Tidbits: Retail blackout days; 3G iPhone ad filming; iPhone GPS



  • Reply 81 of 82
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Originally Posted by MorkFromOrk View Post

    You know Woz and Steve hacked phones also? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_box_(phreaking)

    Thanks for that, Woz.
  • Reply 82 of 82
    nasdarqnasdarq Posts: 137member
    Originally Posted by nicegoogly View Post

    It doesn't work that way in California. You cannot simply elect to become a private complainant in a criminal proceeding. You make a criminal complaint or the police make it on your behalf after you sign off on their complaint/report. The local municipality then goes on it from there.

    Can only speak of England and Wales (+ Scotland and a few continental systems that I know to a much more limited extent) - but it's pretty much what could happen here too, except that it wouldn't be the municipality but rather a local police department. Of course, the authorities have a discretion as to whether to pursue the case or not.

    Originally Posted by nicegoogly View Post

    You make a rather large assumption regarding the quid pro quo between the young men and Apple with regards to release and the promise not to follow through with a criminal complaint. I guess as the hasty manager ran down the street with his digital camera, he happened to consult Apple's Legal Department, print the release and haul ass down the street.

    You evade the real answer, as you do not have it, by stating "let's not go into comparative analysis of defamation/privacy laws in different Western jurisdictions" and then go on to compare. You are correct, initially...let's not compare. It is the state of California and the laws govering the United States that apply. There is no need of discussion of "different Western jurisdictions". We are talking about these two men in the state of California. No one posed the question "what if this occurred in Paris or London?"

    Think they wrote that the chaps were excluded from Apple's "international retail chain" - hence my concerns in the first place - as different countries would look at this in a different manner.

    Originally Posted by nicegoogly View Post

    Statements like "careful consideration of competing interests" is what is terrible about the legal profession in general. Every case is a landmark case. Ugh...give that crap up. I am an attorney and I can't stand when attorneys stand on ceremony when the situation does not deserve it. It would be the greatest injustice to have this situation debated in the highest court in the land when there are far more important matters like abortion, same-sex marriage, parental rights and numerous Constitutional violations/extensions, to name a few, that need to be considered.

    I see where you are going to, and I must admit I too dislike witnessing this type of show-off. Lawyers, of all people, shouldn't get involved in self-gratifying intellectual wanking. At the same time, I always keep the presumption that the most important issues ("landmark", if you wish ...) are usually hidden behind a very "banal" and "technical" background. I can see from your last sentence that you are talking more about moral/political rather than legal problems (as far as I am concerned).

    Originally Posted by nicegoogly View Post

    A perfect example of this is all of the time and energy wasted by the RIAA. I have defended a number of cases against them in my criminal practice and have read their contribution to pre-sentencing investigations. Essentially, they purport to represent the interest of the victim record companies and artists and provide the court with their ridiculous assessment of the damages from the records sold (ie: fake cd case, they stated that each cd had a retail value of $27.99). The record labels and the artists do not sell the cd's at retail so that number is inflated to begin with. But in the report they provide to the court, they state that the money gained from the restitution does not go back to the record labels or the artists, but is paid directly to the RIAA to continue to bring lawsuits and be involved in seeking restitution in criminal cases. It is a self-perpetuating machine that serves only their own ends. Currently, there is litigation pending to remove their direct involvement as they are not a direct party to the damages incurred and should not receive any monetary reward (as far as the criminal cases are concerned).

    Count me in on this one. Let the record industry/their lobby/parliaments keep living on another planet. We won't need to do anything - their greed and inability to adapt will do the job. Sorry for sounding a bit political (it's my turn now ), but one cannot defeat the clearly (increasingly, relentlessly) socially-accepted behaviour even with the most draconian of criminal laws ... Our hopeless protectionism of IP is increasingly resembling the Vatican's (continuing) policy against pre-marital sex - look what impact has that made ... But wait, more bad news are to come - the movie industry is next, and they know it. As I don't entertain an illusion of making all countries as tolerant and pragmatic in dealing with acute social problems in the way they do it in the Netherlands (not all of us are as relaxed as the Dutch are, after all ...), I just hope the future lies with projects like www.sellaband.com who will continue cutting off the middle-man and making a real impact from the bottom ...

    Have a look at this blog, if you have time, btw, the chap talks a lot of sense:

Sign In or Register to comment.