After Hours

General discussion

Locked

CodeWarriorz Thoughts

By codewarrior.wins ·
Tags: Off Topic
blog root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

CNN.com - Novak: 'I will reveal all'? - Jun 30, 2005

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.
<br />
<br />Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.
<br />
<br />Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.
<br />
<br />ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
<br />
<br />BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
<br />
<br />HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
<br />
<br />HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
<br />
<br />HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
<br />
<br />==========SNIP======================
<br />I personally believe NOVAK should be on trial...after all,
<br />he was the rotten, slime covered pipe from which the information first leaked apparently from the article...
<br />
<br />PUT NOVAK ON TRIAL!</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/06/cnncom-novak-i-will-reveal-all-jun-30.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

CNN.com - Novak: 'I will reveal all'? - Jun 30, 2005

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.
<br />
<br />Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.
<br />
<br />Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.
<br />
<br />ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
<br />
<br />BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
<br />
<br />HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
<br />
<br />HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
<br />
<br />HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
<br />
<br />==========SNIP======================
<br />I personally believe NOVAK should be on trial...after all,
<br />he was the rotten, slime covered pipe from which the information first leaked apparently from the article...
<br />
<br />PUT NOVAK ON TRIAL!</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/06/cnncom-novak-i-will-reveal-all-jun-30.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

The CodeWarriorz Thoughts response to Marci Hamilton on Why Hunting Students is Right

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

* NOTE- I WANTED TO REPRINT THIS ARTICLE OF MINE I POSTED ON GREPLAW
<br />SOME TIME AGO. THE REASON IS THAT THEY WERE INTERVIEWING MARCI HAMILTON THIS MORNING
<br />ON WASHINGTON JOURNAL ON CSPAN BECAUSE SHE USED TO CLERK FOR SANDRA
<br />DAY OCONNOR...SO, REPRINTING THIS SEEMED TIMELY TO ME.
<br /><a href="http://grep.law.harvard.edu/comments.pl?sid=1430&op=&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=1033">Hamilton on Why Hunting Students is Right</a>
<br />CODEWARRIORS'S LETTER TO MARCI HAMILTON
<br />I thought the original answer to her was great !
<br />Here is an actual letter I wrote to her at her
<br />e-mail after I read her original article. ~CodeWarrior
<br />
<br />Dear Ms. Hamilton:
<br />
<br />I happened to read your article on why suing college students, is something you
<br />consider, is the right thing to do. I have also become aware that you told
<br />someone that all you received were complaining letters, and thus, I felt
<br />compelled to send you a missive that contains more than just complaints.
<br />
<br />During this letter, I shall quote, with your permission and pursuant to the Fair
<br />Use doctrine and provisions, limited portions of your article to make
<br />illustrations of a critical nature.
<br />
<br />Firstly, since you are an attorney, I believe you probably subscribe to the
<br />general principle known as "equal protection under the law", and in general
<br />theory, although it is meant to apply to federal law enforcement matters, I
<br />believe that it also means that there should not be selective suits against
<br />certain persons of a certain demographic (i.e. age, geographic region, etc.),
<br />when there are other persons equally at fault in a different class of persons
<br />(age, sex, etc.) against whom no action is brought.
<br />
<br />Sp when you say in the title that you think it is right to sue college students,
<br />are you also saying it would be correct to sue minors who download, people who
<br />are not students who download, and every other similarly situated person who
<br />downloads copyrighted materials? I hope so, but from the title, it would seem you
<br />are unfairly targeting young adults engaged in higher education.
<br />
<br />Now, you say the following :
<br />"First, however, it must identify them, and gather evidence of their illegal
<br />activity. Toward this end, subpoenas have already been sent to a number of
<br />universities and Internet Service Providers. Hundreds more are expected in
<br />September, after school starts."
<br />
<br />I believe you should also be aware of the theory of "clean hands", and know how
<br />the absence of clean hands affects plaintiffs in court actions. Are you aware
<br />that in the act of gathering "evidence", that around half of the end user
<br />agreement of Kazaa was violated by the actions executed during this gathering of
<br />evidence. Robot programs, masquerading as human users, entered the system with
<br />the intent of violating at least half of the end user agreement provisions. They
<br />were there to collect information about users, with the end result being to
<br />institute litigation against other users. This is a direct violation, and was
<br />done in an intentional manner by those programming the bot programs which were
<br />under the direction of the RIAA, and thus, we could build a case of respondeat
<br />superior against those persons who intentionally violated the user agreement.
<br />Also, any user entering this network, that agrees to the user agreement , with
<br />the intent of violating said agreement, loses proper authorization to use/enter
<br />the network. This network has communications stored electronically, and thus,
<br />entering and accessing such a network without proper authorization, may be seen
<br />as an intentional and direct violation of USC TITLE 18,Part 1, Chapter 121, Sec.
<br />2701, the criminal code of the US, which prohibits such unauthorized access.
<br />
<br />You said :
<br />"Were it not for copyright's ability to build fences around intangible goods like
<br />lyrics and melodies, a performer like Loretta Lynn would not have been able to
<br />leave Butcher Holler, Kentucky, and share her gifts with the world.". I beg to
<br />differ. They had trains back then that did not demand a copyright registration to
<br />get a boarding pass, so yes, she could have left her home town without copyright
<br />law.
<br />So that was a silly and false comment. Number two, a gentleman like William
<br />Shakespeare, joined luminaries in history like Aristotle, Plato, Luke the
<br />Physician, and others to be able to share their talents and ideas wiht the world
<br />sans copyright protections.
<br />
<br />I don't know if you are a student of copyright law, but US copyright law (not
<br />that WIPO copyright clone, the DMCA) arose from the English copyright law.
<br />English copyright law arose from printers who wanted to control who printed what,
<br />and thus who benefitted from the printing. The King of England got involved,
<br />because he wanted to control the ideas that were coming out, and to control the
<br />press, was to control the availability of speech and ideas. Most historians do in
<br />fact agree that English copyright law was invented out of the dual purposes/
<br />drives, of greed, and the desire to control free speech.
<br />Thus, even our own Copyright Laws, had a less than stellar beginning, and the
<br />stated missions of protecting and promoting art and industry, are so much
<br />puffery, aligning what were less than admirable goals, with noble sounding ones
<br />to increase acceptance .
<br />
<br />You said "In a culture without copyright, only the rich, or the
<br />government-sponsored, could be this culture's full-time creators. Poor artists
<br />like Loretta Lynn would have to flip burgers long into their music careers - and
<br />might even give up on music entirely.".
<br />
<br />Ms. Hamilton, for an attorney, you certainly are prone to speculation for which
<br />you have no evidence.
<br />In the past, there were many, well known artists who did NOT have copyright
<br />protection, but they are people whose name is immediately known, centuries after
<br />their passing. Leonardo Da Vinci was poor, and had to get patrons to survive. In
<br />point of fact, most great artists such as Van Gogh were poor, but they didn't run
<br />around like the RIAA trying to sue everyone into bankruptcy. Certainly, when I
<br />was young, I heard the first time the Beatles song "I want to hold your hand" was
<br />played. I heard it on a brand new transistor radio I got for my birthday and
<br />recorded the song on a Hitachi tape recorder my parents bought me for Christmas.
<br />George , Paul, John, and Ringo did quite well without suing me.
<br />And, over the years, I went on to buy many vinyl 45s, albums, 8 track tapes, and
<br />CDs. If the Beatles had George Martin had announced that anyone recording Beatles
<br />songs off the radio would be sued (of course, this was in the good old days
<br />before the Euro WIPO ******* child of the DMCA), I would probably have never
<br />bought any Beatle albums, and would have hated them instead of cultivating such a
<br />lifelong fondness for their music and contributions. So, in these terms, lawsuits
<br />, especially for the Beatles at that time, would have NOT been the right thing.
<br />Heck, they got enough flak for John saying they were more popular than Jesus (or
<br />was it God...triune spirit maybe).
<br />And, there were copyright laws in the UK and the USA, and I am sure there were
<br />bootleged Beatles records back then, but, no mass lawsuits, and guess what Ms.
<br />Hamilton, they did just fine financially! And, except for sound alike bands like
<br />Badfinger, you didn't have a lot of copyright infringement going on around the
<br />Beatles, or the Stones, or Golden Earring (they've been together since 1961).
<br />
<br />As we proceed down in your article, you try to put forward the notion that only
<br />the government sponsored artists and independently rich ones would survive,
<br />especially in country western music and rock. With all due respect, you are
<br />fabricating a speculative world from whole cloth that never has existed and
<br />probably will not. You are just making statements without facts to back these
<br />statements up. Reading what you said makes me wonder how many musicians you know
<br />personally. For example, do you know Hank Williams III? He does country, ala his
<br />grandfather for folks who like that, but at some point in his performance, tells
<br />the country fans that he is now going to do the music he likes (heavy metal /
<br />rock) and if they don't like it, they should leave. He is NOT a big fan of the
<br />DMCA, copyright laws , nor of the RIAA. And, if you ever took the time to watch
<br />some of the documentaries that aired on television, you would have seen that the
<br />Nashville abandoned the "honky tonk" sound of Hank W. for the Eddy Arnold sound
<br />at one point, almost ashamed of the honky tonk sound, and only later came back to
<br />it. Did Hank the original go around suing people for copyright infringement? Heck
<br />NO. He stayed drunk a lot of the time, he wasn't about to waste his time in
<br />court, but then again, who was infringing back then? And rock, do you KNOW a lot
<br />of rock musicians, and have you personally rapped with them about their opinions?
<br />And I am not talking about the Metallicas of the world, or the Madonnas, I'm
<br />talking about the independent folks. I doubt you have. Point is, you are making
<br />wild, unsubstantiated speculations about something I believe you have little
<br />actual, firsthand knowledge about, and as such, you wouldn't even qualify as an
<br />expert witness in this.
<br />
<br />Then you say : "In the end, then, there is no such thing as cost-free
<br />downloading. It may be fiscally free today, but it will cost society dearly in
<br />the future." I'm sorry ma'am, but again, groundless speculation. You cannot make
<br />a thing so just by saying it.
<br />
<br />You also say this :"The simple, yet crucial reasons why we have copyright in the
<br />first place are easy to forget in the new Information Era. Its utopian early
<br />years led adults and students alike to believe that whatever came across their
<br />computer screen could be - and ought to be - downloaded cost-free. There was a
<br />moment of stunned disbelief: copyright seemed obsolete. "
<br />Please reference the REAL origins of copyright law based in English copyright
<br />law, not some utopian history for copyright law that you want to invent out of
<br />fairy dust.
<br />
<br />Going forward, your argument becomes even weaker and weaker. You say :
<br />"Nevertheless, the industry continued to hemorrhage, dropping approximately 8% in
<br />sales last year. The culprits may well be the new websites, such as KaZaa, which,
<br />unlike Napster, do not depend on centralized servers. These sites accordingly
<br />make it nearly impossible to identify the webhost or master."
<br />
<br />
<br />"KaZaa" is NOT a website. There is a website ABOUT KaZaA, a domain name
<br />kazaa.com, and the KaZaa program is controlled by Sharman Networks, and based on
<br />the FastTrack sharing protocol. To attempt to attribute the drop in sales to the
<br />KaZaa program, Sharman, FastTrack, or downloading activities, is to lack any real
<br />scientific rigor. There is NO proven causal relationship, nor even a good one to
<br />one correlation between downloading and loss of sales. Perhaps the drop in sales
<br />is due to an economy in which most industries have seen their income drop
<br />seriously, or perhaps the music is crapping, or perhaps a thousand other things
<br />such as a decrease in promotion of albums by labels, or perhaps the cost of
<br />albums is so much people are listening to radio more. We could play this perhaps
<br />game ad infinitum, ad nauseum, but it will not allow us to deduce any honestly
<br />derived conclusions about what generated the drop, something which my belief is
<br />multifactorial in etiology anyway.
<br />
<br />And, moving forward with quotes under Fair Use to prove my point, you said :
<br />"The industry then had no choice but to go after users - which meant going after
<br />students - and it did. As soon as it made the decision, copyright didn't seem so
<br />obsolete, after all."
<br />
<br />Sorry Ms. Hamilton, but that is just not true. You obviously do not understand
<br />that they had other options. They could just ignore the trading of files.
<br />Actually, at the time they were allegedly suffering an 8 % drop, compared to
<br />other industries, they were doing fairly well.
<br />
<br />You say "While technology did tend to facilitate illegal downloading,".
<br />Do you mean in the way that copy machines facilitate illegal , unauthorized
<br />reproduction of copyrighted materials like newspaper articles, magazine articles,
<br />chapters from books, etc.?
<br />
<br />OK, I don't believe I am just complaining, but doing a constructive critique of
<br />what you are making representions about. So, let's go forward. You said :
<br />"it did not pose infinite obstacles to figuring out who was committing these
<br />copyright crimes."
<br />Now, Ms. Hamilton, you are getting lost now. The crime of copyright comes under
<br />the NET ACT
<br />or No Electronic Theft Act, and the RIAA has been using the DMCA, for the
<br />contemplation of filing CIVIL acts under federal DMCA provisions, not the NET
<br />Act, since this would imply federal prosecution by the DOJ. And, while we are
<br />talking about criminal copyright violations, have you read the part of the Net
<br />Act that states :
<br />"17 U.S.C. ?? 506 & 507,? 506. Criminal offenses, 2.)...For purposes of this
<br />subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by
<br />itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement." Hmm...that's
<br />an interesting part of that act, n'est pas?
<br />
<br />Further down, you say this "...new rules are not needed; just enforcement of the
<br />old." So, are you saying the DMCA is not needed? If you are saying this, I agree
<br />on this one point.
<br />
<br />Further down, you show a lack of believing in the innocent til proven guilty
<br />maxim of law in the US when you say this : "that is now changing, as violators
<br />are being hunted down. " Shouldn't you say "alleged violators" unless you have
<br />proof that certain persons have been proven to be violating instead of second
<br />hand , hearsay ?
<br />
<br />But then, you appear to get lost again . Instead of dealing with the tort of
<br />copyright infringement, you start talking about criminal copyright issues again,
<br />and I believe you kind of mix and mash these together like mixing gravy with
<br />mashed 'taters, til you get a homogenous admixure that is neither fish nor fowl.
<br />There are different standards with criminal and civil copyright, and different
<br />laws and penalties apply and you really need to get these straight if you
<br />continue acting as if you are some sort of authority in this area. You said
<br />this:"Even the hunt itself has had a chilling effect. Knowing that one is
<br />committing a crime, and may be caught, is scary indeed." How would you know this
<br />Ms. Hamilton? Are you just speculating about this feeling of fright, or is this
<br />the result of hearsay from others? Again, you just spout things without an offer
<br />of proof.
<br />
<br />Then, you get more and more confused. You said this :
<br />"In a lot of ways, downloading is more like shoplifting than it is like "piracy,"
<br />the term often used for it. Pirates embrace a life of crime; shoplifters often
<br />see their activity (wrongly) as an exciting and slightly risky diversion - a
<br />relatively petty vice in an otherwise law-abiding life."
<br />
<br />If you were a layperson, I would let this pass. However; if you have your JD, you
<br />should know better than to say things like you did. First off, as a lawyer, do
<br />you know they criminal code definition of citizens as pirates? Do you know the
<br />definition under Federal USC of "pirates"? I'll help you with that.
<br />
<br />Please feel free to look this up, as I am providing the code section.
<br />"TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 81 > Sec. 1652.
<br />Sec. 1652. - Citizens as pirates
<br />Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder or robbery, or
<br />any act of hostility against the United States, or against any citizen thereof,
<br />on the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince, or
<br />state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be
<br />imprisoned for life."
<br />That's the definition of a US citizen as a pirate, and the punishment.
<br />
<br />Your analogy of shoplifting is just silly Ms. Hamilton. Shoplifting is most often
<br />performed by those working at the stores, employee theft is by far, the largest
<br />inventory loss from "shoplifting". When one shoplifts, that is a crime (depending
<br />on the value of items stolen, it can range, but usually is a misdemeanor in most
<br />jurisdictions). Actions complained of under the DMCA by the RIAA are copyright
<br />infringement violations, not theft. Shoplifting deprives the shop owner of the
<br />value of those items taken. You would have made a better analogy, if you had
<br />compared filesharing to the act of conversion.
<br />Shoplifting involves taking a physical piece of merchandise. When it is taken, it
<br />is no longer there to sell.
<br />When someone downloads a song, the song which was copied, is still there, it was
<br />not stolen from the person it was copied from, especially on filesharing
<br />networks, where you allow someone to download from you, and you can stop them in
<br />the middle of the download if you want to.
<br />
<br />You seem to lack any perspective from history Ms. Hamilton. You say this :
<br />
<br />"The more seriously society takes shoplifting, the more shoplifters will be
<br />deterred."
<br />
<br />Have you ever studied anything about the crime of pickpocketing in England? Well,
<br />the pickpocket was seen as a real problem, and they started killing these people
<br />by hanging them in the public square. These hangings drew large crowds who were
<br />less attentive to their persons while this was going on.
<br />Other pickpockets would turn out in droves to pick the pockets of those watching
<br />the execution of the unlucky pickpocket whose neck was noose adorned. So, think
<br />the deterrence worked on anyone by the poor soul who was the guest of honor (or
<br />dishonor) at the cervical elongation party? I don't!
<br />
<br />Has use of execution stopped murders? Nope. Has the murder rate in Texas just
<br />plummetted because of serial and continuing state mandated executions? Nope.
<br />There are more folks in jail in Texas than many countries, yet, crimes continue,
<br />and the recidivism rate is high as well.
<br />
<br />To point out another instance of your silliness, you say :
<br />"Every law-breaking student has a diploma at stake, and only a scintilla of
<br />students are hardened criminals". Hmm..hardened criminals? What's your definition
<br />of a hardened criminal? Would that be someone who has been convicted of a crime
<br />and suffers from Xeroderma Pigmentosum ?
<br />What exactly ARE your statistics on the number of "students" (you don't specify
<br />here if you are talking about people in kindergarten, elementary school, college,
<br />or what) who happen to be "hardened criminals". And, are hardened criminals more
<br />recalcitrant than softened ones?
<br />
<br />Most of the rest of your article just recapitulates the same, lost and silly
<br />theme with improper analogies.
<br />
<br />You say in the title that it is the RIGHT thing to do, and yet, although I think
<br />I read it reasonably well, I didn't really see where you substantiated the thesis
<br />by showing any real ethical argument about the "rightness" of litigation in this
<br />instance. Again, you got the civil litigation which the RIAA has threatened mixed
<br />up with the "crime" of copyright infringement over and over. You really need to
<br />read Black's legal dictionary about the difference between a tort and a violation
<br />of criminal law. Perhaps a continuing education seminar on tort law, or
<br />re-reading the Second Restatement of Torts is in order.
<br />
<br />You don't quote any great thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Buddha, Lao
<br />Tse, or even philosophers such as Kant and his notion of "the good will" , or
<br />Nietzsche's Superman concept. You could have talked about John Stuart Mil's
<br />notion of what is good. Indeed, it is possible that Mill (who by the way wrote
<br />Principles of Political Economy 184 would agree that downloading is a good thing,
<br />and in the Mill analysis, he asked, basically, you look at whether a thing is
<br />good or not by applying the principle of utilitarianism, simply stated, what
<br />would be the effect if everyone did a thing. Well, from the stats, 60 million are
<br />doing filesharing, so perhaps, Mill would say it is not bad.
<br />
<br />Thus, it seems you just started with an a priori that filesharing should be
<br />litigated, and proceeded to do circular reasoning, by assuming your conclusion.
<br />That is not a rigorous argument for someone featured on a law site.
<br />
<br />So, we can only conclude, without limitation, from the foregoing that you did NOT
<br />prove your thesis. You are confused, are not an expert in those matters which you
<br />decided to talk about, and rather than doing a serious discussion, just kind of
<br />rambled on in a manner to please those who share your opinion, but do so without
<br />critical re-examination of your beliefs.
<br />
<br />Now, so that you cannot say that I just "complained", I offer some sort of
<br />solution to the problem(s).
<br />The RIAA in its own, questionable data, has said that 48 % of the "heaviest
<br />downloaders" do not buy CDs any more. The converse of that is that they are
<br />admitting that the majority (52% of the "heaviest downloaders") are still buying
<br />RIAA affiliated CDs ! So, in fact, the RIAA is targetting its own paying
<br />customers. Is it right to sue your customers? Hmm..not a smart move, as to the
<br />"rightness" of it, I would say, in my opinion, I say NO, it is not "right". It is
<br />also not very smart, as the CD sales continue to plummet despite the "Sue the
<br />World" approach of Mr. Sherman and his cronies.
<br />
<br />Thus, downloaders are still buying CDs. It is generally accepted in the music
<br />buying community, that there is problem with "buying a pig in a poke", that you
<br />might have heard one cut from a CD and buy the CD at 15 or 20 dollars, and find
<br />the rest of the CD is horrible filler, digitial offal (not awful, "offal").
<br />
<br />Do you buy a car without a test drive? Do you buy a suit without trying it on? Do
<br />you buy a stereo without listening to it? NOPE, NOPE,NOPE,NOPE. So, shouldn't
<br />people be able to "sample" songs from a CD they are thinking of buying? Yes.
<br />There are independent, and even established musicians (e.g. Danny O'Keefe, as an
<br />established singer/songwriter) who offer samples of all songs on a CD on their
<br />websites. This would give people some idea of what the songs on a CD sound like
<br />without giving up 15 to 20 dollars and then feeling ripped off. They don't have
<br />to be CD quality either, they could just be mediocre quality MP3s, and not even
<br />the whole song, but enough where potential purchasers could get the feel of the
<br />song.
<br />
<br />That's just one suggestion, but it's enough so that my letter cannot just be
<br />dismissed as "complaints".
<br />
<br />Unfortunately, if I were to grade your article as a paper, I would have to give
<br />you a "62". You didn't prove your thesis at all.
<br />
<br />And, if you are an attorney, who should arguably be skilled in the art of
<br />argument, that's just sad
<br />Ms. Hamilton.
<br />
<br />Have a nice day.
<br />~CodeWarrior
<br /><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/codewarriorz-thoughts-response-to.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

EiTB24.com

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<a href="http://www.eitb24.com/noticia_en.php?id=73054">EiTB24.com</a>
<br />
<br />Grammy winner Luther Vandross dies. Not release cause of death
<br />
<br />A statement says that Vandross "never really recovered" from a stroke two years ago. Vandross also battled weight problems for years while suffering from diabetes and hypertension.
<br />
<br />Grammy award winner Luther Vandross, whose deep, lush voice on such hits as "Here and Now" and "Any Love" provided the romantic backdrop for millions of couples worldwide, has died. He was 54.
<br />
<br />Vandross died on Friday at John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Edison, New Jersey, a hospital spokesman said. He did not release the cause of death but said in a statement that Vandross "never really recovered" from a stroke two years ago. Vandross also battled weight problems for years while suffering from diabetes and hypertension.
<br />
<br />Since the stroke in his Manhattan home on April 16, 2003, the R&B crooner stopped making public appearances - but amazingly managed to continue his recording career. In 2004, he captured four Grammys as a sentimental favourite, including best song for the bittersweet "Dance With My Father".
<br />
<br />Vandross sold more than 25 (m) million albums and was arguably the most celebrated R&B balladeer of his generation. He made women swoon with his silky yet forceful tenor, which he often revved up like a motor engine before reaching his beautiful crescendos.
<br />
<br />Four-time Grammy winner
<br />
<br />Vandross was a four-time Grammy winner in the best male R&B performance category, taking home the trophy in 1990 for the single "Here and Now", in 19** for his album "Power of Love", in 1996 for the track "Your Secret Love" and a last time for "Dance With My Father". The album, with its single of the same name, debuted at Number 1 on the Billboard charts while Vandross remained hospitalised from his stroke. It was the first time a Vandross album had topped the charts in its first week of release.
<br />
<br />In 2005, he was nominated for a Soul Train Music Award for a duet with Beyonce on "The Closer I Get To You". Vandross' sound was so unusual few tried to copy it; even fewer could. "I'm proud of that - it's one of the things that I'm most proud of," he told The Associated Press in a 2001 interview, adding: "I was never compared to anyone in terms of sound."
<br />
<br />Vandross' style harkened back to a more genteel era of crooning. While many of his contemporaries and successors belted out tunes that were sexually charged and explicit, Vandross preferred soft pillow talk and songs that spoke to heartfelt emotions.
<br />
<br />A career in music seemed predestined for the New York native; both his parents were singers, and his sister, Patricia, was part of a 1950s group called the Crests. But he happily toiled in the musical background for years before he would have his first hit. He wrote songs for projects as varied as a David Bowie album ("Fascination") and the Broadway musical "The Wiz" ("Everybody Rejoice (Brand New Day)"), sang backup for acts such as Donna Summer and Barbra Streisand and even became a leading commercial jingle singer.
<br />
<br />First big hit
<br />
<br />Vandross' first big hit came as the lead vocalist for the group Change, with their 1980 hit, "The Glow of Love". That led to a recording contract with Epic Records and in 1981, he made his solo recording debut with the disc "Never Too Much". The album, which contained his aching rendition of "A House is Not a Home", became an instant classic.
<br />
<br />Over the years, Vandross would emerge as the leading romantic singer of his generation, racking up one platinum album after another and charting several R&B hits, such as "Superstar," "Give Me The Reason" and "Love Won't Let Me Wait". Yet, while Vandross was a household name in the black community, he was frustrated by his failure to become a mainstream pop star. Indeed, it took Vandross until 1990 to score his first top 10 hit - the wedding staple "Here & Now".
<br />
<br />Another frustration for Vandross was his lifelong battle with obesity. Health problems ran in his family, and Vandross struggled for years to control his waistline. When he first became a star, he was a hefty size; a few years later, he was almost skinny.
<br />
<br />His weight fluctuated so much that rumours swirled that he had more serious health problems than the hypertension and diabetes caused by his large frame. Vandross' two sisters and a brother died before him. The lifelong bachelor never had any children, but doted on his nieces and nephews. The entertainer said his busy lifestyle made marriage difficult; besides, it wasn't what he wanted.
<br />===================SNIP===================
<br /> Thank you for all your great music! Rest in Peace.
<br />
<br /><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/07/eitb24com.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

CNN.com - Novak: 'I will reveal all'? - Jun 30, 2005

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.
<br />
<br />Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.
<br />
<br />Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.
<br />
<br />ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
<br />
<br />BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
<br />
<br />HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
<br />
<br />HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
<br />
<br />HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
<br />
<br />==========SNIP======================
<br />I personally believe NOVAK should be on trial...after all,
<br />he was the rotten, slime covered pipe from which the information first leaked apparently from the article...
<br />
<br />PUT NOVAK ON TRIAL!</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/06/cnncom-novak-i-will-reveal-all-jun-30.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

CNN.com - Novak: 'I will reveal all'? - Jun 30, 2005

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.
<br />
<br />Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.
<br />
<br />Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.
<br />
<br />ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
<br />
<br />BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
<br />
<br />HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
<br />
<br />HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
<br />
<br />HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
<br />
<br />==========SNIP======================
<br />I personally believe NOVAK should be on trial...after all,
<br />he was the rotten, slime covered pipe from which the information first leaked apparently from the article...
<br />
<br />PUT NOVAK ON TRIAL!</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/06/cnncom-novak-i-will-reveal-all-jun-30.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

CNN.com - Novak: 'I will reveal all'? - Jun 30, 2005

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.
<br />
<br />Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.
<br />
<br />Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.
<br />
<br />ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
<br />
<br />BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
<br />
<br />HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
<br />
<br />HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
<br />
<br />HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
<br />
<br />==========SNIP======================
<br />I personally believe NOVAK should be on trial...after all,
<br />he was the rotten, slime covered pipe from which the information first leaked apparently from the article...
<br />
<br />PUT NOVAK ON TRIAL!</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/06/cnncom-novak-i-will-reveal-all-jun-30.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

CNN.com - Novak: 'I will reveal all'? - Jun 30, 2005

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.
<br />
<br />Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.
<br />
<br />Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.
<br />
<br />ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
<br />
<br />BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
<br />
<br />HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
<br />
<br />HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
<br />
<br />HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
<br />
<br />==========SNIP======================
<br />I personally believe NOVAK should be on trial...after all,
<br />he was the rotten, slime covered pipe from which the information first leaked apparently from the article...
<br />
<br />PUT NOVAK ON TRIAL!</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/06/cnncom-novak-i-will-reveal-all-jun-30.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

CNN.com - Novak: 'I will reveal all'? - Jun 30, 2005

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.
<br />
<br />Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.
<br />
<br />Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.
<br />
<br />ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
<br />
<br />BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
<br />
<br />HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
<br />
<br />HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
<br />
<br />HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
<br />
<br />==========SNIP======================
<br />I personally believe NOVAK should be on trial...after all,
<br />he was the rotten, slime covered pipe from which the information first leaked apparently from the article...
<br />
<br />PUT NOVAK ON TRIAL!</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/06/cnncom-novak-i-will-reveal-all-jun-30.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Collapse -

CNN.com - Novak: 'I will reveal all'? - Jun 30, 2005

by codewarrior.wins In reply to CodeWarriorz Thoughts

<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNN) -- Time Inc. announced Thursday it will turn over the subpoenaed records from journalist Matt Cooper regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name, following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal in the case.
<br />
<br />Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller are facing up to four months in jail for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in the matter to a grand jury.
<br />
<br />Chicago Sun-Times columnist and CNN political analyst Bob Novak was the first to reveal the CIA employee's identity and CNN's Ed Henry spoke with Novak Wednesday about the ruling.
<br />
<br />ED HENRY: Bob, first, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court saying they would not hear this case?
<br />
<br />BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, though, you believe in the principle of keeping the identity secret of confidential sources. Have you ever revealed the identity of one of your confidential sources?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, people know -- who have read my column know there have been special case where I have. But the question of being coerced to by the government and being put in prison is, I think, something that should be protected by act of Congress.
<br />
<br />HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.
<br />
<br />HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.
<br />
<br />HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...
<br />
<br />NOVAK: Yes, you do did.
<br />
<br />HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.
<br />
<br />NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.
<br />
<br />HENRY: We'll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.
<br />
<br />==========SNIP======================
<br />I personally believe NOVAK should be on trial...after all,
<br />he was the rotten, slime covered pipe from which the information first leaked apparently from the article...
<br />
<br />PUT NOVAK ON TRIAL!</div><p><div class="blogdisclaim"><a href="http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/2005/06/cnncom-novak-i-will-reveal-all-jun-30.html">This post originally appeared on an external website</a></div>

Related Discussions

Related Forums