Gizmodo not allowed at the WWDC...

[shakenmartini]

Of course not, I don't live there and I'm not a lawyer.

So you are not qualified to judge whether a crime was committed or not.

If you read this affidavit, it appears Apple if fully justified not giving giz a free pass to WWDC.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31379912/iPhone-Affidavit

Gizmodo regardless of their criminal actions also crapped all over apples party, so of course they are not invited for free.

Sorry, but you are a bit delusional to think that apple should look the other way. Prior to publishing the article, giz was emailing Steve jobs trying to extort access to inside info, so in addition to their criminal activity and raining on apples parade, Brian Lam was a major dick to Steve Jobs.

In fact apple has a notoriously long memory about this kind of stuff and they should have known that their actions would result in a permaban.

Finally, giz has already stolen secrets from apple once, WWDC sessions are protected by NDA, and if apple can't trust that giz won't disclose the trade secrets apple discusses with developers at WWDC, they have full right to not give giz free passes to WWDC. WWDC is expensive, did giz even they buying passes to the meeting?

 

[shakenmartini]

I know all too well how the media "should" and "does" work ... if you think US journalism is bad you should see how it operates in the UK!

I just think Gizmodo missed a genuine opportunity to become the Apple golden boys of the media/web. If Gizmodo had kept the next generation iPhone to themselves, they could have contacted Apple and negotiated it's return and non-disclosure in return for some major inside news as and when new products were coming.

Now, who's to say Apple would have been that forthcoming? We'll never know, and even if I suspect Jobs would have issued a "return it or else" ultimatum, then Gizmodo could have gone ahead and done what they did anyway, leading us to where we are today.

The funny thing is if you read this affidavit, you will see on page 12 an email exchange Brian Lam had with Jobs.

They did just as you suggest and then posted the article anyway. Giz knew when the first article was published that it was apple's because they were trying to extort special access from Steve.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31379912/iPhone-Affidavit

 

[shakenmartini]

It's called journalism. A journalist who doesn't investigate any leads is a bad one.

A journalist who steals what he is reporting on is no longer considered a journalist under the law.

 

[niuniu]

Journo publications get sued all the time - but you usually see a settlement of some sort and then things go back to normal. I can't think of any time where a UK publication has been barred from reporting on an event because of an incident.

Gizmodo aren't anti-Apple, and even if they were, should they still be barred from reporting?

 

[Eraserhead]

I know all too well how the media "should" and "does" work ... if you think US journalism is bad you should see how it operates in the UK!

How is the US media better than the UK media? Thanks to our strong libel laws the press is unable to outright lie like Fox News won a court case to do in the US.

Additionally there are newspapers that aren't owned by huge corporations - the Guardian and the Daily Mail.

And we have the BBC and the only profitable high-end news source (the Economist).

A journalist who steals what he is reporting on is no longer considered a journalist under the law.

Sounds pretty dubious to me, loads of journalists have operated illegally all over the world.

 

[maflynn]

So you are not qualified to judge whether a crime was committed or not.

I'd say 90% of the posts here fall under that lack of qualification as well

My point is Giz is not guilty of robbery/theft

 

[shakenmartini]

Sounds pretty dubious to me, loads of journalists have operated illegally all over the world.

.

Remember this is the US we are talking about, not the UK.

In the US journalists are given protection under law and a very wide latitude to report on criminal acts in progress, without having to divulge anything more than they report to the police. As soon as the journalist participates in the crime, they then become criminals themselves and are no longer protected as journalists. There is a huge grey area and this is why news organizations have lawyers to help determine how to deal with the gray area.

This is also why Engadget, wired and PC mag passed on buying the iPhone. Their lawyers very likely told them they would be criminally liable if they paid a fee to buy the iPhone.

Here is a good example. A journalist can observe, interview and report on the sale and transport of illegal narcotics into the US. They can ride along in the trucks, go through the border tunnels, take videos, conduct interviews and so forth. All of these actions are protected and the journalist cannot be charged criminally with selling drugs. In fact, the journalist doesn't have to reveal where this occurred, who the people are that were observed to the police.

However, as soon as the journalist assists the drug smuggler, by say moving a bail of drugs onto a truck, or assisting with planning the smuggle, the journalist is now criminally liable and all protections under the law from above become nullified and no longer apply.

This why US journalists can interview terrorist in the midle east without having to disclose who they are or where the terrorists are located to the military. But, if the journalist helps the terrorists with planning or helps them avoid discovery, by telling the terrorist the location of the US military the journalist is now a terrorist.

As soon as Chen and Lam paid for, took possession of, and dissassembled the iPhone, they became participants in the crime of theft to avoid this they should have paid for access to observe the iPhone finder/thief show off and disassemble the iPhone.

 

[shakenmartini]

I'd say 90% of the posts here fall under that lack of qualification as well

My point is Giz is not guilty of robbery/theft

Yes they are. Read the affidavit and my post above.

 

[vizkiz]

Another thing.
If a company (Apple) has a criminal complaint pending against another company (Gizmodo) and an employee (Jason Chen), then it's probably not wise for them to invite said company to an event they are having.

 

[Padraig]

Yes they are. Read the affidavit and my post above.

As much as I can't stand Gizmodo and would have loved to see them banned over their childish pranks in the past, they've not been charged with anything and even if they are - unless things have changed radically -they're still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So lets not get ahead of ourselves in passing judgement.

 

[nick9191]

Pwnt

Screw Gizmodo, they are a piss poor excuse for actual journalism anyway. They should have known there would be ramifications.

 

[Consultant]

There's nothing in the page you linked to suggesting they're banned, they just haven't been invited. It's Apple's party, they can decide who's on the guest list.



Why? Gizmodo has obviously proved that their kind of journalism doesn't meet any sort of ethical standard that the rest of the industry abides by. They're just being treated accordingly.

Maybe Apple believes they have the budget to buy a WWDC ticket.

However, it is pretty lame for Apple to do this.

Edit:
And lamer for Gizmodo to ask people (with professional equipment and professional knowledge) to work for free.

Do they only have budget to buy stolen goods?

Btw, the police and the judicial system both are going ahead with the criminal investigation into Gizmodo.

Oh yeah? and what about that idiot Captain Chen pulling stupid stunts like this?

That's a plugin that removes all vowels. Play fill in the blanks.

 

[darkplanets]

Journo publications get sued all the time - but you usually see a settlement of some sort and then things go back to normal. I can't think of any time where a UK publication has been barred from reporting on an event because of an incident.

Gizmodo aren't anti-Apple, and even if they were, should they still be barred from reporting?

They can still report, its just that they weren't invited to the event. This is perfectly natural and allowed, after all, it IS a PRIVATE event. And, as you indicated, since things are not "back to normal" yet, it is perfectly understandable that they are barred from being at the event, at least for now. After things settle back into normalcy, your statement will again be true, and Gizmodo will again be attending media events hosted by Apple. The lawsuit just has to blow over first.

As others have said, Giz really missed a BIG opportunity-- had they given the phone back to Apple without reporting it and/or opening it, and asked for exclusive coverage, interviews with SJ, etc, I'm sure Apple would have been happy to capitulate. Note I say ask, not demand or extort. Any company that lost a prototype like this would be reasonable enough to reward that media outlet for the proven trust.

Another note; everyone who stands with Giz touts free speech and investigative journalism, which is fine and dandy, but when do those two cross the line? How far can free speech and journalism take you before breaking laws and crossing legal thresholds? I'm all for investigative journalism, but clearly Giz crossed those legal lines, and broke laws. Also, for all you proponents of Giz who cite free speech, I have a question to pose for you. How much does Giz actually support free speech? They are, after all, editing, deleting, or banning users that post comments contradictory to their own views, despite heralding free speech. Where's the freedom in that? If they truly believed that what they did was right, and they really believe in free speech and all that hoopla, why are they censoring user's comments? It would appear that Gizmodo is no different from any other company, just like Apple, so please, reconsider the blind idealism, as your herald isn't upholding "free speech" either. Just food for thought.

 

[JoshJosh117]

the whole comment section is like that they banned everybody who said anything negative against what Gizmodo did and promoted everyone who is against Apple. Gizmodo is the TMZ of tech news.

Already they do very little tech reporting. Now they are not going to be attending major events. I wonder how long the site is going to last.

Explain this then

 

[yg17]

Explain this then

Funny thing is, all the people bitching about Gizmodo ruining the surprise visit blogs such as Gizmodo and Engadget and sites like MacRumors that frequently post rumors and confirmed news about upcoming, unannounced products.

 

[LOLaMac]

Explain this then

It's probably because he posted an intelligent, well thought out statement, not some nonsensical 'fanboi' drivel, laced with profanity, like the post a couple of others quoted as an example of Gizmodo's "childishness" and that I quoted as basically saying, if you're going to spew a bunch of garbage and act like a five year old, expect to be treated like one.

 

[IntelliUser]

Ok, so first they try to ruin everybody's WWDC surprise (iPad, anyone?). Then they even dare to ask for a ticket?

That's too much even for Tony Stark.

 

[Nieval]

Funny thing is, all the people bitching about Gizmodo ruining the surprise visit blogs such as Gizmodo and Engadget and sites like MacRumors that frequently post rumors and confirmed news about upcoming, unannounced products.

That's absolutely true, and I can see your point but you also have to look at it from their perceptive, in that some people enjoy the speculation game. I know I've done it, take for instance when a sketchy image of a certain part or back of a device surfaces and its shrouded in doubt and mystery. I joined the site to join in the debating, join in the fun of guessing and waiting to see if we were all right. It is, after all, labelled (mac)rumors, not (mac)facts/spoilers.

 

[yg17]

That's absolutely true, and I can see your point but you also have to look at it from their perceptive, in that some people enjoy the speculation game. I know I've done it, take for instance when a sketchy image of a certain part or back of a device surfaces and its shrouded in doubt and mystery. I joined the site to join in the debating, join in the fun of guessing and waiting to see if we were all right. It is, after all, labelled (mac)rumors, not (mac)facts/spoilers.

But if MacRumors got confirmation of something, they'd post it. In fact, I bet they have in the past but I can't be bothered to go back through years of news posts to check. But I doubt MR would hold something back because they don't want to spoil a keynote.

 

[Nieval]

But if MacRumors got confirmation of something, they'd post it. In fact, I bet they have in the past but I can't be bothered to go back through years of news posts to check. But I doubt MR would hold something back because they don't want to spoil a keynote.

That's true as well, even going to the length of reporting domain names bought by Apple prior to new product introductions.
However, my point wasn't referring to Gizmodos actions, like I said before that's for better qualified people other than myself to judge, nor to lambast Macrumors (or any other site) for their actions, who am I to do that and besides we're all adults here, each accountable for their actions.

My point was referring to the people that visit said sites, and although you're right to point the finger at people who visit these sites and then cry foul should a rumor come right, it's not as black and white. I felt that the other perspectives needed to be pointed out since it hasn't been mentioned despite your point coming up several times.

Call it devils advocate.

 

[old-school]

The irritating thing is that they are generally pretty unprofessional, and post some childish posts (Emails to Steve Jobs anyone?), but then they post some interesting articles like these:

Psychology Behind Branding
http://gizmodo.com/5555953/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty

Microsoft's Next Move?
http://gizmodo.com/5547676/how-a-si...s-microsofts-plan-for-us-all?skyline=true&s=i

 

[niuniu]

The irritating thing is that they are generally pretty unprofessional, and post some childish posts (Emails to Steve Jobs anyone?), but then they post some interesting articles like these:

Psychology Behind Branding
http://gizmodo.com/5555953/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty

Microsoft's Next Move?
http://gizmodo.com/5547676/how-a-si...s-microsofts-plan-for-us-all?skyline=true&s=i

The first article was really great - but no-one at Gizmodo wrote that. They pulled it from some guy's blog

 

[macquariumguy]

Gizmodo is toast. After the criminal case is adjudicated, Apple will sue what's left of them out of existence in civil court.

Good riddance to bad garbage. There's nothing worse than a stinking thief.

 

[maflynn]

Gizmodo is toast. After the criminal case is adjudicated, Apple will sue what's left of them out of existence in civil court.

Good riddance to bad garbage. There's nothing worse than a stinking thief.

That's not going to happen. They're exposure has increased and again what will apple sue them for. They had the phone, apple requested the phone, and they complied.

The only thing that will kill them off is if people stop visiting that site, and I'd say that's not happening anytime soon

 

[instaxgirl]

Ach i was worried this would happen.

Then again, i'm at work while WWDC all goes down so I don't exactly need a liveblog anyway.

For what it's worth, i think Apple should have just manned up and dealt with it - not reported it to the police or whatever. I also think Gizmodo should have just bought tickets, or offered to pay whoever's doing all this coverage for them.