Home > Copyfight
AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )


Support Bloggers' Rights!
Support Bloggers' Rights!

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


RECENT COMMENTS [xml]
Recent Trackbacks
October 2014 (17)
September 2014 (4)
August 2014 (7)
July 2014 (10)
June 2014 (18)
May 2014 (7)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (12)
February 2014 (17)
January 2014 (12)
December 2013 (22)
November 2013 (12)
October 2013 (14)
September 2013 (20)
August 2013 (17)
July 2013 (18)
June 2013 (20)
May 2013 (30)
April 2013 (18)
March 2013 (15)
February 2013 (18)
January 2013 (29)
December 2012 (25)
November 2012 (16)
October 2012 (29)
September 2012 (10)
August 2012 (22)
July 2012 (22)
June 2012 (21)
May 2012 (25)
April 2012 (18)
March 2012 (23)
February 2012 (23)
January 2012 (17)
December 2011 (19)
November 2011 (5)
October 2011 (10)
September 2011 (11)
August 2011 (15)
July 2011 (4)
June 2011 (15)
May 2011 (5)
April 2011 (8)
March 2011 (8)
February 2011 (6)
January 2011 (6)
December 2010 (2)
November 2010 (2)
October 2010 (8)
September 2010 (3)
August 2010 (6)
July 2010 (11)
June 2010 (11)
May 2010 (5)
April 2010 (12)
March 2010 (10)
February 2010 (10)
January 2010 (15)
December 2009 (3)
November 2009 (9)
October 2009 (4)
September 2009 (3)
August 2009 (10)
July 2009 (5)
June 2009 (6)
May 2009 (6)
April 2009 (5)
March 2009 (6)
February 2009 (7)
January 2009 (4)
December 2008 (13)
November 2008 (4)
October 2008 (12)
September 2008 (7)
August 2008 (7)
July 2008 (1)
June 2008 (7)
May 2008 (4)
April 2008 (7)
March 2008 (9)
February 2008 (16)
January 2008 (14)
December 2007 (9)
November 2007 (8)
October 2007 (7)
September 2007 (14)
August 2007 (19)
July 2007 (10)
June 2007 (14)
May 2007 (11)
April 2007 (4)
March 2007 (4)
February 2007 (9)
December 2006 (3)
November 2006 (11)
October 2006 (6)
September 2006 (5)
August 2006 (6)
July 2006 (2)
June 2006 (11)
May 2006 (18)
April 2006 (15)
March 2006 (15)
February 2006 (18)
January 2006 (7)
December 2005 (16)
November 2005 (41)
October 2005 (60)
September 2005 (52)
August 2005 (82)
July 2005 (56)
June 2005 (115)
May 2005 (89)
April 2005 (150)
March 2005 (177)
February 2005 (101)
January 2005 (58)
December 2004 (58)
November 2004 (32)
October 2004 (49)
September 2004 (44)
August 2004 (52)
July 2004 (83)
June 2004 (61)
May 2004 (55)
April 2004 (61)
March 2004 (62)



Subscribe with Bloglines




Creative Commons License
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline


Copyfight

January 10, 2005
EFF to Apple: Back OffEmail This EntryPrint This Entry
Posted by Donna Wentworth

Macworld kicks off tomorrow, but a behind-the-scenes drama has already begun to unfold. Over the past few weeks, Apple has been sending legal threats to the publishers of the Mac-centric weblogs AppleInsider and PowerPage for posting details about a new Apple product code-named "Asteroid." Apple has even obtained a court order to served subpoenas asking subpoena for the identities of the people who leaked the information. Today, EFF announced that it's representing the publishers to defend their right to keep their sources secret:


"Bloggers break the news, just like journalists do. They must be able to promise confidentiality in order to maintain the free flow of information," said EFF Staff
Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Without legal protection, informants will refuse to talk to reporters, diminishing the power of the open press that is the cornerstone of a free society."

"I am very disappointed by Apple's behavior and its new policy of issuing legal threats to its best customers," added Jason O'Grady, publisher of PowerPage. "Is corporate paranoia really more important than the First Amendment?"


AppleInsider and PowerPage aren't alone; Apple has also targeted Think Secret and three people who allegedly posted a developer build of MacOS 10.4 via Bit Torrent.

It will be interesting to see what the resolution of each of these conflicts will reveal about the nature of speech on the Internet today. There are critical differences in the circumstances of each "case." Where will the courts draw the line between breaking the news and breaking the law?


Category: Speech


COMMENTS
annon on January 10, 2005 07:42 PM writes...

this isn't about free speech or first ammendment rights

this is about people who have signed NDA's breaking that agreement and leaking trade secrets, this is about people that know that Apple requires its employees to sign NDA's as part of their employement contract and those people breaking that agreement

this is about honesty and integrity

Permalink to Comment
karl on January 10, 2005 07:50 PM writes...

What does any of this have to do with free speech? Apple isn't sueing anyone to shut their mouths, since you can't sue people to take away their rights. Apple is sueing people that are breaking laws and disemenating trade secrets.

Thinksecret is usually a den of outlandish theories about up and coming products and upgrades. None of that is illegal, anyone that has been a longtime mac user can do the same.

The reason they are getting sued is because they had knowledge that could only have come from someone that is under a legal obligation NOT to disclose it. The closest thing would be a reporter whose source is a whistleblower, they have a legitimate story that the public is entitled to know about since it involves a company actively breaking the law. But here we don't have that, we have people working hard to make interesting products and having said product details stolen and released to all before completion.

If they had even made teh rumors ambiguous they would have no problems, but they made a perfect sketch of the final product, gave details of size, weight, components, building materials, and capabilities. This gives competitors information about up and coming products before they hit the market, and thus an oppurtunity to usurp Apple's leadership in a new market.

In short, this isn't freedom of speech and I simply don't see how people continue to attempt to twist the situation to seem so. If I had stolen unreleased music from an artist there would be no question that was wrong, why is this so different?

Permalink to Comment
NordicMan on January 10, 2005 08:20 PM writes...

I am for the protection of the first amendment, we seem to be losing many of the protections that our founding fathers/brothers achieved for us.

Yet, how is it that the first amendment has been abridged by Apple's lawsuit? ThinkSecret purportedly is paying people to break nondisclosure agreements. Are they? There is some room for a possibly valid argument that it is the same as poaching trade secrets. The former poster points out that taking unpublished music is stealing.

I agree that Apple's first issue is with those who broke the agreement. And, if someone goes to a writer, then the writer has put forth information that they received. But what if they pay for secrets to be revealed?

Anyway, I hope that ThinkSecret and the PowerPage and the other pages hold with the Mac, it is a good platform, and I hope that they are not much pinched.

This all really brings more attention to Apple's products, hopefully it will fade quietly, now that MacWorld begins tomorrow.

Permalink to Comment
Ace Fury on January 10, 2005 09:08 PM writes...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So NDAs are illegal under the First Amendment? Interesting. If ThinkSecret had a case the ACLU would be all over Apple. The very act of sueing someone isn't a violation of any Amendment, in fact being able to sue is right we all have - winning is another story all together.

Permalink to Comment
t rex on January 10, 2005 09:34 PM writes...

I really have mixed feelings on this. While I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment, the issue here seems to be trade secrets and NDAs, not free speech. Apple seems to be within their rights to sue on these counts, but at the cost of potentially alienating some of their most hardcore fans. Apparently they are willing to take that risk.

Apple has a long history of not tolerating leaks, and takes extreme measures to ensure the secrecy of new products. While their reasoning is sometimes a bit mystifying, it is literally their business, not the fan base's, to make decisions concerning the release of information.

A reporter's right to protection under the First Amendment should be extended in cases where the reporting provides information critical to the well-being of the public-at-large, as in the case of political muckraking or corporate malfeasance/misconduct. To the contrary, unless it can be proven that (as it has been suggested by WIRED and others) Apple conspired to leak the information in question, the argument for protection is weak at best, and likely would not stand in court.

On the other hand, Apple is getting a HUGE amount of free publicity out of the current situation. Any advantage Apple gains as a result of these leaks could be argued in court as exploiting "bad" press, even if it was unintentional. But in order to gain this advantage the "rumors" would have to be 100% true, because if the rumors are false, the letdown could have a disastrous effect on their stock price and reputation.

As much as I love the Mac sites being sued, it's tough to find fault in Apple's desire to quash rumors.

Permalink to Comment
Rad Geek on January 24, 2005 02:43 PM writes...

Five comments on NDAs, and none of them at all are to the point.

The reason that Apple's legal brickbats are problematic from a free speech standpoint is not that the First Amendment somehow prohibits contractual NDAs. It doesn't. But the publishers of ThinkSecret, AppleInsider, and PowerPage never signed an NDA with Apple. They never made any agreement with Apple that they wouldn't leak any information that comes into their grubby little hands, and they're under no legally enforceable obligation whatsoever not to do so.

Apple has every right to pursue legal action against people who have breached their contract, but they have no right at all to use legal force against people who never agreed to Apple's terms in the first place. The legal maneuvering is nothing more than high-powered bullying to try to force innocent third parties to give up their sources when they aren't under any legal obligation to do so. Copyfight is exactly right to frame this as an issue of corporate bullies attacking protected speech.

Permalink to Comment


TRACKBACKS
TrackBack URL: http://www.corante.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8115




POST A COMMENT
Name:

Email:

URL:

Comments:

Remember personal info?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND
Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES