Comments on: Newspapers could learn from Psystar brouhaha
A little Miami company comes out of nowhere and becomes a fact-finding obsession for the Mac community. When will mainstream news gathering become this exciting?
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About News Blog
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
don't have to post them.
1. EULAs are unenforceable. Lots of courts have ruled so.
2. Psystar is a legitimate business when it comes to selling
stolen intellectual property
3. Apple stole the GUI from PARC
4. Macs are too expensive anyway
The point is, little folks can report the news as easily as professionals. I once worked at a community newspaper where anything PG-rated ran - aside from the lousy pay, it was a blast. We were just gatekeepers many weeks, letting the locals tell their stories - and keeping the opinionated ones (ie Liberals are great / Liberals are evil) out of the mix.
Then a "Professional" (and I use the term loosely) came in to 'clean things up' and do it his way. The opinionated ones were let in to waste space with hot air better left in a blog, and the real community news we had been running was cut to zero. Things went downhill after that, and the paper is all but a thin shopper now.
3. Apple was already working on GUI based technology when Jef
Raskin joined them in the lated '70s was doing R&D on GUI stuff
and was responsible for the birth of the Macintosh early on.
PARC can't take full credit for the GUI concept as the guy
(Douglas Englebart) who dreamed this up did so when working
for DARPA. Xerox PARC later got ahold the GUI concept and
furthered its development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Englebart
http://technicalconclusions.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/history
-of-gui/
http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html
4. this could be argued all day, but as the saying goes "you get
what you pay for", which can't be argued with! And if price was
all that people cared about; then Commodore would still (be
here) and have the monopoly on the (desktop) computer
industry today. Both Apple and IBM at the time were twice as
expensive in price as your average Commodore computer and
were less powerful. In the '80s and '90s, no one could beat
Commodore on price!
The concept computer at Xerox parc was generic at best.
Apple was actually the one that refined the GUI, which Microsoft
now uses in its computers today with its hack of a trash can
which many Windows cronies call a recycle bin.
In hindsight Bill Gates at that time saw DOS as the OS of the
future until he started software development for the Mac, which
he deemed the standard for computers then basically stole the
GUI concept. They also didn't even create DOS but bought it for
$50,000. Which up until now has been the mantra at Microsoft
buying companies instead of generating cohesive ideas from
within.
So you see Microsoft is just a company built on a pack of lies.
Much like the now dying Windows NT kernel with its 50 million
lines of code which is growing more complicated than ever.
So at the end of the day a Windows machine is just an affordable
Mac computer taking generous cues from the original
Macintosh.
their development of the Amiga, Apple BOUGHT the right to
develop the GUI, and several PARC employees went to work for
Apple.
However, one thing doesn't - or shouldn't necessarily replace another. The print is on the upswing on many developing countries like India where people are only recently exposed to the beauty of print (including newspapers and magazines). But, like you rightly say, hyper-local citizen journalists and community writers online are much more attentive, quicker and responsive. Having said that, to make for good reading, any writer will have to learn the tricks of the trade and earn the respect of readers through research and credibility - just like in the good old newspapers.
Everyone will benefit if we learn to blend the best practices of both print scribes and tech tribes!
The problem is, no one has figured out the magic recipe yet for finding the right way to create a useful 'information hub' around breaking news that deals well with trolls and yet keeps information concise and germane.
It's very hard for news organizations to see in a timely way which kinds of stories and topics will have 'legs' enough to make it worth assigning a reporter to and very hard to organize herds of tech-savvy geniuses with neck-beards to share their information in some kind of centralized way (see: NowPublic), let alone hoi polloi.
By the way: you're right that parents are a fanatic audience. So of course there are discussion boards out there on how to game school waiting lists; and school board meetings have been a staple of small newspaper reporting for time out of mind...
-Toby
I don't know how the commentator can even compare this with journalism. A legitiate media outlet is responsible for its words, and can be sued if those words prove harmful and were written with malice or with reckless disregard for truth.
Far from a model for journalism, this episode should be a cautionary tale for how irresponsible a media outlet (like cnet) can act without consequence.
Although I suppose a media-site like Cnet would be on the 'newspapers are dead' bandwagon (it is fashionable), but at the expense (and ridicule?) of professional journalists? As though setting readers off to uncover any and all information, only to report back like drones is respectable. In fact its downright dangerous...
Didn't anyone cry foul when the credit card processing company so freely blurted out Psystar's personal data and information? Where was the justice for them and their privacy?
Cnet for some reason has taken a bizarre interest in the mangling of this particular company, with the Psystar story generating quite a bit of content and 'investigative' journalism. Every day comes an update and preachy explanation on why harassing a company is just so peachy keen.
So while the tech-media may think its just dandy to help expedite the process of turning regular, ordinary people into digital stools, I don't. Weren't there people decrying the government sneaking into private lives and violating their privacy? Who needs government when you've got legions of brain-washed forum trollers who'll do it for free?
The LAST place I want referenced in my journalism is Answers.com or even Wikapedia or anything of the sort. You claim to be professionals, contact an attorney or verify your information with a person. The only possible explanation why Cnet didn't was hastiness...something the blog-o-sphere and apparently this site feel is more important than factual information.
Rather than get a fully nuanced, accurately reported tale of the possible legal ramifications on EULA's and the future of digital rights management, we get a tabloid-esque witch-hunt thats light on facts, heavy on blame, and about as substantial as a promo on Entertainment Tonight. I hope that Cnet's ratings are up and they've chosen the right path... but as someone who craves real journalistic integrity, I'm disgusted. And so should Cnet's managing editors.
The very core of true journalism is factual and verifiable information. Cnet should be ashamed of themselves for denying Psystar fair and impartial treatment, and not the side-stepping 'facts' they so obviously enjoy rattling off. Shame.
Where, and how did we "mangle" Psystar? Trying to figure out why a company has changed addresses so quickly and lost payment providers, especially a company selling a product so likely to be legally challenged, is "mangling" them?
I would like nothing more to get into the legal ramifications of the Leopard EULA and the Open Computer. But we can't do that until we verify that Psystar is actually a company; if there's no company, there's no legal case. And, I'm sorry, there were plenty of questions that needed to be answered about their legitimacy before the legal issues can be tackled.
No one at CNET News.com outright labeled this company a scam or a hoax, which I saw being done all over the Internet this week. But we did track the story as it evolved and took a number of twists and turns, and maintained a level of skepticism, which is our job.
Re: Answers.com - Answers.com is an aggregation site that pulls together content from different sources. The source we used in the article I believe you're referencing was from the Encyclopedia of Business, a repository of information compiled by professionals. I should have noted that in the story, but I did note it in the comments.
The good thing about America is that the Constitution was established to set precedent the protection of all people giving them unalienable rights which cannot be denied by anyone or by a mob. Such establishment has led the US in many ways better than most other countries to deal with crisis like the Great Depression and many wars.
To think, 300 years worth of history, yet those who don't know about it repeats it.
Apple needs competition and Steve Jobs is a criminal.
Is that about the same as...
Microsoft needs competition and Bill Gates is a criminal.
???
trying to see if I could unravel whether the company was legit or
not. Sure enough I found the new location was a previously for
sale building only accessible through Google's cache, I decided
to share my find....
Now I still have little faith in blogging as an entire alternative to
news feeds. Blogging isn't held to the same ethical standards or
qualifications that News journalism is supposed to follow. (which
I fear as News.com becomes more editorial as opposed to news)
Even if idealized standards that are open to debate, its still for
what its worth a standard many publications strive for.
As a collective, when motivated, communities can provide plenty
of insight, such as first hand accounts, pictures, amateur footage
and various sourcing. However, without any person to discern
and dissect the information it becomes jumbled, overload and
even contradictory.
The new media sphere shouldn't envision a world of self perpetuating blogs rife with opinions but open itself more widely
community collaboration and act as the information gateway to
generate a cohesive portrait of what's being presented and spot
the inaccuracies. This is much more representative of how the
Gizmodo story evolved with curious readers lending their
talents. Not all news will generate this sort of community drive
as not all communities are so communication savvy but we can
count on much more refined tactics for something that's been
happening for years with home footage documenting major
news stories. Hopefully skilled journalists will learn to tap their
audiences when resources are needed.
Even IF you have a true-blue professional journalist covering the story, it then goes through a blender of editors and production people - and perhaps the publisher - before the processed material is ready to read. Any one of them could be biased and could rewrite a story to reverse the 'accurate' reporting so it conforms to their standards.
The best solution is a mix of 'real' journalists and non-journalists - to keep checking on each other to verify the facts. That is the only way to keep everyone honest.
As for the EFI emulator, under U.S. copyright law, that is now public domain. The authors freely distributed it with no license for more than two years with the intent of unrestricted dissemination. Under U.S. law, that constitutes placing the code in the public domain. Once the code has been placed in the public domain, it cannot be later removed from the public domain. By placing the code in the public domain, the author irrevocably relinquishes all ownership and rights in the copyright. "[S]oftware released thus goes completely out of control of the author, who, even if he subsequently so desires, cannot impose any restriction on its use."
"Programs that are uncopyrighted because their authors intended to share them with everyone else are in the public domain. Programs in the public domain can be used without restriction as components of other programs."
The test of whether software has passed into the public domain is set out in Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693.This decision holds that computer software may enter the public domain through "freely accessible program exchanges and the like," or by becoming "commonplace in the computer industry."
So in spite of all of the vitrol misinformation being thrown out that Psystar is somehow acting illegally or immorally, the facts are that Psystar is acting well within the law, and most likely is in a strong position to force Apple to support OSX on non-Apple hardware.
This is my gripe against the so-called cNet "journalists." They apparently have not been taught even the most rudimentary journalistic skills - like doing a little homework to present a balanced and objective set of facts before throwing out vitriol allegations as fact, such as that Psystar is illegally violating Apple EULA, when all legal indications are that the EULA is illegal, not the violation of the EULA). Or that Psystar stealing the work of the OSX86 foundation, when that code is clearly in the public domain, has been for more than two years, and Psystar's use of the EFI code is little different than Apple's use of BSD Unix.
Hopefully, the cNet "Journalists" are willing to see that unsubstantiated, baseless and vitriol allegations unnecessarily hurt real people and real businesses. It is irresponsible to the extreme.
I for one am in favor of applying slander and defamation laws to internet blogs. Free speech is a right, but a right that carries responsibilities. Everyone is free to say whatever they please. I am very much against any form of prior restraint. But words have consequences, and public statements (and that includes bloggers and commentators on blogs) should be held accountable for their words are uttered with careless disregard for the truth and if they cause unwarranted damage.
Some newspapers actually *have* pitched the idea of the community doing all the reporting and calling it "citizen journalism". Ever hear of something called YourHub.com? Some of these efforts usually result in non-paid blogging positions--or, more accurately, what used to be called "stringer" postions (also usually low-paid or not paid.)
Yet why should the community at large be responsible for doing community reporting? Seriously! The newspaper industry is the only profit making industry that asks the people (or the citizens or the community if you prefer) to do stuff for them for little to no pay.
It's one thing when people freely leave comments to annotate or add to a story--another when they may have to shoulder the burden of community reporting or else the newspaper won't function...
Be that as it may, it's perhaps a bit of a stretch to call what happened on the net with Pystar "citizen journalism." Crowdsourcing, maybe (I worked on a little crowdsourced journalism project called Assignment Zero--you may want to check it out...as well as some other experiments going on these days.) But it doesn't appear to be an concerted effort, as many crowdsourced projects are. Could it then have been a form of "citizen marketing" (another "citizen" buzzword) where it was the citizens who decided to anti-market. Or was it simply a case of consumer advocacy--with consumers "crowdsourcing" to find out more about a company and then exchanged consumer info?
There are lots of scenarios, and lots of terms that could be used to classify this brouhaha without resorting to calling it "citizen journalism."
- Good bye Psystar
- by frank bruce April 23, 2008 8:27 AM PDT
- Recall one article that show a PowerBook clone more like a slab but you had to remove the ROMs from your Mac and insert them in to make it work, gone, Apple Closed them, other solutions for the Amiga running Mac OS was to copy the ROMs... illegal, not any more. Franklin and other tried, and Apple took them out of business, and after the Second Coming of Steve P Jobs the clones kiss the Mac good bye.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(32 Comments)Don't see this one ending this year.