What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
69 Comments
- serif69, on 07/16/2009, -3/+50Arrington is the biggest douchebag in tech journalism. In fact, he's wrong so often I hesitate to use the word "journalism".
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/16/2009, -1/+24$100 says the documents end up on Wikileaks if TechCrunch ends up not publishing them.
- Chewie67, on 07/16/2009, -6/+27They should.
The people who took those documents committed a crime.
The people that publish them are accomplices.
"Freedom of the Press" doesn't absolve theft. - spinxfd, on 07/16/2009, -0/+16SCREW YOU MIKE ARRINGTON!
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/16/2009, -3/+16Suing to prevent content from being distributed on the internet is like trying to plug a leak in a dike with your finger, only in this case you're daring them to try harder.
- inactive, on 07/16/2009, -2/+13This isn't going to help.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/16/twitters-inte ... - socivitus, on 07/16/2009, -1/+11Arrington loves a good legal battle. Must be his old attorney soul trying to break free from his sleep-deprived nightmare of a body. This will be interesting to see.
- 7m7uf, on 07/16/2009, -3/+13What's the benefit of publishing it? I'd say that TechCrunch is in the wrong on this one.
- MudMan69, on 07/16/2009, -1/+8I doubt that would be their intent if they decide to sue. The information is out and nothing can be done about it, but suing the douche who decided to publish stolen material is still quite appropriate.
- treas, on 07/16/2009, -1/+8It's been too long since I've plugged a dike with my finger.
- sirbeta, on 07/16/2009, -2/+8I would not be disappointed if TechCrunch got hit hard with a losing lawsuit. I have next to no respect for that site.
- HeavyWave, on 07/17/2009, -1/+7I used to like TC. But these days it's the "Fox News" of Internet start ups.
- grnicon, on 07/16/2009, -5/+10who cares. techcrunch and twitter both suck mountains of ass.
- Altanar, on 07/16/2009, -0/+5Way to intricately describe what you feel is wrong with it! Consider me convinced!
- mooninite, on 07/16/2009, -2/+7This is an overflow of info and all "positive" in that. This is not legit. It's a nice PR stunt.
I still don't see a need to use Twitter. - mlvassallo, on 07/16/2009, -1/+6Of what benefit to TechCrunch was it to publish said documents? They weren't whistleblowing. Twitter wasn't sharing private information from its users or fleecing the company coffers in any way, so what could possibly be the reason other than "Oh look, we have private documents from a tech company, let's publish them."
I hope Leo Laporte smacks Arrington with his dick again, he needs it. - Chewie67, on 07/16/2009, -2/+7Really? Twitter would be fighting a loosing battle?
Where did you get your legal degree? Grammar Optional Community College? - DKasler, on 07/16/2009, -1/+5Maybe Twitter finally found a business model...
- psychotron, on 07/16/2009, -2/+6Both Twitter and TechCrunch are getting great publicity right now, I don't believe anyone should sue anyone else. Other than the Diddy burn, the documents posted make Twitter look quite good in fact. Sounds like they have their stuff together and are shown to be an ambitious company with a plan. As long as TC doesn't publish personal info, I say keep them coming.
- icpaul, on 07/16/2009, -1/+5No, I doubt we'll see them on Wikileaks. Wikileaks is curated and the site says it is only interested in documents of ""political, diplomatic or ethical significance." http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:Submissions
- iagainsti, on 07/16/2009, -1/+5Bad Form by TechCrunch IMO.
- mlvassallo, on 07/16/2009, -1/+5Google Apps is actually pretty fantastic for what it is. Also, who knows what the documents were created in, they can be opened in Google Apps by anybody who has them.
- RC212V, on 07/16/2009, -1/+5Yes you are incorrect. If someone stole the documents they have committed a crime and can be prosecuted and/or sued. But if a member of the press obtains those documents and was not the one who stole and did not solicit their theft they are free to publish them due to freedom of the press.
- iPwnN00bs, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4Many mountains of ass
- RegalBegal, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3I'm sure their business plan is very complex.
- Altanar, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4TechCrunch were the ones who spread the lies about last.fm, right? What a douchy news site.
- Repeater2000, on 07/16/2009, -5/+8They should sue themselves for putting confidential docuements on the AWFUL Google apps.
Nice move guys... - kanabiis, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4Wrong, stolen documents can, and have been used in court.... In fact, stolen documents, presented in court was key to the billion dollar judgment levied against the Tobacco companies in the land mark federal case. This is fairly well documented in the book "The People Vs. Big Tobacco".
- flashpointbob, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3INTERNET PENIS FIGHT!
- mrgeekguy, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANftgrIQlzk
- kanabiis, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3Anyone who thinks Twitter would have a chance in hell bringing a lawsuit should google Diebold.......
Even with all their Political connections Diebold was never able to suppress publication of 'stolen' documents.
Good luck with that lawsuit Twitter..... Maybe it might make it to the docket before you become another Geocities, forgotten and obsolete. - kanabiis, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2Altanar, maybe you should smoke some weed, it may help your concentration.
Each of those lawsuits were against the THIEF, not a 3rd party who published the information.
I have never stated that the thief is immune to lawsuit, only that TechCrunch is.....
Twitter is well within their rights to sue the thief, as they should, but TechCrunch would not be party to those suits.
Just because you googled something and got results does NOT mean the results are relevant. - BrynF, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3What exactly about these documents makes them look like they have their "stuff together"? It seemed quite the opposite: They have no realistic plans to get revenues. They talk about aiming for a billion users and an IPO, yet can't even define themselves. They talk about acquiring users by giving away phones, yet according to their financial model those users will generate only $1 revenue per year.
The documents say their board is pressuring them for meetings. It's probably because their board has smart VCs who realize that what Twitter has is very simplistic technology that happened to get a load of media coverage, but no revenue model or a sustainable business. They want to cash out by getting bought out by some big player like Google or Microsoft while the hype is still going and before people move on to the next fad. The management on the other hand seem to have serious delusions of grandeur and think they'll be running a public company with a billion customers by 2013. - Altanar, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3Kanabiis, whistleblower laws don't cover materials that have no political value. You want an example of a lawsuit over stolen information?
I know how to use "the google" too: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS331US ...
Look on that first page. As of writing this, there are 6 lawsuits (in 10 results) from people stealing information. And just looking at the summary, at least 2 of them were required to play large sums of money for the theft.
Maybe, kanabiis, you should stop smoking some of your namesake, so you can think more clearly. There's a huge difference between a whistleblower leak and outright theft of information that is of no value to anyone but the people it belongs to. - rnawky, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3It's Twitter, not Apple or the RIAA.
I don't think they will sue. - zadadka, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3If you really want to know, the logical thing to do would be to follow their lawyer's Twitters.
Actually, just read this one I made up....it answers the question completely.
"Looks like we're gonna get the "go" on that Big Account...should be able to get 9%+ on the deal....easy money, since the defendant was dumb enough to publish that stuff at all"
Posted by FillMyCoffers via Web. - Altanar, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2Stop the sodahead spam.
- beachtrader, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2The people who stole them could be liable for damages in a civil suit and for criminal penalties. Freedom of the Press only prevents the Government from prohibiting you from printing or saying something, so it's not relevant here.
However, all of you who think TechCrunch is an accomplice are wrong. There have been many suits of this nature and if you receive stolen documents and had nothing to do with the theft then you can do anything you want with the documents. How do you think you got to see Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee screwing each other on the net? Same situation. The people who published the video weren't involved in the theft so they could publish the video tape. Or check, as many have mentioned, Diebold.
Twitter is going to sue simply because it's embarrassing and by causing a civil suit they can force TechCrunch to determine if they really want to have a prolonged court case which costs them lots of money. But, in the end, Twitter would lose on the law. Now, if TechCrunch posted proprietary information or sensitive information on employees (think social security numbers) there is other law which would put TechCrunch up a creek. But, simple info like they have posted now--nope, no cause of action for Twitter. - thetruthis, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3People actually use twitter? You mean besides kids in high school?
- jriley101, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3It will be interesting to see. TC didn't break in but they did got a hold of confidential document. The right thing would have been to turn it into FBI or some agent to handle it rather than releasing it publicly.
- skunkman62, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2"screw you guys!"
- buckrogers1965, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1I'm confused. I thought getting my dick sucked was a good thing.
- dillona, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1For anyone who missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsV-lgnAjps
- jonsterling, on 07/27/2009, -0/+1@thetruthis What was that about? I am a senior in high school.
- buckrogers1965, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1The sad thing in this case is that if "journalists" all did their jobs correctly, we would have this level of detail about every company and government agency in the world.
Sad that Techcrunch is being beat up because they reported actual news about a company instead of reciting news releases like a trained monkey. - URnotheonly1, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2stolen property
- kgdoom, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2Can I dig this statement twice?
- iblaine, on 07/16/2009, -2/+3The guy at tech crunch got his law degree from Stanford. Based on that, he's probably not going to put himself at legal risk. Given his douchebag like attitude, he'll come close to crossing that line.
- thetruthis, on 07/17/2009, -1/+2You must still be in jr high. Good luck in high school next year.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is