http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/26/a-far-cry-from-woodward-and-bernstein Comments On: A Far Cry from Woodward & Bernstein by Paul Constant en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 18 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 18 May 2013 05:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Gizmodo may or may not be open to charges of "knowingly receiving stolen goods" which is in no way related to a journalist punching a senator in the face and stealing their briefcase. I mean, my god man. And to even begin to consider the chance Gizmodo could be charged with knowingly buying stolen goods, you would have to prove that 1) the man never tried to return it to the rightful owner, 2) he knew the owner was looking for the phone and he had a way of contacting the owner but refused to, and 3) Gizmodo knew he never tried, knew the owner wanted it, knew the owner could be contacted and this guy refused to and then still they paid for it. But you see, these are rational thoughts arguments--something you apparently have abandoned in preference for some strange delusion in which I was arguing the NYT could have punched a senator in the face and stole a briefcase.

But “receiving stolen goods” has nothing to do with their right to publish the material or assert journalistic prerogatives of protecting a source. But even then they probably are in the clear because of SCOTUS re: crush videos. And it's from this crush video example I'm guessing that you pull this astoundingly bizarre and off-topic hypothetical about a journalist punching a senator in the face and stealing a briefcase. But, ye of little will to think clearly, that is not MY argument. That is the argument of SCOTUS! Come up with any fanciful bizarro -world hypothetical example you want, it won't change the reality of what the Supreme Court of the United States ruled last week. Close your eyes real tight and wish hard enough and maybe the real world will cease to exist, the earth will reverse its rotation, Superman will fly around backwards saving Lois Lane, and decades of SCOTUS precedent will disappear. Then maybe you can talk irrationally and pointlessly about punching senators in facing and I won't say a thing. But really, until you try to deal with the real arguments sincerely and stop evading and fantasizing, I’m done with you.

Posted by CrankyBacon]]> Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:18:37 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Q*bert H. Humphrey]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:09:40 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Q*bert H. Humphrey]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:47:51 -0700 The Stranger
I think Ellsberg is a hero for what he did, so don't get me wrong on that. My point is SCOTUS protects journalists who have used material procured illegally through an outside source. over and over again.

Hell, the supreme court just said people can sell videos of people crushing cats' skulls. Now the cat part's fucked up, but SCOTUS has been very consistent about this. That is why Paul's argument was "highly flawed".
Posted by CrankyBacon]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:37:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Q*bert H. Humphrey]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:03:13 -0700 The Stranger created by officers or employees of the …, then no, the Pentagon did not own any US copyright on those papers. (And as an aside, "you don't need to take something to the copyright office for it technically to be copyrighted" is only 100% true after 1989. From 1978 to 1989, if you first published something without notice, you would indeed lose your copyright if you didn't register it within five years. Before 1978 you lost it unconditionally if it was first published without notice.)

Anyway, the iPhone was stolen goods. Apple was deprived of an iPhone. The federal government was not deprived of any paperwork. Maybe you could say that Paul fails to acknowledge that the Gizmodo case has some parallels, but you haven't shown any good reason to call his argument "highly flawed".
Posted by Q*bert H. Humphrey]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:02:40 -0700 The Stranger
besides, you don't need to take something to the copyright office for it technically to be copyrighted. It's just the SURE way to have your copyright ACKNOWLEDGED. Technically, from the moment they was penned, the Pentagon owned the copyright of the documents they commissioned.
Posted by CrankyBacon]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:07:53 -0700 The Stranger
Gizmodo paid for property they knew or should have known could not have been legally sold to them. The New York Times published papers from photocopies they received from someone who gave them the papers for free.
Posted by Q*bert H. Humphrey]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:30:20 -0700 The Stranger
"There is a difference between protecting a source and receiving stolen material."

Daniel Ellsberg stole the Pentagon Papers. He illegally removed them from the premises of his employer (the Pentagon) and handed them over to the New York Times. The Supreme Court ruled that the New York Times was covered by freedom of the press. Ellsberg was open for prosecution and a lawsuit from the government, but the NYT, which knew the material was brought to them illegally, could not be held accountable for that and was in their full right to publish them.

Gizmodo may be a bunch of douches and just the idea of "crush videos" makes me sick to my stomach and heart, but the Supreme Court has been decisive and clear on this matter.
Posted by CrankyBacon]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:37:08 -0700 The Stranger Posted by UNPAID COMMENTER]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:13:28 -0700 The Stranger Posted by wunigung]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:24:08 -0700 The Stranger Apple was denying that they had lost anything until after the Gizmodo story went live.

So, to be fair, they received stolen property that Apple denied the existence of. The person who sold Gizmodo the prototype had already called Apple, playing lost-and-found. Apple brushed him off and denied they were missing a prototype.

A thought experiment:
Adam finds a backpack with "Property of Bob" on the tag.
Adam attempts to return the backpack to Bob, but Bob says it's not his, so Adam goes ahead and sells the backpack to Carl.
Is Bob now in the right to call the cops on Carl?

At the time Gizmodo recieved the iPhone, Apple, the mainstream tech media, and just about everyone else who hadn't physically seen the phone, were saying that it was a fake.

The same day that Apple formally acknowledged that it was their phone, Gizmodo gave it back to them.

And as for saying the prototype teardown isn't a story, because it would have been a press release in a couple of months? That's the whole point. That's why it's a scoop. Beating the official announcements is what the tech press is all about. Just because it's different than the kind of story The Stranger would print, doesn't make it not a story.

No, it wasn't a story because they didn't give us pictures of the most important chips in the phone. Being able to identify what they're using for a CPU, what kind of RAM's in it, and what it's using for a GSM radio, would have been noteworthy information. Instead they showed us everything else, claiming they didn't want to risk damaging the (already bricked & useless) phone.
Posted by Lack Thereof]]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:59:01 -0700 The Stranger
You really want to go down the slippery slope of defining "newsworthy?" Really? As a writer for Slog, you think those lines are bright enough for the long arm of the law to see?
Posted by karion]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:44:53 -0700 The Stranger Posted by konstantConsumer]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:28:21 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:10:02 -0700 The Stranger Posted by slake]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:13:39 -0700 The Stranger Posted by laterite]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:11:46 -0700 The Stranger Posted by slake]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:57:30 -0700 The Stranger
Jobs and Gizmondo deserve each other.
Posted by Dougsf]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:54:47 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Geocrackr]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:44:27 -0700 The Stranger 20 GOTO 10
Posted by Baconcat]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:43:34 -0700 The Stranger Posted by also]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:42:59 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:42:03 -0700 The Stranger
I'm curious if you also think that middle class suburban shoplifters should be denied basic legal protections?
Posted by Asparagus!]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:34:18 -0700 The Stranger
What if Gizmodo illegally received a document stating that Apple was planning on rejecting every app submitted by Google and Microsoft, and it subsequently published that document. Would it be okay for The Man to bust down Gizmodo's door?
Posted by Sullied Van]]> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:30:13 -0700 The Stranger