Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Nigel Tufnel
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Think Secret: Damn you, Steve Jobs on Mathew's comments
Wow. Copyright infringement isn't theft? Maybe it isn't technically considered theft (admittal of ignorance here; I honestly don't know), but it sure feels that way to me. If you didn't pay for the rights to keep that song/movie on your hard drive, then I don't think it should be there. Your 'close personal friend' on the other side of the globe may graciously allow you to download it, but that doesn't make it OK.
1 reply
1 year ago
in Think Secret: Damn you, Steve Jobs on Mathew's comments
So a company has no rights when it comes to trying to protect their information? I'm OK with the site existing I guess (in fact, I've been there a time or two myself..), and I'm OK with them being able to publish what they choose (Anything less would be censorship, correct? And we don't want that.). But when Apple cornered them, they wouldn't say where they got their information from. As far as a journalist protecting his/her sources..come on guys, are we talking about Watergate-sized issues here, or a company's product lineup? Does the public 'need to know this'? Did I really 'need' to know whatever I went to TS to read about in the past? Somebody yell out "slippery slope!", but I can't give the same weight to this.
1 reply
mathewi
Nigel, I think you said it yourself -- they should be able to publish
whatever they choose (within the bounds of libel, of course) because
anything less would be censorship. So then why do you think it's okay
that the site be shut down? I realize that the intimate details of
whether the new iMac has a Firewire 2 port or not are hardly
earth-shattering questions, but the principles of free speech and
journalistic protection have to be defended in *every* case, not just
the important ones -- it's called setting a precedent.
whatever they choose (within the bounds of libel, of course) because
anything less would be censorship. So then why do you think it's okay
that the site be shut down? I realize that the intimate details of
whether the new iMac has a Firewire 2 port or not are hardly
earth-shattering questions, but the principles of free speech and
journalistic protection have to be defended in *every* case, not just
the important ones -- it's called setting a precedent.
least according to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's because intellectual
"property" isn't really property; stealing your car deprives you of
the use of your car, but copying a song doesn't deprive the artist of
anything but the theoretical revenue from a theoretical lost sale.