1167: Tattoo You

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by Andrea's toothbrush

Keith said "Chemda In Hell" is award winning. Did it really win something?

The 2010 KATGUH for "Best KatgTV episode". The only awrd that matters, sinbce it was voted by KATGers and not a jury of paid-off dorks.

[cmar618]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

added bonus:

how dare.

[Grapist]

The guy "finding" an iphone in a bar is the joke. Someone saw what they thought was an iphone 3gs, stole it, realized later what it was, then sold it. If he has possession of a device that isn't his and sells it, it is illegal. If the journalist who buys it, knowing it isn't a released product and knowing he has no rights to having it then he should be prosecuted for purchasing a stolen device. The device belonged to the person who left it in the bar and in this case, it belonged to Apple, and was purchased by a person who knew this.

[Daemonik]

Originally Posted by Grapist

The guy "finding" an iphone in a bar is the joke. Someone saw what they thought was an iphone 3gs, stole it, realized later what it was, then sold it. If he has possession of a device that isn't his and sells it, it is illegal.

Apple never claimed the phone was stolen, only lost. It's common law that a lost item belongs to whomever finds it, however most states do require a period of discovery for the original owner to try to reclaim their lost property. So the 'finder' didn't do that. Still doesn't make the phone stolen property until the original owner claims it was stolen.

Originally Posted by Grapist

If the journalist who buys it, knowing it isn't a released product and knowing he has no rights to having it then he should be prosecuted for purchasing a stolen device.

So you're saying a journalist has no right or responsibility to report on a fact of interest to the public? Regardless of who owned the prototype, the reporter did what he was supposed to do, THEN RETURNED THE ITEM. He did nothing illegal.

Originally Posted by Grapist

The device belonged to the person who left it in the bar and in this case, it belonged to Apple, and was purchased by a person who knew this.

Until the reporter had the phone analyzed it was only supposition that it was even an Apple product to begin with, it's not like counterfeit products are never made.

Furthermore, it's not unusual for a company to deliberately plant a product to be found as a viral marketing stunt. Historically Apple has not done this but that doesn't mean they never will either. So it's not unreasonable for a journalist to consider this was an intentional 'leak' either.

The phone was inspected, photographed and then Apple was contacted for their input on authenticity/intentions. The phone was returned after Apple's claim it was their product.

The journalist signed no Non-Disclosure Agreements with Apple. He was perfectly within his constitutional rights to publish a story about the phone, the specifications and any other details about it that he wished.

The only slightly unethical NOT illegal, thing he did was paying for the phone, however given Apple's maniacal secrecy about their products I don't think it was unusual that he didn't want this story to walk away.

If anything he did Apple a favor returning their lost prototype before whomever found it could sell it to one of their competitors.

[Blitzgal]

The rape scene in The Accused is definitely brutal. The one in Irreversible was also disturbing for me. It doesn't help that it's like 9 minutes long.

Irréversible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Daemonik]

Originally Posted by Andrea's toothbrush

Everyone knew what that phone was, and that the owner wanted it. which is why the guy who "found" the phone was able to sell it to a tech site for 5 grand. The guy who took the phone should've contacted Apple and returned it.

Everyone SUSPECTED what the phone was. Until Apple was contacted by Gawker Media, whom the journalist works for, and actually claimed the phone, it could have been a very high end counterfeit product. Or the factory in China that makes everything might have been selling product out of the back door, or or or. There's lots of legitimate scenarios that could explain the phone's existence, and be worthy of writing a story about it.

They did return the phone to Apple. BEFORE the police raid. Either before or shortly after they ran their story. This isn't some dude in a hut writing a garage 'zine, Gawker Media has lawyers too, and they were involved through the whole process.

Odd that the police aren't raiding the home of the person who found the phone though, just the journalist who wrote about it. Oh right, that's because Apple is a member of the task force that sent the cops to the journalists house and they're vindictive assholes.

But I'm glad you're okay with a corporation using their position on a police task force to silence someone talking about them, that could never be an abuse of power, right? Right?

[Grapist]

LOL, there's always someone who defends criminal behavior.

[i'minu]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

added bonus:

i saw it right away, but took a minute to convience myself that it was really what i saw. that's fucked up, funny, but fucked up.

[Daemonik]

Originally Posted by Grapist

LOL, there's always someone who defends criminal behavior.

There's always someone who wants to make everything a criminal act. Go figure.

[tuttle88]

Literally LOL. Live, on air, email writing completely for the win.