Slashdot Mirror
Gizmodo Not Welcome at 2010 WWDC
recoiledsnake writes "Gizmodo is reporting that Apple has refused to answer its request to attend the company's big Worldwide Developers Conference keynote this Monday. Apple's move to ban Gizmodo seems a direct repercussion of Apple's prototype leak by Gizmodo and subsequent actions of Apple to get the prototype back. Meanwhile, Gizmodo said that it would resort to a live blog to cover the event in case of the ban. This comes a few days after San Mateo County authorities announced that a 'special master' had been appointed to assist in the search of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's belongings: goods seized as part of a police investigation into the disappearance (and Gizmodo acquisition) of one of Apple's prototype iPhones. It's the very device that's rumored to be announced at the Monday keynote."
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it. Nothing Apple could do about that...
Apple could simply refuse to sell Giz the tickets. Even if Giz bought the tickets from someone else Apple could still deny them entrance to the event. By purchasing a ticket the buyer is implicitly agreeing to a whole phone-book worth of disclaimers, which usually includes the line "We reserve the right to remove you from the premise at any time without providing a reason.".
And then wouldn't give it back without an "official confirmation" by apple. They were trying to hold the prototype hostage for an inside scoop.
Oregon law obviously doesn't apply, but California law. California law is a bit unusual in that it calls all kinds of things "theft" that have different names elsewhere. For example, if you rent a car, and don't return it, and the rental car company asks you to return it, and you keep it for another eleven days, then by California law it will be assumed that this was theft. The important one in this case is that when you find someone's lost property, and take it, and then neither return it to the owner nor hand it over to the police, then California law calls this theft.
The way this is written always causes confusion among the feeble-minded. For example, unlike other cases where the theft happens right when you take something that you shouldn't take, in the case of lost property it is absolutely fine to pick up lost property, then you can take some time looking for the owner, and it's not theft. When you finally keep it instead of handing it over to the police, that is when it becomes theft. In this case, when the finder sold the phone to Gizmodo it was obvious that he wasn't returning it to the owner or giving it to the police, so at that point it became a theft and the sale was a sale of stolen goods. Some people ask why Apple only called it a theft when pictures appeared on the internet and not earlier - obviously Apple didn't _know_ it was theft up to that point; for all they knew someone could be knocking on every door in Cupertino to find the owner.
In Oregon, you would likely have to look for crimes related to lost property. For example, in New York you must give lost property to the police within ten days of finding or receiving it, otherwise it is a misdemeanour punishable with jail up to six months (they don't give that misdemeanour any name, so apparently it is not theft, but you go to jail anyway). According to New York law, not only the finder, but also Gizmodo committed a misdemeanour - they should have given the phone to the police within ten days from buying it.
But don't concentrate too much on the word "theft". "Theft" is what it is called in California, but I can guarantee that not returning lost property will be some kind of crime, often under a different name, in any civilised and many uncivilised countries.
Yeah, imagine wanting to verify the owner before handing it over.
Under California law, you mustgive the phone to the bartender for safekeeping. Return it to its owner - or surrender it to the police.
Under California laww, you are legally a caretaker of the phone - you hold it in trust for its owner.
You cannot disassemble the prototype on your workbench.
You cannot call in a professional photographer for a commercial photo session.
Demanding money or services from the owner for its return is extortion, plain and simple.
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
Uh...that would be fine, except that particular reviewer didn't like it, and it's his right to have an opinion, and his job to write about it. However, Rockstar responded by trying to get him to write a more favorable review. That's incredibly unethical, and it seems to me that if the game is as great as you say, they could afford some critics disliking it and survive it just fine. When the reviewer in question pointed out Rockstar's unethical behavior by publishing their e-mail, he got fired. So I guess the people he works for don't want to end whatever perks they get from Rockstar by exposing their tactics. Which is again, bullshit.
It might very well be that you're right, and the rave reviews are there because the game is awesome. The point is that when Rockstar pulls this shit, there's no way to tell if that's true because you can't tell if any one positive review is being honest or dishonest.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Given that Gizmodo knew the name of the actual Apple engineer who was the keeper of the device, why would you day they needed paper confirmation from Apple?
I mean we know from the email that Gizmodo sent to Apple the fact that they only wanted that confirmation "for journalistic purposes". But it would be fun to find out what sort of nonsense you've managed to cook up to convince yourself that Gizmodo was in the right.
Toby McCasker was sacked for a number of reasons, one of which was his decision to post a private email on his Facebook page. This email was not referring to a game review. He should not be considered a credible source of information on this matter.
As a reviewer you don't go around posting emails sent by the game publishers that are intended to be private, that reflects badly both on you and your employer. Some of the circumstantial information we got on him suggests he might just be a self-centered douche-bag.
The private e-mail in question is as follows, according to the article Moryath linked to:
This is the biggest game we’ve done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world.
Can you please ensure Toby’s article reflects this – he needs to respect the huge achievement he’s writing about here.
Exposing that is the ethical responsibility of anyone who reads it.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.