[Matt is a former Apple Computer employee and publisher of an excellent Apple newsletter (you can subscribe at macjournals.com). He is right. Part of the confusion was my doing; EFF used the term "bloggers" in the Subject: line of their press release and I reproduced it. A better term to describe the defendants in Apple's lawsuits would be "commercial ad-supported web sites with a solid track record" or simply "journalists." --Declan] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Why Apple was right to sue web sites for leaking product info [fs] Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:40:16 -0600 From: Matt Deatherage <mattd@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> On 1/13/05 at 11:03 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@private> wrote: > I want to voice my opinion in favor of Apple's defensive stance against > the bloggers and their informants. What these bloggers did [...] > > On Jan 11, 2005, at 9:31 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > [And of course thanks to Apple's announcements on Tuesday, we know > > that many of the bloggers were right... --Declan] Declan: I don't know if anyone is deliberately attempting to conflate the Macintosh rumor Web sites with "bloggers" for PR purposes, but if we want to report the story accurately, we need to untangle that. First, Apple is not suing "bloggers." Apple is suing Think Secret, a professional, ad-driven Web site whose media kit boasts of its "nearly ... 100% exclusive" track record of "inside Apple information" and "previews of forthcoming software." It is the primary media property of "The dePlume Organization LLC," where you'll find lots of bragging about how broadly the business, technology, and mainstream press covers its rumors. <http://www.thinksecret.com/advertising/> <http://www.deplume.com/> Think Secret may not have the resources of a newspaper or top-tier media site, but it is a professional site, one that sells its exclusives to advertisers eager to reach "Macintosh professionals." (In fact, the Harvard Crimson reports today that Think Secret's owner is a Harvard freshman who's been running the site since he was 13, and who hasn't hired a lawyer because he can't afford one.) <http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505326.html> This is all an interesting First Amendment debate as well, but it's not one about "bloggers." It's about professional media. Second, EFF is not representing "bloggers" either. They're representing AppleInsider and O'Grady's PowerPage - both of which are also professional, ad-driven rumor sites trying to draw eyeballs to sell to advertiers. The difference is that Apple is not "suing" those sites - it has subpoenaed them as part of a previous lawsuit against unnamed individuals who allegedly leaked Apple's confidential information to rumor sites. A few years ago, Apple filed a similar lawsuit and subpoenaed Yahoo! to discover the identity of someone posting messages with confidential information. The December 2004 lawsuit (not against Think Secret) seems of similar ilk, and as part of it, Apple subpoenaed Think Secret, AppleInsider, and O'Grady's PowerPage, demanding information on who sent them the allegedly-confidential information. The sites were not targets of the lawsuit; the people who leaked the information are, and Apple's using subpoena power to discover their identities. Again, it's an interesting First Amendment debate about whether these professional media organizations, who are not targets of the suit, have to reveal their sources to Apple under subpoena - but it's not about "bloggers." These aren't guys expressing a few opinions with Google AdSense or BlogAds or Amazon affiliate codes to bring in bucks to support the cost of the site - they've all been around for at least 6-7 years, actively pursuing inside Apple information to drive page counts and advertising rates. I have no doubt that the debate about blogging, probably as amateur jounralism, and the First Amendment will heat up in the years to come. This debate is not that debate. I have to wonder if some people are deliberately conflating these professionals with "bloggers" to elicit sympathy to their cause, perhaps because the thought of professional reporters making a living off leaked information somehow seems distasteful. But whatever the reason, it's a bad concept - these guys aren't "bloggers" in the publicly-understood sense. It doesn't erase the debate, but let's at least get the terms right. --Matt -- Matt Deatherage <mattd@private> <http://www.macjournals.com> I read this list in digest mode; copy me privately for faster responses _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 13 2005 - 10:09:06 PST