Any attempt to restrict this freedom of speech should be fought
with every means at our disposal.
Well, I can certainly understand TS's motive to cloud the situation with this "free speech" bull shit.
Would you buy goods, you knew where stolen? Do you think because you didn't steal them yourself, that the law doesn't apply to you?
I'm sorry, but if your going to deal with people who are engaged in breaking NDA's and profiting from it, nonetheless - then you'd have to be a moron to think that you are going to be able to use the 1st ammendment to protect you.
I think that I am with Fallen F.T.T on this one. Apple in my opinion uses the good will and buzz generated by these sites to sell products but, when the news isn't quite what they want they wave the stick.
I wonder how many great ideas and features discussed on these and other boards managed to make it into a produced version. I would bet quite a few.
If apple has someone read these boards to ferret out leakers than what is to say that they aren't equally siphoning off the best ideas too.
I am sure there have been some GREAT mockups and ideas that have found it into an designers mind.
If you take information from someone who signed an NDA, and you publish that information KNOWING that person signed an NDA, you are liable wether you signed anything or not.
I don't know what definition you are using for "liable", but it certainly isn't in any legal sense. NDA does not apply to anyone who didn't sign the NDA.
What you advocate with that idea is nothing less than a corporate-run fascist state.
There's a reason the judge didn't provide a rationale, it's because he's got hundreds of years of legal precedent against him.
This goes way beyond Apple vs. Appleinsider, ThinkSecret and Powerpage
The important issue is whether independent authors or journalists and the publishing editors of open forum web publications qualify for protection under the first amendment.
The validity of their professional standing as journalists seems to be on the table.
We should also keep in mind that there was no intended malice towards
Apple in the posting of the Asteroid specifications.
IN FACT, the publication of the mini movie
" How to Open Your Mac Mini "
was far more harmful to Apple, but you don't see them sueing
for NDA violations.
If Apple WAS sueing for damages caused by that movie clip,
they would have to come after me for posting the link to several
forums and the film maker who created it.
I posted that information as a contributing author to a web publication.
Does that make those publications liable for my post?
What the EFF is arguing is that web publications ARE in fact
entitled to protect the anonymity of their sources.
You better believe that if that same source had leaked newsworthy information to the tech writers over at AP news that source would be protected.
Am I really the only one here noticing that our civil rights are being challenged more and more each day?
No, but me and cool gut have had this discussion before so I'm staying away.
The guy's obviously a mac fanboi--one of these high school kids that don't know about the first ammendment and moreover don't care.
It's cases like this one that dissillusion kids to "learn how it is" and become like cool gut.
With all the invasions on free speech during the past 20 years, it's no wonder kids today are less and less enchanted with the bill of rights. They're not buyin' the bullsh¡t anymore, they're smart enough to know America's ditched them, and they've adapted.
With all the invasions on free speech during the past 20 years, it's no wonder kids today are less and less enchanted with the bill of rights.
Invasions of free speech? I'm sorry, how about invasion of privacy - which I think this is more about. You think it would be cool for me to start a blog, and post pictures and personal information about your family? Hey - I'd just be using my right to free speech.
There are lots of people who know Apple has a slam dunk case, and they aren't all Apple zealots.
Unfortunately, if more people don't wake up and see what's going down that ditch is going to keep getting deeper and it will be lined with so much slippery excrement that no one will be able to escape.
Let's stay away from this case for a while and consider the ramifications if DePlume and others win this case.Since DePlume as well as others can get now get away in releasing trade secrets about Apple,what would prohibit others from doing the same things on other companies.What if it becomes really serious,say a person getting personal info on people and posting their financial records over the web or people leaking sensitive military or State secrets over the web because it's the First amendment thing.Lawyers of these websites can now argue successfully that it's a First Amendment thing regardless of whatever damages had occured.Do you know who's going to be affected by the backlash,bloggers,real honest to goodness private unpaid citizen journalists.The First Amendment didn't include being responsible for your words and accepting the consequence of it because the meaning was explicit even when it is not written done.
De Plume and others as well as their attorneys knew if they didn't falsely represent themselves as bloggers and journalists,they are screwed big time.
The biggest loser in here is the bloggers either way because if DePlume wins,every site now in existence will become blooger sites and they will now be protected under the First amendment and they now get away with murder even if they do things illegally.If Apple wins,it's bad for the bloggers because the presiding judge made the wrong decision in her opinion which if you connect it with the McCain-Feingold Act will effectively shut up the legit bloggers until the Act is repealed.
We have copyrights, we have patents, we don't need trade secret laws. Trade secrets could be classified as the paint color of the walls of the clean room, or what's the best kind of goggles to wear when dealing with lasers. They're not important usually, and certainly not important enough to put limitations on other people's free speech.
NDA's are contracts and are OK, but just because someone signs a contract, it shouldn't mean that everyone around them suddenly loses privacy and free speech rights.
The only thing you can't write is something that someone's copyrighted, and even then you can change wording, not use it for commercial purposes, or just use a small part of it.
Will not happen,the reason is this,to protect a business from corporate espionage .
I'll give you an example,let's say company A would release a product that would revolutionalize computing after an expensive R&D,but nobody knows what it is,then let's say No Secrets rumor site was able to contact an unknown source at the company and was able to obtain the complete specs of X product and he posted it on the web.Company B's employees was able to deduce what kind of product company A is going to release and proceeds to make adjustments on it's own products.A few days before Company A would release product X,Company B already with great fanfare release product Y and it was hailed to be innovative and it garner a lot of media and corporate attention.Would you hazard a guess what kind of reception would Company A would have when it release it's product.Guess what company would be labeled innovative and who is a me-too guy.
The company that got hurt was company A and whatever it does,it won't be able to recover the financial losses it suffered because someone from the outside induced an employee to talk even if No Secret proclaims to the world that Company B copied it from Company A
God this case only tells you one thing. That the United State legal system is just a big contradiction.
We have our Federal Consitution which has been amended over and over yet we still cannot give someone an easy answer to.
"Do I really have Free Speech?"
So know a Judge has stated that the protection given to Journalists only applies to "legitimate" Journalists who work for larger papers. OMG what a horrible finding that negates the biggest opportunity for expanding our potential source of information. The Internet.
It's rather simple. The onus is on Apple to protect their trade secrets. The rights granted by the Constitution of the US are paramount and ursurp most contradictory laws passed underneath.
The only way we can truly have freedom is to be able to have an open channel of communcation between those in the press and the consumer. This judge requiring that TS, Appleinsider and TPP give up their sources is tantamount to asking them to commit journalistic suicide. I look for his ruling to be overturned.
Hint...if you all want job security. Go into Law...I expect our rights and freedoms will continue to be chipped away until they mean nothing but some excuse to invade some country and replace their leadership...oops too late.
This judge requiring that TS, Appleinsider and TPP give up their sources is tantamount to asking them to commit journalistic suicide.
Well, I believe part of Apples argument was that these "offenders" are not journalists. Do you think they are? You think anyone who can post something on the web should be considered journalists?
TS keeps saying that if a regular newspaper published that report, it would be considered good journalism. But a regular newspaper would have never even solicited that type of information in the first place. I believe that a respectable journalist respects the privacy of a law abiding individuals and companies. And quite frankly they should be sued whenever they cross that line.
Comments
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I suppose we should all just hush and trust corporate leadership
and our noble government to do what's best for all of us.
Ignorance is bliss
You've fallen from the tree all right.
I mean, fuck, judging from the some posts here - you'd think this case was like Pacific Gas & Electric vs Erin Brockovich
Why not just hand over complete control of all journalism and media to those who allow corporate greed to dictate the content of their publications?
Perhaps the department of homeland security should moderate all
web publications to insure conformity to government policies and ideology.
The whole idea of an OPEN FORUM is to allow us the freedom
to express our thoughts, opinions and knowledge without fear
of repression.
Any attempt to restrict this freedom of speech should be fought
with every means at our disposal.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Any attempt to restrict this freedom of speech should be fought
with every means at our disposal.
Well, I can certainly understand TS's motive to cloud the situation with this "free speech" bull shit.
Would you buy goods, you knew where stolen? Do you think because you didn't steal them yourself, that the law doesn't apply to you?
I'm sorry, but if your going to deal with people who are engaged in breaking NDA's and profiting from it, nonetheless - then you'd have to be a moron to think that you are going to be able to use the 1st ammendment to protect you.
who started TS at the age of 13 is making much more
than it might take to cover his server and bandwidth expenses.
I'm fairly sure the editors of AI are pretty much in the same boat.
If it were not for the information we find in these forums,
we might still believe that only Apple technicians could
open a Mac Mini and we would be forced to pay more than
double the going rate for a 1 GB RAM card.
We might not know that many $1700 23" HD displays have a serious
problem with too much pink.
Or that you can purchase a very nice 24" Dell display for $500 less.
Or that many Powerbooks are having multiple quality control issues.
Without open forums places like XLR8yourmac might not be there
to help us repair and modify our systems.
We should not fault the editors of these web publications
for providing a means for us to express our opinions or
to provide the general public with helpful information.
I wonder how many great ideas and features discussed on these and other boards managed to make it into a produced version. I would bet quite a few.
If apple has someone read these boards to ferret out leakers than what is to say that they aren't equally siphoning off the best ideas too.
I am sure there have been some GREAT mockups and ideas that have found it into an designers mind.
And I do think that the front page is news.
Very specific apple news.
If you take information from someone who signed an NDA, and you publish that information KNOWING that person signed an NDA, you are liable wether you signed anything or not.
I don't know what definition you are using for "liable", but it certainly isn't in any legal sense. NDA does not apply to anyone who didn't sign the NDA.
What you advocate with that idea is nothing less than a corporate-run fascist state.
There's a reason the judge didn't provide a rationale, it's because he's got hundreds of years of legal precedent against him.
The important issue is whether independent authors or journalists and the publishing editors of open forum web publications qualify for protection under the first amendment.
The validity of their professional standing as journalists seems to be on the table.
We should also keep in mind that there was no intended malice towards
Apple in the posting of the Asteroid specifications.
IN FACT, the publication of the mini movie
" How to Open Your Mac Mini "
was far more harmful to Apple, but you don't see them sueing
for NDA violations.
If Apple WAS sueing for damages caused by that movie clip,
they would have to come after me for posting the link to several
forums and the film maker who created it.
I posted that information as a contributing author to a web publication.
Does that make those publications liable for my post?
What the EFF is arguing is that web publications ARE in fact
entitled to protect the anonymity of their sources.
You better believe that if that same source had leaked newsworthy information to the tech writers over at AP news that source would be protected.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Am I really the only one here noticing that our civil rights are being challenged more and more each day?
No, but me and cool gut have had this discussion before so I'm staying away.
The guy's obviously a mac fanboi--one of these high school kids that don't know about the first ammendment and moreover don't care.
It's cases like this one that dissillusion kids to "learn how it is" and become like cool gut.
With all the invasions on free speech during the past 20 years, it's no wonder kids today are less and less enchanted with the bill of rights. They're not buyin' the bullsh¡t anymore, they're smart enough to know America's ditched them, and they've adapted.
Originally posted by slughead
With all the invasions on free speech during the past 20 years, it's no wonder kids today are less and less enchanted with the bill of rights.
Invasions of free speech? I'm sorry, how about invasion of privacy - which I think this is more about. You think it would be cool for me to start a blog, and post pictures and personal information about your family? Hey - I'd just be using my right to free speech.
There are lots of people who know Apple has a slam dunk case, and they aren't all Apple zealots.
but they should not be allowed, under first amendment protections
to force the publishers to disclose their source.
I didn't intend to take this thread off topic, but I think our freedom
to express ourselves should not be taken lightly.
In fact, I can think of more than 1500 good reasons right now
why that freedom should be cherished.
Let's stay away from this case for a while and consider the ramifications if DePlume and others win this case.Since DePlume as well as others can get now get away in releasing trade secrets about Apple,what would prohibit others from doing the same things on other companies.What if it becomes really serious,say a person getting personal info on people and posting their financial records over the web or people leaking sensitive military or State secrets over the web because it's the First amendment thing.Lawyers of these websites can now argue successfully that it's a First Amendment thing regardless of whatever damages had occured.Do you know who's going to be affected by the backlash,bloggers,real honest to goodness private unpaid citizen journalists.The First Amendment didn't include being responsible for your words and accepting the consequence of it because the meaning was explicit even when it is not written done.
De Plume and others as well as their attorneys knew if they didn't falsely represent themselves as bloggers and journalists,they are screwed big time.
The biggest loser in here is the bloggers either way because if DePlume wins,every site now in existence will become blooger sites and they will now be protected under the First amendment and they now get away with murder even if they do things illegally.If Apple wins,it's bad for the bloggers because the presiding judge made the wrong decision in her opinion which if you connect it with the McCain-Feingold Act will effectively shut up the legit bloggers until the Act is repealed.
It will always be difficult to clearly define responsible journalism.
How does one define legitimate blogs?
What makes a blog so important, is that we are free to publish
opposing views on ANY subject without fear of government
intervention.
The downside is that some individuals may abuse that freedom.
But where do we draw the line?
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
But where do we draw the line?
*Raises hand* How about no trade secret laws?
We have copyrights, we have patents, we don't need trade secret laws. Trade secrets could be classified as the paint color of the walls of the clean room, or what's the best kind of goggles to wear when dealing with lasers. They're not important usually, and certainly not important enough to put limitations on other people's free speech.
NDA's are contracts and are OK, but just because someone signs a contract, it shouldn't mean that everyone around them suddenly loses privacy and free speech rights.
The only thing you can't write is something that someone's copyrighted, and even then you can change wording, not use it for commercial purposes, or just use a small part of it.
Will not happen,the reason is this,to protect a business from corporate espionage .
I'll give you an example,let's say company A would release a product that would revolutionalize computing after an expensive R&D,but nobody knows what it is,then let's say No Secrets rumor site was able to contact an unknown source at the company and was able to obtain the complete specs of X product and he posted it on the web.Company B's employees was able to deduce what kind of product company A is going to release and proceeds to make adjustments on it's own products.A few days before Company A would release product X,Company B already with great fanfare release product Y and it was hailed to be innovative and it garner a lot of media and corporate attention.Would you hazard a guess what kind of reception would Company A would have when it release it's product.Guess what company would be labeled innovative and who is a me-too guy.
The company that got hurt was company A and whatever it does,it won't be able to recover the financial losses it suffered because someone from the outside induced an employee to talk even if No Secret proclaims to the world that Company B copied it from Company A
share a bit of knowledge?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Does
We have our Federal Consitution which has been amended over and over yet we still cannot give someone an easy answer to.
"Do I really have Free Speech?"
So know a Judge has stated that the protection given to Journalists only applies to "legitimate" Journalists who work for larger papers. OMG what a horrible finding that negates the biggest opportunity for expanding our potential source of information. The Internet.
It's rather simple. The onus is on Apple to protect their trade secrets. The rights granted by the Constitution of the US are paramount and ursurp most contradictory laws passed underneath.
The only way we can truly have freedom is to be able to have an open channel of communcation between those in the press and the consumer. This judge requiring that TS, Appleinsider and TPP give up their sources is tantamount to asking them to commit journalistic suicide. I look for his ruling to be overturned.
Hint...if you all want job security. Go into Law...I expect our rights and freedoms will continue to be chipped away until they mean nothing but some excuse to invade some country and replace their leadership...oops too late.
Originally posted by hmurchison
This judge requiring that TS, Appleinsider and TPP give up their sources is tantamount to asking them to commit journalistic suicide.
Well, I believe part of Apples argument was that these "offenders" are not journalists. Do you think they are? You think anyone who can post something on the web should be considered journalists?
TS keeps saying that if a regular newspaper published that report, it would be considered good journalism. But a regular newspaper would have never even solicited that type of information in the first place. I believe that a respectable journalist respects the privacy of a law abiding individuals and companies. And quite frankly they should be sued whenever they cross that line.