Comments on: Think Secret: Damn you, Steve Jobs

By: mathewi

mathewi — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:35:02 +0000

In fact, copyright infringement isn't theft, legally speaking — at
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.

By: Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:11:30 +0000

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.

By: Fake Steve: Techmeme uber-troll - - mathewingram.com/work

Fake Steve: Techmeme uber-troll - - mathewingram.com/work — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:29:42 +0000

[...] work once everyone knows who’s behind it? I’m not sure. But when you have to resort to lashing out at the likes of yours truly — as FS did when I wrote my Think Secret post — maybe [...]

By: Gary

Gary — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:04:20 +0000

“As for the argument that you have to sue every now and then just to show that you care, that seems to be a justification for just about any lawsuit Apple or any other company chooses to launch” — You may have misunderstood me. The fact is, that if you don't protect yourself against one foe, the court often considers that you've given up your right to protect yourself against any other foes. No, this isn't exactly the world I care to live in, but it is the world we all live in. And, so we (and Apple) have to play by the rules until we can change those rules.

Also, I'm not defending Apple (though it may sound like I am). I'm just saying that I (nor most of us) know enough about this to know if Apple has or hasn't done anything wrong. However, there seem to be a lot of people who automatically assume that since Apple is a huge corporation, and ThinkSecret is the little guy, that Apple must be a mean bully. The thought is that the people at ThinkSecret are a group of honest, well-meaning people that don't even make money at what they are doing. They are doing what they do for the benefit of mankind. Face it. They are most likely like everyone else and are doing this to make money.

By: mathewi

mathewi — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:02:01 +0000

As I mentioned to someone else, there should be a pretty high bar set
for squashing free speech, and “Apple says some blogger really hurt
their sales” just isn't good enough for me, I'm afraid — nor is your
anecdotal “evidence.”

Detailing all the problems in the blog post you linked to would take
too long, but here's a start: Harrell's argument begins by saying we
give journalists a long leash when it comes to committing crimes –
but Think Secret didn't commit a crime. Having a blog that posts
rumours doesn't qualify as “tortious interference,” no matter how many
times he says it does.

And the term “trade secrets” doesn't extend to things you were
planning to reveal soon anyway, at least not in any ruling I've ever
seen. KFC's special recipe is a trade secret — what colour the new
iPod is going to be just doesn't qualify.

Harrell also says that Think Secret wasn't “engaged in journalism in
any meaningful sense of the word.” So free speech should be suppressed
unless it meets some standard of “important” or “meaningful”
journalism? That's a nasty road to go down. That's more than just
bollocks — it's idiotic.

As for the argument that bloggers “need to be chilled” and journalists
should be sued from time to time to “un-stick their moral compass,” I
only said it was bollocks because words failed me — and continue to
fail me. It's so asinine it's difficult to come up with a cogent
response. What Think Secret did wasn't “immoral” in any way that makes
sense, so I'm not even sure what Harrell is driving at. Companies
aren't moral entities, and so revealing their “secrets” couldn't
possibly be immoral, or even unethical for that matter.

It's just a big, fat truckload of stupid.