent" or the like.
So if he keeps the Ferrari and the computers he blogs with in the same building they can't get a warrant?
Edit: Ferrari sure is gonna be pissed seeing their car car taken apart on the web.
No, if he keeps the ferrari after publishing the story indicating that he has the ferrari he can be charged with the crime. Remember, what the prosecution may be prevented from getting is information that implicates the source of the story and the journalistic technique that was used. IOW, you don't get to keep the ferrari but you may be allowed to publish the story about the ferrari, despite the face that the information came from a questionable source.
Well, duh. Where else am I going to keep them? After all, I stole, err.... borrowed them with the intent of returning them some day, so I have to keep them safe in my garage.
So, according to Rigelian's logic, my plan is OK? Cool.
Hmmm really? That's my logic? I don't think so. Recovering the stolen property is just fine. Getting the computers that reveal the means of gaining information from the source is what is protected by the shield law. It's kind of disingenuous on your part to misrepresent what my logic is though.
No, if he keeps the ferrari after publishing the story indicating that he has the ferrari he can be charged with the crime. Remember, what the prosecution may be prevented from getting is information that implicates the source of the story and the journalistic technique that was used. IOW, you don't get to keep the ferrari but you may be allowed to publish the story about the ferrari, despite the face that the information came from a questionable source.
I see what you mean. I just have a hard time believing that shield laws would extend to the idea that I can have that Ferrari in my garage for a few weeks while I take it apart with my wrenches. Especially if I recently published an article saying I would pay cash if someone pulled one of their prototypes into my garage.
Hmmm really? That's my logic? I don't think so. Recovering the stolen property is just fine. Getting the computers that reveal the means of gaining information from the source is what is protected by the shield law. It's kind of disingenuous on your part to misrepresent what my logic is though.
No one's misrepresenting the logic but you.
Let's break it down:
Gizmodo:
Offers reward for Apple prototypes
Someone finds unattended Apple prototype in a bar
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling AppleCare tech support
Someone calls Gizmodo with offer of an Apple prototype for $5 K
Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property
Gizmodo pays $5 K, takes the prototype home, photographs it, disassembles it, and publishes all the details. Process takes several weeks.
Phone is most likely damaged by the disassembly. There is some question of whether it was even put back together.
AFTER the owner (Apple) contacts Gizmodo, they return it, but only after receiving an official letter from the attorneys. Phone is delivered in pieces
Gizmodo claims that their home (where the phone was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield laws because they were writing an article about disassembling the phone.
Gizmodo threatens to sue the police for getting a search warrant and confiscating items covered by the search warrant
Now, let's look at the analogy:
Me:
I offer reward for hot sports cars to drive
Someone finds an unattended Ferrari on the street
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling local mechanic to see if someone reported a lost car
Finder calls me and says they'll give me the car for $5 K
Under CA law, the care is clearly stolen property
I pay $5K, take the Ferrari home, drive it around town, and publish a story about what it's like to drive a Ferrari. Process takes several weeks.
While driving the car, I have an accident.
AFTER the owner sees his car on my web site, he contacts me to ask for his car back and I return the damaged car, but only after getting an official letter from the owner's attorney.
I now claim that my home (where the car was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield law since I was writing an article about driving Ferraris.
I will threaten to sue the police for getting a search warrant and for taking things covered by the warrant
There is absolutely no difference between the two situations. None. Now, please explain how what Gizmodo is OK but what I did is wrong - citing the relevant sections of CA law.
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling AppleCare tech support
Someone calls Gizmodo with offer of an Apple prototype for $5 K
Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property
Gizmodo pays $5 K, takes the prototype home, photographs it, disassembles it, and publishes all the details. Process takes several weeks.
Phone is most likely damaged by the disassembly. There is some question of whether it was even put back together.
AFTER the owner (Apple) contacts Gizmodo, they return it, but only after receiving an official letter from the attorneys. Phone is delivered in pieces
Gizmodo claims that their home (where the phone was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield laws because they were writing an article about disassembling the phone.
Gizmodo threatens to sue the police for getting a search warrant and confiscating items covered by the search warrant
Now, let's look at the analogy:
Me:
I offer reward for hot sports cars to drive
Someone finds an unattended Ferrari on the street
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling local mechanic to see if someone reported a lost car
Finder calls me and says they'll give me the car for $5 K
Under CA law, the care is clearly stolen property
I pay $5K, take the Ferrari home, drive it around town, and publish a story about what it's like to drive a Ferrari. Process takes several weeks.
While driving the car, I have an accident.
AFTER the owner sees his car on my web site, he contacts me to ask for his car back and I return the damaged car, but only after getting an official letter from the owner's attorney.
I now claim that my home (where the car was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield law since I was writing an article about driving Ferraris.
I will threaten to sue the police for getting a search warrant and for taking things covered by the warrant
There is absolutely no difference between the two situations. None. Now, please explain how what Gizmodo is OK but what I did is wrong - citing the relevant sections of CA law.
Gizmodo offered a reward for access to ipad prototypes, not for the iphone. Second, offering a reward for access to prototypes does not necessarily mean stolen prototypes.
Second factual problem. California law makes it illegal to "knowingly" purchase stolen property. There at this point is no evidence that Gizmodo knew the property was stolen at the time they purchased it. If you read the Gizmodo article, it was an iphone disguised as a 3G iphone with some differences.
Third problem with your hypothetical. Taking a part the iphone 4g to determine if it was authentic does not prove that they "knowingly" determined it was apple's property before taking it apart. Again another factual issue that would have to be resolved.
Fourth problem, I don't think the process took several weeks.
All of these are factual issues that have to be resolved.
Fifth problem, the so called sellers apparently told Gizmodo and other buyers that they had tried to contact Apple about the phone to determine ownership and that such efforts had failed.
These are all factual issues, that would have to be resolved.
Here's the next big problem. The police could have issued a subpoena to Gizmodo for all of the material associated with the sale. It would have allowed for a rational airing out of the shield law defense, and it would not have necessitated busting in someone's door. I actually find the behavior of the police rather puzzling.
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling AppleCare tech support
Someone calls Gizmodo with offer of an Apple prototype for $5 K
Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property
Gizmodo pays $5 K, takes the prototype home, photographs it, disassembles it, and publishes all the details. Process takes several weeks.
Phone is most likely damaged by the disassembly. There is some question of whether it was even put back together.
AFTER the owner (Apple) contacts Gizmodo, they return it, but only after receiving an official letter from the attorneys. Phone is delivered in pieces
Gizmodo claims that their home (where the phone was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield laws because they were writing an article about disassembling the phone.
Gizmodo threatens to sue the police for getting a search warrant and confiscating items covered by the search warrant
Now, let's look at the analogy:
Me:
I offer reward for hot sports cars to drive
Someone finds an unattended Ferrari on the street
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling local mechanic to see if someone reported a lost car
Finder calls me and says they'll give me the car for $5 K
Under CA law, the care is clearly stolen property
I pay $5K, take the Ferrari home, drive it around town, and publish a story about what it's like to drive a Ferrari. Process takes several weeks.
While driving the car, I have an accident.
AFTER the owner sees his car on my web site, he contacts me to ask for his car back and I return the damaged car, but only after getting an official letter from the owner's attorney.
I now claim that my home (where the car was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield law since I was writing an article about driving Ferraris.
I will threaten to sue the police for getting a search warrant and for taking things covered by the warrant
There is absolutely no difference between the two situations. None. Now, please explain how what Gizmodo is OK but what I did is wrong - citing the relevant sections of CA law.
That analogy will probably do more to hinder proper analysis than to promote it.
Also, let's go back to point one because everything is dependent on it. You say "Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property". This is simply not the case. When viewed in isolation, a couple lines of the code do indicate that this could be theft. However the legal system is complicated and this case isn't simple. The original finder did try to return the phone. The question is, was that effort sufficient, and if not, was the crime specifically "theft"?
Keep in mind that we have so many laws that they frequently overlap and contradict. That's where legal precedence comes into play. Logic won't help us here, only an in depth understanding of california law. This includes case law, not just statutory law.
While I have been persuaded by others on this forum that "theft" is likely applicable, I wouldn't go so far as to claim this case is clear cut.
Then why don't you explain where the analogy breaks down in any area that matters?
Seems to me that simply saying "I don't like that analogy, so I'm going to ignore it" is not very useful, either.
Why? Because the scenario comprising this case is one with which everyone is already familiar. To address the analogy is to not address the actual topic at hand. It isn't as if we need a comparison to understand the facts of the case.
The worthwhile conversation here is about applicable laws. The facts of the case aren't so convoluted as to require an analogy. Or at least that is why I chose not to rebut the analogy. Please note that I'm not trying to disprove the analogy. Rather, just pointing out that direct discussion is probably more valuable than bringing in another topic.
Why? Because the scenario comprising this case is one with which everyone is already familiar. To address the analogy is to not address the actual topic at hand. It isn't as if we need a comparison to understand the facts of the case.
OK, so you're NOT able to point out any differences between the iPhone situation and the analogy.
The reason for the analogy is quite clear. People are familiar with car theft and why it's a crime. Some people here seem to think that it's not a big deal for a phone to be stolen. By using the analogy, it hopefully becomes more clear that the iPhone incident is very similar to something in real life that they already understand.
So your problem is that you don't like analogies. That's your prerogative. But stop claiming that the analogy doesn't apply when you can't point out any significant reasons why.
OK, so you're NOT able to point out any differences between the iPhone situation and the analogy.
The reason for the analogy is quite clear. People are familiar with car theft and why it's a crime. Some people here seem to think that it's not a big deal for a phone to be stolen. By using the analogy, it hopefully becomes more clear that the iPhone incident is very similar to something in real life that they already understand.
So your problem is that you don't like analogies. That's your prerogative. But stop claiming that the analogy doesn't apply when you can't point out any significant reasons why.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. You've completely mischaracterized my point and then argued against your own straw man.
Feel free to keep pushing the car analogy. But please try to avoid getting mad at people who don't feel like fixating on it rather than the topic at hand.
I love how you guys are still running around pretending you know the law, making ridiculous analogies, etc. You get called on it in one thread, then just go to another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCJ001
Gizmodo paid $5000 for property that did not belong to the seller, nor to Gizmodo. Upon receiving said property, they disassembled it into individual components and photographed all of the components.
It sounds, to me, like Gizmodo and/or its agent broke the law.
That remains to be seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
I am declaring my house as news room... enough said
You could certainly do that, if you made your living as a journalist. See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sounds like confirmation that Gizmodo't legal team must have gone to the same law school as Psystar's legal team.
Probably the Disney School of Creative Arguments
Comparing Gizmodo to Psystar is completely invalid. The search and seizure here was very likely improper. Their attorney is simply pointing that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob
"journalists" ???
Now there's a stretch!
Not according to legal precedent. It's not cut and dried, but the pendulum is swung towards the side of bloggers and independent news publishes being considered "journalists.
It seems likely that the Legislature intended the phrase "periodical publication" to include all ongoing, recurring news publications while excluding non-recurring publications such as books, pamphlets, flyers, and monographs. The Legislature was aware that the inclusion of this language could extend the statue's protections to something as occasional as a legislator's newsletter. If the Legislature was prepared to sweep that broadly, it must have intended that the statute protect publications like petitioners', which differ from traditional periodicals only in their tendency, which flows directly from the advanced technology they employ, to continuously update their content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm going to go one better.
I'm going to start a blog on hot high-performance cars.
Then, I'll buy stolen Ferraris for $5,000 and drive them. According to Gizmodo, the police have no right to look in my garage or stop me on the street.
And just to make it perfectly legal, I'll knock on 2 or 3 of my neighbors' doors to see if they lost a Ferrari.
Oh, and I'm definitely planning to return them to the original owner if the provide me with proof of purchase notarized in blood and a $10 K finder's fee.
See, there you go again. It's a ridiculously inappropriate analogy.
Comments
Ah, "youthful indiscretion"... Intriguing, sir, do go on... Grand Theft Auto after 8 tequila shots?
Tempting, but it would go even further off topic. (Hint: GTA no, shots yes, something else unfortunately, stupid most definitely.)
I think he was trying to point out that your "legal arguments" are about on par with hers --- laughable.
...
Ding, ding, ding.
There is a huge difference. The joy of driving around in stolen cars is the crime
But stealing a phone (under CA law, it IS stealing) and purchasing stolen property isn't?
Every time you try to shoot down the car analogy, you only manage to prove how right on the money my analogy is. Thanks.
But stealing a phone (under CA law, it IS stealing) and purchasing stolen property isn't?
Every time you try to shoot down the car analogy, you only manage to prove how right on the money my analogy is. Thanks.
Nope, not quite. The method and techniques used to gain the property might be protected. Let's go back to the New York Times v. United States. The government never tried to prosecute the NYTimes for publishing the story. Why? because first amendment issues may have been implicated.
There is also a second issue, If Gizmodo took apart the phone for the sole purpose of publishing the story...again, first amendment issues might be implicated and therefore might fall within the journalist shield law. Remember, what we're talking about here is the breaking into the journalist house and executing a warrant.
I think a strong argument can be made that the shield law is implicated and that confiscating the equipment computers etc., may be in contradiction of that law. The law does not provide immunity from criminal action, but it just might make it impossible to prosecute because the evidence collected as part of the warrant might get tossed.
Nope, not quite. The method and techniques used to gain the property might be protected. Let's go back to the New York Times v. United States. The government never tried to prosecute the NYTimes for publishing the story. Why? because first amendment issues may have been implicated.
There is also a second issue, If Gizmodo took apart the phone for the sole purpose of publishing the story...again, first amendment issues might be implicated and therefore might fall within the journalist shield law. Remember, what we're talking about here is the breaking into the journalist house and executing a warrant.
I think a strong argument can be made that the shield law is implicated and that confiscating the equipment computers etc., may be in contradiction of that law. The law does not provide immunity from criminal action, but it just might make it impossible to prosecute because the evidence collected as part of the warrant might get tossed.
So if he keeps the Ferrari and the computers he blogs with in the same building they can't get a warrant?
Edit: Ferrari sure is gonna be pissed seeing their car car taken apart on the web.
So if he keeps the Ferrari and the computers he blogs with in the same building they can't get a warrant?
Well, duh. Where else am I going to keep them? After all, I stole, err.... borrowed them with the intent of returning them some day, so I have to keep them safe in my garage.
So, according to Rigelian's logic, my plan is OK? Cool.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...-to-apple.html
Which can be read any way you wish, but can still be explained as Apple utilizing it's influence for a desired affect by ANY good attorney.
I will address the Malice Aforethought once I find precedent, though you are incorrect in it being just murder. It is also utilized in assaults violence against individuals historically. Wounding and assault with a foreign object (horses and vehicles) also historically applies.
This is like Battleship or chess. Very much enjoyable.
That link says that Apple _might_ be a part of the informal steering committee which offers technical advice, but then goes on to say that they have no record of Apple actually being involved recently. Hardly evidence that Apple is running the show.
And there is a big difference between violent crimes and receipt of stolen property. Malice aforethought sounds cool, but I think the term you want is just "criminal intent" or the like.
So if he keeps the Ferrari and the computers he blogs with in the same building they can't get a warrant?
Edit: Ferrari sure is gonna be pissed seeing their car car taken apart on the web.
No, if he keeps the ferrari after publishing the story indicating that he has the ferrari he can be charged with the crime. Remember, what the prosecution may be prevented from getting is information that implicates the source of the story and the journalistic technique that was used. IOW, you don't get to keep the ferrari but you may be allowed to publish the story about the ferrari, despite the face that the information came from a questionable source.
Well, duh. Where else am I going to keep them? After all, I stole, err.... borrowed them with the intent of returning them some day, so I have to keep them safe in my garage.
So, according to Rigelian's logic, my plan is OK? Cool.
Hmmm really? That's my logic? I don't think so. Recovering the stolen property is just fine. Getting the computers that reveal the means of gaining information from the source is what is protected by the shield law. It's kind of disingenuous on your part to misrepresent what my logic is though.
No, if he keeps the ferrari after publishing the story indicating that he has the ferrari he can be charged with the crime. Remember, what the prosecution may be prevented from getting is information that implicates the source of the story and the journalistic technique that was used. IOW, you don't get to keep the ferrari but you may be allowed to publish the story about the ferrari, despite the face that the information came from a questionable source.
I see what you mean. I just have a hard time believing that shield laws would extend to the idea that I can have that Ferrari in my garage for a few weeks while I take it apart with my wrenches. Especially if I recently published an article saying I would pay cash if someone pulled one of their prototypes into my garage.
Hmmm really? That's my logic? I don't think so. Recovering the stolen property is just fine. Getting the computers that reveal the means of gaining information from the source is what is protected by the shield law. It's kind of disingenuous on your part to misrepresent what my logic is though.
No one's misrepresenting the logic but you.
Let's break it down:
Gizmodo:
Offers reward for Apple prototypes
Someone finds unattended Apple prototype in a bar
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling AppleCare tech support
Someone calls Gizmodo with offer of an Apple prototype for $5 K
Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property
Gizmodo pays $5 K, takes the prototype home, photographs it, disassembles it, and publishes all the details. Process takes several weeks.
Phone is most likely damaged by the disassembly. There is some question of whether it was even put back together.
AFTER the owner (Apple) contacts Gizmodo, they return it, but only after receiving an official letter from the attorneys. Phone is delivered in pieces
Gizmodo claims that their home (where the phone was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield laws because they were writing an article about disassembling the phone.
Gizmodo threatens to sue the police for getting a search warrant and confiscating items covered by the search warrant
Now, let's look at the analogy:
Me:
I offer reward for hot sports cars to drive
Someone finds an unattended Ferrari on the street
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling local mechanic to see if someone reported a lost car
Finder calls me and says they'll give me the car for $5 K
Under CA law, the care is clearly stolen property
I pay $5K, take the Ferrari home, drive it around town, and publish a story about what it's like to drive a Ferrari. Process takes several weeks.
While driving the car, I have an accident.
AFTER the owner sees his car on my web site, he contacts me to ask for his car back and I return the damaged car, but only after getting an official letter from the owner's attorney.
I now claim that my home (where the car was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield law since I was writing an article about driving Ferraris.
I will threaten to sue the police for getting a search warrant and for taking things covered by the warrant
There is absolutely no difference between the two situations. None. Now, please explain how what Gizmodo is OK but what I did is wrong - citing the relevant sections of CA law.
No one's misrepresenting the logic but you.
Let's break it down:
Gizmodo:
Offers reward for Apple prototypes
Someone finds unattended Apple prototype in a bar
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling AppleCare tech support
Someone calls Gizmodo with offer of an Apple prototype for $5 K
Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property
Gizmodo pays $5 K, takes the prototype home, photographs it, disassembles it, and publishes all the details. Process takes several weeks.
Phone is most likely damaged by the disassembly. There is some question of whether it was even put back together.
AFTER the owner (Apple) contacts Gizmodo, they return it, but only after receiving an official letter from the attorneys. Phone is delivered in pieces
Gizmodo claims that their home (where the phone was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield laws because they were writing an article about disassembling the phone.
Gizmodo threatens to sue the police for getting a search warrant and confiscating items covered by the search warrant
Now, let's look at the analogy:
Me:
I offer reward for hot sports cars to drive
Someone finds an unattended Ferrari on the street
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling local mechanic to see if someone reported a lost car
Finder calls me and says they'll give me the car for $5 K
Under CA law, the care is clearly stolen property
I pay $5K, take the Ferrari home, drive it around town, and publish a story about what it's like to drive a Ferrari. Process takes several weeks.
While driving the car, I have an accident.
AFTER the owner sees his car on my web site, he contacts me to ask for his car back and I return the damaged car, but only after getting an official letter from the owner's attorney.
I now claim that my home (where the car was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield law since I was writing an article about driving Ferraris.
I will threaten to sue the police for getting a search warrant and for taking things covered by the warrant
There is absolutely no difference between the two situations. None. Now, please explain how what Gizmodo is OK but what I did is wrong - citing the relevant sections of CA law.
Gizmodo offered a reward for access to ipad prototypes, not for the iphone. Second, offering a reward for access to prototypes does not necessarily mean stolen prototypes.
Second factual problem. California law makes it illegal to "knowingly" purchase stolen property. There at this point is no evidence that Gizmodo knew the property was stolen at the time they purchased it. If you read the Gizmodo article, it was an iphone disguised as a 3G iphone with some differences.
Third problem with your hypothetical. Taking a part the iphone 4g to determine if it was authentic does not prove that they "knowingly" determined it was apple's property before taking it apart. Again another factual issue that would have to be resolved.
Fourth problem, I don't think the process took several weeks.
All of these are factual issues that have to be resolved.
Fifth problem, the so called sellers apparently told Gizmodo and other buyers that they had tried to contact Apple about the phone to determine ownership and that such efforts had failed.
These are all factual issues, that would have to be resolved.
Here's the next big problem. The police could have issued a subpoena to Gizmodo for all of the material associated with the sale. It would have allowed for a rational airing out of the shield law defense, and it would not have necessitated busting in someone's door. I actually find the behavior of the police rather puzzling.
Is it a cultural thing?
I have seem people rebuked for posting images of a sexual nature, whereas this attempted murder video is judged acceptable. That's seems wrong to me.
C.
No one's misrepresenting the logic but you.
Let's break it down:
Gizmodo:
Offers reward for Apple prototypes
Someone finds unattended Apple prototype in a bar
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling AppleCare tech support
Someone calls Gizmodo with offer of an Apple prototype for $5 K
Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property
Gizmodo pays $5 K, takes the prototype home, photographs it, disassembles it, and publishes all the details. Process takes several weeks.
Phone is most likely damaged by the disassembly. There is some question of whether it was even put back together.
AFTER the owner (Apple) contacts Gizmodo, they return it, but only after receiving an official letter from the attorneys. Phone is delivered in pieces
Gizmodo claims that their home (where the phone was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield laws because they were writing an article about disassembling the phone.
Gizmodo threatens to sue the police for getting a search warrant and confiscating items covered by the search warrant
Now, let's look at the analogy:
Me:
I offer reward for hot sports cars to drive
Someone finds an unattended Ferrari on the street
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling local mechanic to see if someone reported a lost car
Finder calls me and says they'll give me the car for $5 K
Under CA law, the care is clearly stolen property
I pay $5K, take the Ferrari home, drive it around town, and publish a story about what it's like to drive a Ferrari. Process takes several weeks.
While driving the car, I have an accident.
AFTER the owner sees his car on my web site, he contacts me to ask for his car back and I return the damaged car, but only after getting an official letter from the owner's attorney.
I now claim that my home (where the car was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield law since I was writing an article about driving Ferraris.
I will threaten to sue the police for getting a search warrant and for taking things covered by the warrant
There is absolutely no difference between the two situations. None. Now, please explain how what Gizmodo is OK but what I did is wrong - citing the relevant sections of CA law.
That analogy will probably do more to hinder proper analysis than to promote it.
Also, let's go back to point one because everything is dependent on it. You say "Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property". This is simply not the case. When viewed in isolation, a couple lines of the code do indicate that this could be theft. However the legal system is complicated and this case isn't simple. The original finder did try to return the phone. The question is, was that effort sufficient, and if not, was the crime specifically "theft"?
Keep in mind that we have so many laws that they frequently overlap and contradict. That's where legal precedence comes into play. Logic won't help us here, only an in depth understanding of california law. This includes case law, not just statutory law.
While I have been persuaded by others on this forum that "theft" is likely applicable, I wouldn't go so far as to claim this case is clear cut.
That analogy will probably do more to hinder proper analysis than to promote it..
Then why don't you explain where the analogy breaks down in any area that matters?
Seems to me that simply saying "I don't like that analogy, so I'm going to ignore it" is not very useful, either.
Then why don't you explain where the analogy breaks down in any area that matters?
Seems to me that simply saying "I don't like that analogy, so I'm going to ignore it" is not very useful, either.
Why? Because the scenario comprising this case is one with which everyone is already familiar. To address the analogy is to not address the actual topic at hand. It isn't as if we need a comparison to understand the facts of the case.
The worthwhile conversation here is about applicable laws. The facts of the case aren't so convoluted as to require an analogy. Or at least that is why I chose not to rebut the analogy. Please note that I'm not trying to disprove the analogy. Rather, just pointing out that direct discussion is probably more valuable than bringing in another topic.
Go Gizmodo!
And from everyone who was just about to buy a soon to be has-been iPhone a big THANKS!!
Apple screwed up, a mistake occurred and they just have to live with it and do better next time.
They can´t go around trying to change a tigers stripes or make the world obey their wishes.
Imagine if the guy or Gizmodo sold the iPhone to the Chinese?
Yea! Count your blessings you got it back.
There are federal laws against selling technology to other countries.
.
.
Why? Because the scenario comprising this case is one with which everyone is already familiar. To address the analogy is to not address the actual topic at hand. It isn't as if we need a comparison to understand the facts of the case.
OK, so you're NOT able to point out any differences between the iPhone situation and the analogy.
The reason for the analogy is quite clear. People are familiar with car theft and why it's a crime. Some people here seem to think that it's not a big deal for a phone to be stolen. By using the analogy, it hopefully becomes more clear that the iPhone incident is very similar to something in real life that they already understand.
So your problem is that you don't like analogies. That's your prerogative. But stop claiming that the analogy doesn't apply when you can't point out any significant reasons why.
OK, so you're NOT able to point out any differences between the iPhone situation and the analogy.
The reason for the analogy is quite clear. People are familiar with car theft and why it's a crime. Some people here seem to think that it's not a big deal for a phone to be stolen. By using the analogy, it hopefully becomes more clear that the iPhone incident is very similar to something in real life that they already understand.
So your problem is that you don't like analogies. That's your prerogative. But stop claiming that the analogy doesn't apply when you can't point out any significant reasons why.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. You've completely mischaracterized my point and then argued against your own straw man.
Feel free to keep pushing the car analogy. But please try to avoid getting mad at people who don't feel like fixating on it rather than the topic at hand.
Gizmodo paid $5000 for property that did not belong to the seller, nor to Gizmodo. Upon receiving said property, they disassembled it into individual components and photographed all of the components.
It sounds, to me, like Gizmodo and/or its agent broke the law.
That remains to be seen.
I am declaring my house as news room... enough said
You could certainly do that, if you made your living as a journalist. See below.
Sounds like confirmation that Gizmodo't legal team must have gone to the same law school as Psystar's legal team.
Probably the Disney School of Creative Arguments
Comparing Gizmodo to Psystar is completely invalid. The search and seizure here was very likely improper. Their attorney is simply pointing that out.
"journalists" ???
Now there's a stretch!
Not according to legal precedent. It's not cut and dried, but the pendulum is swung towards the side of bloggers and independent news publishes being considered "journalists.
http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case430.cfm
It seems likely that the Legislature intended the phrase "periodical publication" to include all ongoing, recurring news publications while excluding non-recurring publications such as books, pamphlets, flyers, and monographs. The Legislature was aware that the inclusion of this language could extend the statue's protections to something as occasional as a legislator's newsletter. If the Legislature was prepared to sweep that broadly, it must have intended that the statute protect publications like petitioners', which differ from traditional periodicals only in their tendency, which flows directly from the advanced technology they employ, to continuously update their content.
I'm going to go one better.
I'm going to start a blog on hot high-performance cars.
Then, I'll buy stolen Ferraris for $5,000 and drive them. According to Gizmodo, the police have no right to look in my garage or stop me on the street.
And just to make it perfectly legal, I'll knock on 2 or 3 of my neighbors' doors to see if they lost a Ferrari.
Oh, and I'm definitely planning to return them to the original owner if the provide me with proof of purchase notarized in blood and a $10 K finder's fee.
See, there you go again. It's a ridiculously inappropriate analogy.