Forget the news about the news publishers. This is what I found interesting:

Quote

article wrote:
Although Apple first alleged Think Secret possessed trade secrets, it later admitted the site only linked to messages boards discussing the rumors of such a product and that those message boards were not owned by Think Secret.

Did I miss this earlier? I hadn't heard about it. I'd assume it would be big news around here so I'm wondering if this is new. It's certainly the most interesting thing here if it is new news.

email privacy?

The real problem is, who gets to be a journalist. It's too easy these days to just set yourself up and start spouting information, then run and hide behind the constitution. I'm in publishing and I'm not about to start supporting taking the teeth out of legitimate defense of protection of sources, but I am concerned that everybody that "claims" journalistic privelege based simply on the fact that they have a website. True, there is no licensure of journalists in other media, outside of registering for press creditials, but there a lot of people now "reporting" and I for one don't trust or believe everything I read on the web without weighing it carefully and doing a little research for myself. Apple believes that the activity could hurt their business; let them prove it, but if they do, then the courts need to deal with the perpetrators to the full extent that the law allows.

It's about who's in possession of stolen information that, at it's most base level, isn't concerned with public safety or health issues.

The judge got it right by NOT answering the issue of whether the sites were protected as journalists. It's about whether they're trafficing in stolen information, i.e. intellectual property.

And this is the proper procedure to follow. It's called due process. And just like the defendants are entitled to it, so are the plaintiffs. It's not always a pleasant process, but it's the one we have.

It floors me that in this day where every main stream media is present on the web, from The New York Times to The National Review, why none to these highbrow elites have filed at least friend of the court briefs? Or financially support those fighting for the freedom of the press.

They will come after you next main stream media.

To me, the most important quote from Judge Kleinberg's decision is, "An interested public is not the same as the public interest." To me, this should be written on a giant poster and hung in every newsroom in America.

Yes, Big Media is concerned about this. But they are concerned primarily in providing for an interested public. That's how they make their money. They are not interested in the public interest--unless they can somehow make money off of it (usually by frightening said public).

Fun example: The public is certainly interested in seeing naked pictures of whoever today's hot Hollywood starlet is. So if I break into her house and take a bunch of pictures of her in the shower and sell them to some news corporation, they should be perfectly safe from having to reveal their sources. Naked celebrity pictures are part of the "public interest", according these people--after all, look at their ratings.

Who decides what is in the "public interest"? Why, Big Media, of course! This bothers me because Big Media likes to fashion themselves as "The Fourth Estate" of government. Yet, all other "estates" of government have checks and balances which govern how much power they have. Meanwhile, "The Fourth Estate" has none. Of course, their argument is that they are answerable to "the people" while, at the same time, Big Media petitions the FCC to allow them to buy up all media outlets in a given market (so that their voice is the only one heard).

Consider the concept that media outlets must provide free space for political advertising. After all, they utilize "the public airwaves." This is certainly in the public interest, especially since political advertising is one of the big expenses of running a campaign which helps lead to corruption in the political process. Of course, Big Media is against it. Why? First, reporting on the corruption is money for them. Second, political advertising is big money for them.

In my opinion, having "Big Media" on this guy's side helps prove that Apple is right. It's like having a "United World Terrorist Front" support the Patriot Act.

Quote

mozart11 wrote:
It floors me that in this day where every main stream media is present on the web, from The New York Times to The National Review, why none to these highbrow elites have filed at least friend of the court briefs? Or financially support those fighting for the freedom of the press.

They will come after you next main stream media.

Ummm -- whaaaa? You have to pick your battles -- pick them badly, fight the wrong fight, defend the reprehensible -- and you're worse off, and lose credibility, which is a currency many media outlets find in short supply these days.

The judge got it *right* -- in my opinion. You can't practice industrial espionage and not expect a company to try to protect itself. It's not about free speech, it's about convincing people to sell their company out -- not to protect the public, because there is no "higher purpose" being served here -- but for a fast buck or other renumeration. How you defend these people is beyond the pale.