GPLv2sect3para0:You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Note the "and" in the first sentence quoted above. This sentence parses in many states of the USA as "You may copy the Program in object code or executable form" and separately "You may distribute the Program in object code or executable form".
Two more points.
First off, and means AND not OR. No jurisdiction in the US, be it State or Federal is confused upon those two. If you disagree, please cite a case in which such confusion occurred.
Second, Copyright is a Federal law in the US and not under the jurisdiction of any State. In the unlikely instance that some State did have an issue with the language, it would not matter. In Federal law the term "distribution" is vague in many aspects but clear in this one.
Most of my comments are more correct if we are talking about the GPLv2. The GPLv2 uses the word "distribution". This word as defined by US Federal law requires that a transfer occurs between two legal entities. Even the GNU faq includes this bit (although they ignore many possibilities where off site contractors would be legally considered part of the same entity):
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
There is also the issue that to be considered distribution under US law the transfer must be legal. If an employee gives you a copy but they did not have the legal authority to give it to you, no distribution has occurred (it would be theft in that case).
One word, jurisdiction. Depending on where you live (I am talking about what country) the word "distribution" has a different legal meaning. Under US law it is pretty clear that inter-company use is not distribution. If you are living in Singapore, maybe this would be a GPL violation.
distribution to people within the university (to which the rest of this posting refers) versus distribution to humankind (to which you are referring). The users of the executable in the university are entitled by the GPL to request and obtain the source code to the entire now-GPLed executable.
If the "users within the university" are part of that organization then no distribution has occurred (assuming US jurisdiction). That is one of the very few things that is legally clear about the meaning of the word "distribution". Distribution only occurs when a transfer occurs from one legal entity to another. An employee acting as an agent of his employer is considered to be legally the same entity as his employer. Hence no distribution has occurred.
It gets interesting when you think of subcontractors, students, faculty and the like who are not just employees. In most conditions however they would still be considered part of the same legal entity (meaning no distribution has occurred).
Again this is incorrect. The act of modifying the code in the first place, places all modified work under the GPL. Under US law you CAN NOT modify GPL covered code without legally placing those modifications under the GPL. See GPLv2 section 5 below. However facts 1 through 5 are accurate. In addition Alice would also own the copyright to all code written prior to her employment by Bob unless an agreement specifically transferred those copyrights.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
And again, there is a big difference between being licensed under the GPL and having an obligation under the GPL.
That would be partially incorrect (assuming US jurisdiction). The moment you started modifing GPL code is the moment that you "chose" to license your new work under the GPL. You have no choice to not license it under the GPL and if you do break the license you will be guilty of copyright infringement. HOWEVER, until you distribute your modifications you have no obligations under the GPL.
The GPL is very clear that any modification of GPL work is immediately covered under the GPL. Here is the excerpt from the GPLv2 section 5:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
You do have to be careful because the word distribute is a legal term and does not mean what you think it means most of the time. For example if I run company A and create a GPL modified work I can give any of my employees use that modified work without any obligation under the GPL.
Everyone knew it existed, and everyone knew it would suck the nation dry before they could "win" the Cold War against the United States, but it was so entrenched in their economy that the means to measure and control it simply did not exist.
Actually very few people knew that it was happening at the time. The leaders of the USSR were very good at keeping information from public view. It was not until after the critical mass of economic failure was long past that the strains became apparent. What we take as common knowledge today is a great example of historical 20/20 hindsight.
I think you are only looking at the issue from one perspective. I think DRM is pretty much a bad idea 95% of the time. However, when Civ5 comes out, it could have a dinosaur with lasers on its head whose entire purpose was to eat me and I would still shell out $50 on launch day (if you don't like my horrible and bizarre example, replace it with what ever horrible DRM system you can think of).
Most people do understand that DRM does nothing for them. The issue is that for many people the things they buy are worth the hassle of dealing with DRM.
But when that "one thing" is "viewing every video on the #3 website in the world", you'd thing they'd spend a little effort in making it not suck.
1) Again, your looking at the language by what *YOU* care about. What percentage of Flash is written for video? The last credible study I read was about 3 years ago and had only about 5% of Flash projects related to video. The majority were interactive applications such as non-video web sites, games, corporate systems (think data input/validation or shopping carts) and computational systems.
Your argument sounds like it is that the majority of development for Flash should go to what is most used for. In which case only about 5% of development funds should go towards video. If you have a more recent study of how many projects use Flash for what and how popular Flash is, please feel free to share it, as I said the last study I saw was a bit out of date now.
(Also, for those of you who don't like Flash, there are ways of viewing video on youtube without it.)
You can't dismiss cruddy video playback - which is the reason many people have Flash installed in the first place - as "just one thing".
2) I do not accept your premise. I view Flash videos off of several sites fairly regularly. *I* have no problems. I have not had a crash related to Flash in at least 4 years. Not on Windows (Win2K, WinXP, Vista or Win7). Not on Mac (OSX 10.3 to 10.5). Not on any other System that I have used (Linux and VMS, although the last does not use Adobe's Flash player).
Nor do I have a problem with the CPU usage, even on a low spec machine, I can still compile a project, have 6 terminal windows open, another browser open with a dozen tabs. All while watching a video.
Many features is not the same as hopelessly complicated.
Your trying to say that it does not do ONE THING very well. That may be true. But the goal of Flash is not to do one thing. It is to do many things, which by most accounts it does very well.
One of the big difference between VLC and Flash video is that Flash can include with the video various features including custom menus, DRM systems, automatic streaming control (adjustment of the throughput of the data stream if your internet connection slows or speeds up). These are just a few of the features that Flash includes that VLC can not do (by default). *YOU* may not want or need them or some of them, but some people do.
You simply can not compare two projects that have wildly different intentions and goals and expect meaningful conclusions. If you want to have meaningful comparison, look at a system that has all of the same features (and not just those you use) as Flash and compare them. Failing that, find a set of systems that combined, have the same features.
On to my last point, if *YOU* don't like Flash, don't use it (I actually don't like Flash very much either). But if Flash meets the needs of the person(s) that created XYZ project, then what exactly is it to you? I have written projects in most of the languages you have heard of and probably several that you have not. Each situation has its own set of needs and each languages has its own set of features. Some times one will work perfectly in a situation and some times it wont. Unless you have taken the time to fully analyze a situation (something that usually takes a period measured in months or years) you really are not qualified to make educated statements on a choice of this tool or that language.
Now I did say supposed to break even, but as of late, they are turning a net profit in the low billions range each year...so it makes you wonder why the price of stamps keeps going up...something smells very fishy.
Would you like to support your statement cited facts? Every time I have heard any quotation of figures about the USPS it was that costs were going up at significantly more than inflation. I have also heard that due to the reduced number of letters and packages the per item expense has gone up (more empty room in each delivery truck/plain/train/ship).
I absolutely have not studied this issue, but I would be very interested in seeing some hard data on the subject.
VLC also only does 1/10th of the things flash does when it displays video. NOTE! This is NOT a bad thing. Flash does all kinds of things, most of which are useless if you just want to watch video. VLC does almost nothing but render video. Unsurprisingly the specialized video app does its specialized task faster than the non-specialized app.
That being said, VLC is a great example of open source success.
They have every right to fully review your equipment at any time to decide if their data is on your person equipment.
I can't say specifically that this is not true in your jurisdiction, but it is not true for every US jurisdiction that I have ever dealt with. Your property is YOUR property, your employer has no authority over it. That does not mean they would not be able to pressure you to do so, or that it would not be bad for you to refuse.
If I have job related information on a personal computer (which I do as part of my job), I don't OWN the information and would have to remove it if requested. However, my employers would have no right to demand inspection of my computer to verify I had removed it. Furthermore, they would have no legal recourse to force me to allow them.
To be through, in an at will employment State, my employer could, upon my refusal, fire me for "no reason". My argument also does assume that I am not doing anything legally questionable with that information. If I was, the computers could be subpoenaed as part of a civil or criminal case.
So, does that mean that everyone who paid for a Unix license from SCO can sue SCO to get a refund? Or are those people too embarrassed to admit what they have done?
No, anyone who purchased a copy/license for Unix from SCO received a valid license and would be in violation of the law to use Unix without such a license (if you purchase one for Linux, well, then your dumb. *shakes head*). SCO has a license (from Novell) to sell and license copies of Unix provided they give Novell a portion of the fee. They just do not own the copyrights to any of Unix they did not write (aka, most of it).
it doesn't matter. lost or stolen, you can't sell something that doesn't belong to you. period. end of story. at no point in time does legal ownership transfer from the loser to the finder.
That is the whole crux of the issue. At no point did either the finder or journalist state anything other than that they were holding the property for the original owner. You can not convict someone for holding your property while they attempt to return it to you (at least in the State of California). Check case law, it is VERY well defined.
Again, every commenter that states this is a crime is ignoring what the law states.
First, lets look at the initial claim of theft:
Under Californian law if you find some item over a given amount you must either:
A) Contact the owner of the item and offer to return it.
B) Notify the police of the lost item.
According to the ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION on this story, the person who found the ipod did contact the owner and offered to return it. They refused. Later the journalist also offered publicly to return the item as soon as Apple requested it, which he did.
We "know" that Apple is the owner because they have since accepted the item and stated that it was theirs. Since the first two parties contacted the owner and offered to return it, it can not be theft. Also note, that the item was in fact returned, meaning it again, can not be theft.
Next item on the agenda, "the journalist bought stolen goods," this fails on many levels. Lets go into them now:
1) No sale occurred. The payment from the journalist to the finder was for information and the interview, NOT for the ipod. This type of "source fee" is common and has a long and detailed legal history. The legal history is stronger in the State of California than other jurisdictions, however I doubt any US jurisdiction would fail to uphold this difference.
2) To be a crime you must KNOW the goods are stolen. Note that this is different than suspecting them to be stolen. If you suspect that they might be stolen you probably should not buy them, but you have not committed a crime. To quote the statute:
... knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained...
Further more, to be convicted, the prosecution must be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you KNEW they were stolen. Want to takes odds on that happening? In a 12 man jury (this is a criminal case after all) all it takes is 3 people or the 1 judge to feel that a journalist MIGHT be paying a standard interview fee and the defendant is acquitted.
3) The journalist contacted the owner, offered to return the items in question, THEN RETURNED THE ITEMS IN QUESTION. Notice in the text of the above law that the purchaser has to attempt to keep the items from the rightful owner? Notice that the journalist did in no way keep them from the owner?
Again, want to take odds on what the outcome of this is? I will put down $100 to every $1 of yours that no charges are filed, EVER. I predict that the city either stonewalls and never comments, even after it hands back all of the equipment, OR, the city apologizes for it's error.
For your enlightnment, here is the full text of the law partially quoted above. California Penal Code Section 496:
(a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that
this action would be in the interests of justice, the district
attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of
the property does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950),
specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a
misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year.
A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted
pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both
p
If Apple can get a warrant (which they obviously can...
Well being a non-governmental entity, they actually can not get a warrant. The police however can.
The only reason that, traditionally, journalists had extra privileges was because they worked for large litigious media outlets who wouldn't put up with that horseshit, and the government was rightfully wary. These days, not so much.
Well what you said, plus California has large and numerous statutes explicitly protecting them from prosecution and in no uncertain terms stating that many things relating to journalism can NEVER be considered criminal. But I am sure your completely uniformed and mislead statements are just as important as reading what California's State Code actually says.
They have the exact same first amendment protections as the rest of us.
Very true. Which, I have to point out, could possibly make this type of seizure of journalist equipment (servers that disseminate news for example) a violation of the law regardless of California's State law.
And of course you have read California's statutes to this regard?
I believe the section you are interested in would be California Penal Code Section 496. I do not think it says what you want it to. You should also look into California's journalistic "shield" law.
Jason Chen appears to be in a "What did you know and who told you it?" situation where he isn't supplying the identity of his source... because this isn't a source of information but a source of stolen goods.
Among the many problems with your statement are the following:
1) The items in question were not stolen. According to the news coverage, not only did the person who found the phone, FIND it in a public place (which by definition can not be a theft, at least in the State of California). He then attempted to give it to Apple. Apple then said "not ours, we don't want it."
2) Under California State law, journalistic actions have many protections. The State can not force a journalist to reveal information pertaining to a source. The State can not confiscate goods relating to the distribution of news. The State can not prosecute a journalist who acted in the interest of journalism who acted good faith (with some non-related exceptions).
Lastly it does amuse me greatly that everyone who states "XXX person committed a felony by purchasing stolen goods" has just committed libel. Congratulations, you have now given XXX the option of filing suit against you for defamation of character with one of very few acts that do not require proof of monetary harm. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
So you suggest that a judge should throw out cases BEFORE hearing any evidence or examining the facts of the case. I question if you really understand the implications of that action. I also question your understanding of the law or history.
The judge did in fact throw out the case, AFTER the facts were examined.
Slashdot Mirror
GPLv2sect3para0:You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Note the "and" in the first sentence quoted above. This sentence parses in many states of the USA as "You may copy the Program in object code or executable form" and separately "You may distribute the Program in object code or executable form".
Two more points.
First off, and means AND not OR. No jurisdiction in the US, be it State or Federal is confused upon those two. If you disagree, please cite a case in which such confusion occurred.
Second, Copyright is a Federal law in the US and not under the jurisdiction of any State. In the unlikely instance that some State did have an issue with the language, it would not matter. In Federal law the term "distribution" is vague in many aspects but clear in this one.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
There is also the issue that to be considered distribution under US law the transfer must be legal. If an employee gives you a copy but they did not have the legal authority to give it to you, no distribution has occurred (it would be theft in that case).
One word, jurisdiction. Depending on where you live (I am talking about what country) the word "distribution" has a different legal meaning. Under US law it is pretty clear that inter-company use is not distribution. If you are living in Singapore, maybe this would be a GPL violation.
distribution to people within the university (to which the rest of this posting refers) versus distribution to humankind (to which you are referring). The users of the executable in the university are entitled by the GPL to request and obtain the source code to the entire now-GPLed executable.
If the "users within the university" are part of that organization then no distribution has occurred (assuming US jurisdiction). That is one of the very few things that is legally clear about the meaning of the word "distribution". Distribution only occurs when a transfer occurs from one legal entity to another. An employee acting as an agent of his employer is considered to be legally the same entity as his employer. Hence no distribution has occurred.
It gets interesting when you think of subcontractors, students, faculty and the like who are not just employees. In most conditions however they would still be considered part of the same legal entity (meaning no distribution has occurred).
Nothing "automatically" becomes GPL software.
Again this is incorrect. The act of modifying the code in the first place, places all modified work under the GPL. Under US law you CAN NOT modify GPL covered code without legally placing those modifications under the GPL. See GPLv2 section 5 below. However facts 1 through 5 are accurate. In addition Alice would also own the copyright to all code written prior to her employment by Bob unless an agreement specifically transferred those copyrights.
And again, there is a big difference between being licensed under the GPL and having an obligation under the GPL.
Nothing is "automatically" GPL.
That would be partially incorrect (assuming US jurisdiction). The moment you started modifing GPL code is the moment that you "chose" to license your new work under the GPL. You have no choice to not license it under the GPL and if you do break the license you will be guilty of copyright infringement. HOWEVER, until you distribute your modifications you have no obligations under the GPL.
The GPL is very clear that any modification of GPL work is immediately covered under the GPL. Here is the excerpt from the GPLv2 section 5:
You do have to be careful because the word distribute is a legal term and does not mean what you think it means most of the time. For example if I run company A and create a GPL modified work I can give any of my employees use that modified work without any obligation under the GPL.
Everyone knew it existed, and everyone knew it would suck the nation dry before they could "win" the Cold War against the United States, but it was so entrenched in their economy that the means to measure and control it simply did not exist.
Actually very few people knew that it was happening at the time. The leaders of the USSR were very good at keeping information from public view. It was not until after the critical mass of economic failure was long past that the strains became apparent. What we take as common knowledge today is a great example of historical 20/20 hindsight.
I think you are only looking at the issue from one perspective. I think DRM is pretty much a bad idea 95% of the time. However, when Civ5 comes out, it could have a dinosaur with lasers on its head whose entire purpose was to eat me and I would still shell out $50 on launch day (if you don't like my horrible and bizarre example, replace it with what ever horrible DRM system you can think of).
Most people do understand that DRM does nothing for them. The issue is that for many people the things they buy are worth the hassle of dealing with DRM.
But when that "one thing" is "viewing every video on the #3 website in the world", you'd thing they'd spend a little effort in making it not suck.
1) Again, your looking at the language by what *YOU* care about. What percentage of Flash is written for video? The last credible study I read was about 3 years ago and had only about 5% of Flash projects related to video. The majority were interactive applications such as non-video web sites, games, corporate systems (think data input/validation or shopping carts) and computational systems.
Your argument sounds like it is that the majority of development for Flash should go to what is most used for. In which case only about 5% of development funds should go towards video. If you have a more recent study of how many projects use Flash for what and how popular Flash is, please feel free to share it, as I said the last study I saw was a bit out of date now. (Also, for those of you who don't like Flash, there are ways of viewing video on youtube without it.)
You can't dismiss cruddy video playback - which is the reason many people have Flash installed in the first place - as "just one thing".
2) I do not accept your premise. I view Flash videos off of several sites fairly regularly. *I* have no problems. I have not had a crash related to Flash in at least 4 years. Not on Windows (Win2K, WinXP, Vista or Win7). Not on Mac (OSX 10.3 to 10.5). Not on any other System that I have used (Linux and VMS, although the last does not use Adobe's Flash player).
Nor do I have a problem with the CPU usage, even on a low spec machine, I can still compile a project, have 6 terminal windows open, another browser open with a dozen tabs. All while watching a video.
Many features is not the same as hopelessly complicated.
Your trying to say that it does not do ONE THING very well. That may be true. But the goal of Flash is not to do one thing. It is to do many things, which by most accounts it does very well.
One of the big difference between VLC and Flash video is that Flash can include with the video various features including custom menus, DRM systems, automatic streaming control (adjustment of the throughput of the data stream if your internet connection slows or speeds up). These are just a few of the features that Flash includes that VLC can not do (by default). *YOU* may not want or need them or some of them, but some people do.
You simply can not compare two projects that have wildly different intentions and goals and expect meaningful conclusions. If you want to have meaningful comparison, look at a system that has all of the same features (and not just those you use) as Flash and compare them. Failing that, find a set of systems that combined, have the same features.
On to my last point, if *YOU* don't like Flash, don't use it (I actually don't like Flash very much either). But if Flash meets the needs of the person(s) that created XYZ project, then what exactly is it to you? I have written projects in most of the languages you have heard of and probably several that you have not. Each situation has its own set of needs and each languages has its own set of features. Some times one will work perfectly in a situation and some times it wont. Unless you have taken the time to fully analyze a situation (something that usually takes a period measured in months or years) you really are not qualified to make educated statements on a choice of this tool or that language.
Now I did say supposed to break even, but as of late, they are turning a net profit in the low billions range each year...so it makes you wonder why the price of stamps keeps going up...something smells very fishy.
Would you like to support your statement cited facts? Every time I have heard any quotation of figures about the USPS it was that costs were going up at significantly more than inflation. I have also heard that due to the reduced number of letters and packages the per item expense has gone up (more empty room in each delivery truck/plain/train/ship).
I absolutely have not studied this issue, but I would be very interested in seeing some hard data on the subject.
VLC also only does 1/10th of the things flash does when it displays video. NOTE! This is NOT a bad thing. Flash does all kinds of things, most of which are useless if you just want to watch video. VLC does almost nothing but render video. Unsurprisingly the specialized video app does its specialized task faster than the non-specialized app.
That being said, VLC is a great example of open source success.
They have every right to fully review your equipment at any time to decide if their data is on your person equipment.
I can't say specifically that this is not true in your jurisdiction, but it is not true for every US jurisdiction that I have ever dealt with. Your property is YOUR property, your employer has no authority over it. That does not mean they would not be able to pressure you to do so, or that it would not be bad for you to refuse.
If I have job related information on a personal computer (which I do as part of my job), I don't OWN the information and would have to remove it if requested. However, my employers would have no right to demand inspection of my computer to verify I had removed it. Furthermore, they would have no legal recourse to force me to allow them.
To be through, in an at will employment State, my employer could, upon my refusal, fire me for "no reason". My argument also does assume that I am not doing anything legally questionable with that information. If I was, the computers could be subpoenaed as part of a civil or criminal case.
I assumed that the /sarcasm wasn't needed. I was apparently wrong...
And why doesn't everyone here pretend to like Twilight?
Who doesn't like vampires who "sparkle" in the sun?
So, does that mean that everyone who paid for a Unix license from SCO can sue SCO to get a refund? Or are those people too embarrassed to admit what they have done?
No, anyone who purchased a copy/license for Unix from SCO received a valid license and would be in violation of the law to use Unix without such a license (if you purchase one for Linux, well, then your dumb. *shakes head*). SCO has a license (from Novell) to sell and license copies of Unix provided they give Novell a portion of the fee. They just do not own the copyrights to any of Unix they did not write (aka, most of it).
it doesn't matter. lost or stolen, you can't sell something that doesn't belong to you. period. end of story. at no point in time does legal ownership transfer from the loser to the finder.
That is the whole crux of the issue. At no point did either the finder or journalist state anything other than that they were holding the property for the original owner. You can not convict someone for holding your property while they attempt to return it to you (at least in the State of California). Check case law, it is VERY well defined.
I already answered you elsewhere:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1632010&cid=32002128
Although I will admit that after re-reading the Gawker post regarding the $5,000, it was not well worded to support the news organization.
First, lets look at the initial claim of theft:
Under Californian law if you find some item over a given amount you must either:
A) Contact the owner of the item and offer to return it.
B) Notify the police of the lost item.
According to the ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION on this story, the person who found the ipod did contact the owner and offered to return it. They refused. Later the journalist also offered publicly to return the item as soon as Apple requested it, which he did.
We "know" that Apple is the owner because they have since accepted the item and stated that it was theirs. Since the first two parties contacted the owner and offered to return it, it can not be theft. Also note, that the item was in fact returned, meaning it again, can not be theft.
Next item on the agenda, "the journalist bought stolen goods," this fails on many levels. Lets go into them now:
1) No sale occurred. The payment from the journalist to the finder was for information and the interview, NOT for the ipod. This type of "source fee" is common and has a long and detailed legal history. The legal history is stronger in the State of California than other jurisdictions, however I doubt any US jurisdiction would fail to uphold this difference.
2) To be a crime you must KNOW the goods are stolen. Note that this is different than suspecting them to be stolen. If you suspect that they might be stolen you probably should not buy them, but you have not committed a crime. To quote the statute:
... knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained ...
Further more, to be convicted, the prosecution must be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you KNEW they were stolen. Want to takes odds on that happening? In a 12 man jury (this is a criminal case after all) all it takes is 3 people or the 1 judge to feel that a journalist MIGHT be paying a standard interview fee and the defendant is acquitted.
3) The journalist contacted the owner, offered to return the items in question, THEN RETURNED THE ITEMS IN QUESTION. Notice in the text of the above law that the purchaser has to attempt to keep the items from the rightful owner? Notice that the journalist did in no way keep them from the owner?
Again, want to take odds on what the outcome of this is? I will put down $100 to every $1 of yours that no charges are filed, EVER. I predict that the city either stonewalls and never comments, even after it hands back all of the equipment, OR, the city apologizes for it's error.
For your enlightnment, here is the full text of the law partially quoted above. California Penal Code Section 496:
If Apple can get a warrant (which they obviously can...
Well being a non-governmental entity, they actually can not get a warrant. The police however can.
The only reason that, traditionally, journalists had extra privileges was because they worked for large litigious media outlets who wouldn't put up with that horseshit, and the government was rightfully wary. These days, not so much.
Well what you said, plus California has large and numerous statutes explicitly protecting them from prosecution and in no uncertain terms stating that many things relating to journalism can NEVER be considered criminal. But I am sure your completely uniformed and mislead statements are just as important as reading what California's State Code actually says.
They have the exact same first amendment protections as the rest of us.
Very true. Which, I have to point out, could possibly make this type of seizure of journalist equipment (servers that disseminate news for example) a violation of the law regardless of California's State law.
And of course you have read California's statutes to this regard?
I believe the section you are interested in would be California Penal Code Section 496. I do not think it says what you want it to. You should also look into California's journalistic "shield" law.
Jason Chen appears to be in a "What did you know and who told you it?" situation where he isn't supplying the identity of his source... because this isn't a source of information but a source of stolen goods.
Among the many problems with your statement are the following:
1) The items in question were not stolen. According to the news coverage, not only did the person who found the phone, FIND it in a public place (which by definition can not be a theft, at least in the State of California). He then attempted to give it to Apple. Apple then said "not ours, we don't want it."
2) Under California State law, journalistic actions have many protections. The State can not force a journalist to reveal information pertaining to a source. The State can not confiscate goods relating to the distribution of news. The State can not prosecute a journalist who acted in the interest of journalism who acted good faith (with some non-related exceptions).
Lastly it does amuse me greatly that everyone who states "XXX person committed a felony by purchasing stolen goods" has just committed libel. Congratulations, you have now given XXX the option of filing suit against you for defamation of character with one of very few acts that do not require proof of monetary harm. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
The poster commented else where that /. removed the less than sign from the equality portion. It should have been less than or equal to 10.
Huh? What's going to be able to target something flying at Mach 10?
Something moving at mach 11. Duh!
So you suggest that a judge should throw out cases BEFORE hearing any evidence or examining the facts of the case. I question if you really understand the implications of that action. I also question your understanding of the law or history.
The judge did in fact throw out the case, AFTER the facts were examined.
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/NEWS02/304149909