Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Your Rights Online Entertainment Games News

Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk 104

Posted by Zonk from the battening-down-the-hatches dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A poster on DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer has posted the weekly ads for Circuit City, Best Buy, and Target ahead of time for the last few years. A few weeks ago he confirmed that there was an intended price break on the PS3 and stole Sony's thunder from E3. A Circuit City ad was used for confirmation. Circuit City has threatened DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer.com to give them personal information about the poster. CheapAssGamer has hired a lawyer and is going to fight. The story is similar to the Black Friday ads being posted early and FatWallet fighting back."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk More

Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk

Comments Filter:

  • What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quila ( 201335 ) on Friday August 10, 2007 @02:42PM (#20187289)
    A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW). They are reasonably, and according to legal procedure, trying to get information from a third party to help identify the thief. It is the responsibility of that third party to provide such information.

    Let's not confuse privacy with shielding yourself from just punishment for your actions.

    • Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Friday August 10, 2007 @02:47PM (#20187367)
      Troll? Sounds like we've got some rather childish folks wielding moderator points today. The parent post made an excellent point. This is corporate strategy that should be kept secret - huge sums of money ride on generating successful buzz. If a competitor got ahold of this information they could do such things as cutting their price and announcing it the day before to make the other company appear reactionary.

      That may appear to be big things - but what if you were a stock holder who knew this was going to happen, etc etc. They ARE big things. This was a violation of company trust. The violator should be fired, if nothing else. They have every right to find out who did it.
      • Indeed. Those things are generally kept secret for a reason. Imagine how their sales dropped off once word got out that the exact same items will become cheaper three days later?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawk ( 1151 )
          Can anyone say, "Osborne Computer"?

          hawk

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Simon80 ( 874052 )
            The Osborne computer thing was a myth, they went down for other reasons.. see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/20/no_osborne _effect_at_osborne/ [theregister.co.uk]

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hawk ( 1151 )
              Interesting, but that explanation by one tech just doesn't sound plausible.

              That $2M would be Osborne's margin on something like 3,000 machines (certainly less than 4,000 with the margins in the industry at the time). Osborne had sales in excess of $1M/month, and in excess of 10k units/months. A single $2M error would have hurt, badly, but nothing compared to a 25% sales drop for a a period of months . . .

              hawk

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Simon80 ( 874052 )
                If you put the two of them together though, it's possible that the blame all lies with the $2M, if the company would have survived otherwise.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by hawk ( 1151 )
                  But if you lose $10m from one thing, and $2M from another, it's hard to call the $10M a "myth" . . .

                  hawk

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by GeckoX ( 259575 )
        Yes, quite.

        When will people get it through their thick skulls that just because you don't agree with something, it's not necessarily a troll or flamebait.

        Personally, I think Troll and Flamebait are useless and just cause trouble. They provide nothing but hurt feelings and arguments, when overrated, offtopic, wrong or unfunny would suffice. /. really does need wrong and unfunny moderations though.
        • /. really does need wrong and unfunny moderations though.

          I think it's pretty clear that most moderators use "Troll" and "Flamebait" as surrogates to the mods you suggest.
        • I vote for Inciteful

        • Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Friday August 10, 2007 @03:39PM (#20188223)
          How about a (+1 Everyone Is Special) moderation?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nuzak ( 959558 )
          Overrated is also a nice loophole to moderation, since it's immune to meta-moderation.

          I think it's ridiculous. Just give everyone plus and minus buttons. It's just blind pretension to assume that the restricted moderation model is actually working any better.

          • It's just blind pretension to assume that the restricted moderation model is actually working any better.
            The point of categorizing moderation is that it allows you to go into your preferences and modify scores to suit your reading. I personally add modifiers to Troll modded comments to make sure they come on in my reading because a lot of them are pretty amusing. B)

            + and - wouldn't let you have that kind of control.

          • Just give everyone plus and minus buttons. It's just blind pretension to assume that the restricted moderation model is actually working any better.

            That's what happens on Digg and the moderation there is totally useless. I'm not exaggerating; it doesn't serve the stated purpose in the slightest. Moderation either appears entirely random, or in other cases it's clear that certain groups (I'm thinking particularly of Apple fanboys) kneejerk moderate certain types of comments up/down en masse. But even if you agree with a lot of the groupthink and want filtering on that basis, the overall effect is still of randomness that makes it totally worthless. I'm

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by eric76 ( 679787 )
          There is a time for troll or flamebait, but the terms are as likely to be used wrong by moderators who really don't understand the meaning of the terms or who were ignorant of the facts and assumed that the poster was trolling when they actually made an interesting and on-topic comment.

          I agree that "wrong" would be quite useful.

        • Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Funny)

          by 2names ( 531755 ) on Friday August 10, 2007 @04:01PM (#20188589)
          I wish there was a way to go back to your own old posts and mod yourself down.

          I have re-read posts of mine and thought, "What the hell was I thinking?"

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawk ( 1151 )
          Exactly. "Troll" and "Flamebait" actually mean, "Fails to grant all glory and honor to the One True Licesnse" (err, now that GPL V3 is here, which one *is* the One True License??? :)

          hawk

        • Personally, I think Troll and Flamebait are useless and just cause trouble. They provide nothing but hurt feelings and arguments, when overrated, offtopic, wrong or unfunny would suffice. /. really does need wrong and unfunny moderations though.

          Spoken like someone who doesn't read at -1. There's plenty of legit trolling and flamebait on slashdot.

          Go here [slashdot.org], set troll, flamebait, redundant, and offtopic to +6 each. Set the rest to -6. Then hit a thread like this one [slashdot.org]. I don't think I see a single post in tha

      • Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Quila ( 201335 ) on Friday August 10, 2007 @03:01PM (#20187561)
        The anti-business hippies are out there, anything that screws "tha man" is a Good Thing. I've been maxxed on karma for years, so I'm not too worried.

        I also don't think this case is equivalent to the Best Buy case as mentioned in the article. CC is trying to get to the trade secret thief. Best Buy tried to claim copyright on the information posted at Fat Wallet and sent a DMCA takedown notice to the web site itself. The problem is you can't copyright information (see the Feist decision), so the Best Buy's actions were fraudulent.
        • And I agree with you. Sort of. Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA. As you mention, prices are facts and not subject to copyright. Therefore, the wrongdoing in this case hinges on whether or not the leaker had signed some sort of NDA. However, it is not likely anyone who hasn't signed an NDA would have legitimate access to that information, and so that person should have to defend their actions in court.

          A person's decision to uphold the rights of others should never hinge on whether you like them, agree with their politics, or the actions they have taken outside of the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter whether they are a big fish or a small fry. Rights must be universal.
          • Stealing corporate secrets is also wrong if you stole them.

            If someone w/o a NDA breaks into a system (physically or electronically) and steals information not under copyright (say the process for manufacturing a pharmaceutical) not only is the break in wrong, but the use or distribution of the data by a third party is also wrong.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by spun ( 1352 )
              I knew that I phrased that wrong. What if you are an employee who did not sign an NDA, but you have access to that information? The information is not protected by copyright, it made up of simple facts. What it to keep you from sharing that with others?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by cdrguru ( 88047 )
                If you work for a company that did sign such an NDA, then the company can be liable for releasing the information improperly.

                If the company that owns the secret gives you the information, they are then not handling the information as trade secret and lose any possible protection.

                Pretty much, if you come into contact with information that is trade secret and are not under some agreement not to disclose it, the information is being mishandled. Period. Either the information is not really trade secret becaus

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dbcad7 ( 771464 )
                  The guy posting below this thread was a newspaper carrier. One in a long chain of people who had advance access to advertising information without any NDA.

                  Many "chain stores" also supply sale information in advance to their stores, so that department managers can get an idea if they need to stock up on products. I seriously doubt even these department managers sign NDA's either. Now the company may not like the outcome, and may now make all people with such access sign an NDA's going forward... But I think

          • Working as a carrier for a local newspaper, I had advanced knowledge of sales and was not bound by a NDA. I was even permitted to deliver the Sunday adds on the previous Wednesday evening. The practice was frowned on because there were occasions where people took the adds to the store and demanded the sale price before the sale was to start.

          • Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA.

            Wrong? That is a subjective term. Revealing trade secrets is illegal in most of the US under most situations. Copyright and NDA's don't have anything to do with the legality.

            A person's decision to uphold the rights of others should never hinge on whether you like them, agree with their politics, or the actions they have taken outside of the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter whether they are a big fish or a small fry. Rights must be universal.

            Well, this is sort of true. Rights should be applied universally and equitably to all people, and maybe even to some degree to animals. We're talking, however, about the rights of a corporation. A corporation is not a person, it is a legal construct and legitimacy of a corporations' rights are very much a point of debate. The legi

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by spun ( 1352 )
              Wow, I'm going to look up trade secret laws now. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to know how they work, because if you are right about this, then I was very mistaken.

              You bring up a good point about corporations, and about ethics as well. Food for thought, thanks.
            • Corporations aren't entities of their own They are extensions of their owners and carry the same rights of their owners. They are treated like separate entities because with silent owners, there needs to be a way to protect their interest while shielding them from actions caused by the company but not by their direction.

              As far as I am concerned, there is no debate over them. Once you remove all the magical smoke and mirrors of the law, they are still owned by people who have rights and those rights are exte

              • Corporations aren't entities of their own They are extensions of their owners and carry the same rights of their owners. They are treated like separate entities because with silent owners, there needs to be a way to protect their interest while shielding them from actions caused by the company but not by their direction.

                I don't think you understand the relationship between rights and responsibilities. You state that there must be a way for people exercise their rights, while being protected from the liability, but if you're profiting from actions, then you are partially responsible for those actions. I don't see it as a given that investors should not lose rights in correspondence with their lack of responsibility for the actions of their agents.

                It is impossible to escape that and still live in a free society.

                There is no fundamental right to form a corporation and be protected from

                • don't think you understand the relationship between rights and responsibilities. You state that there must be a way for people exercise their rights, while being protected from the liability, but if you're profiting from actions, then you are partially responsible for those actions. I don't see it as a given that investors should not lose rights in correspondence with their lack of responsibility for the actions of their agents.

                  I take it that you have never owned a business or participated in the owner sh

                  • I take it that you have never owned a business or participated in the owner ship of one.

                    Actually, I've done both.

                    This is probably going to hard for you to understand but there is a degree of separability from action I'm not directly connected with.

                    Your degree of responsibility, however, corresponds with your degree of involvement. If you're profiting from actions, you're partially responsible.

                    If I loan you money for whatever reason and you ignore that reason and decide to buy a gun ad go killing people, Should I be just as responsible as you?

                    Of course not. If, however, you loan me money for a gun, knowing I'm likely to do something criminal with it, and you charge me interest on that loan, then you may well be guilty of conspiracy. Your analogy does not apply because shareholders can vote on the actions of the corporation, and because shareholders profit from the act

                    • Actually, I've done both.

                      Somehow I doubt this. Maybe it is you stance or lack of understanding or maybe it is how I read your reply and although you want to argue differently, you make the exact same points I made but somehow it only counts for your position. I'll take your word for it but I feel like I'm about to get scammed.

                      Your degree of responsibility, however, corresponds with your degree of involvement. If you're profiting from actions, you're partially responsible.

                      Mere profiting doesn't represen

          • "And I agree with you. Sort of. Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA."

            I'd say many NDA's are wrong to begin with. If a company doesn't want people knowing, I can see NDA's for workers, but what if the company is going out of its way to give "sneak peeks" of a product not already finished like in the games industry? I mean sometimes I think businesses are just asking for the impossible, kind of like prohibition where you know you wont be abl
        • I dunno if pricing schedules are really a 'trade secret' tho. I guess they changed the definition of 'trade secret' when I wasn't looking.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by dmpyron ( 1069290 )
            Very much a trade secret. If the documents were properly labeled, that is. Too often a company will claim "trade secret" without treating it as such. It has to be marked with something that indicates that it's private and proprietary. Like having those words stamped on it. I've been doing this game for a long time.

            Now, if I was said poster, I'd be using a Yahoo email address with all fake data and posting from free hotspots.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by eric76 ( 679787 )
              If it is a trade secret, wouldn't they really only be able to file a lawsuit (well, win a lawsuit) against someone who had never signed an agreement to keep it secret?

              I know nothing about the particulars of thise case. If it is being leaked prior to being sent to the publications, then there is a good chance it is an employee who leaked it in violation of agreements they would undoubtedly be required to sign.

              If it is being leaked by an employee of a publication, unless that employee had signed some confide

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by m2943 ( 1140797 )
          The anti-business hippies are out there, anything that screws "tha man" is a Good Thing. I've been maxxed on karma for years, so I'm not too worried.

          Trade secrets are valuable and important, but that doesn't mean that companies should be able to use the legal system as part of their investigation.

          A lot of trade secret information is acquired by perfectly legal means. Allowing companies to force other companies to disclose how they obtained trade secret information is itself anti-business.
      • They have every right to find out who did it.

        Keeping trade secrets is the responsibility of the company and of the company alone; in general, they do not have a right to use the legal system to help them in their investigations.

        The violator should be fired, if nothing else.

        He should be; but it's the company's responsibility to identify him using only the means available to them, nobody else's.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cdrguru ( 88047 )
          There is no person - there is only an id on a website. You might be able to tie this to an IP address. You cannot connect this to a person, no matter how hard you might wish for it. This ultimately means there can be no accountability.
      • I was able to find the words "freedom of press" in the bill of rights without much trouble, but I am having trouble find which article of the constitution guaranteed the right of corporations to make money? When to publish advertisement data could be considered a coprorate stratagy, what the advertisement says is a fact and if it was not considered news worthy then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Things are not considered corporate secrets based on how much money they can make a company, they hav
    • but these are basically news sites and would be "journalists". The leaks have to be coming from somebody with the info... they need to keep better track or be more "impromptu" with their deals. Their first order of business should be to clean their own house...not sue in court. Then take it out on advertising companies!!! Let them deal with their employees by laying off half a press crew when they loose work. Those are LEGAL tools to use, not suing for IP logs from a news site.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Quila ( 201335 )

        but these are basically news sites and would be "journalists"
        That's stretching the definition of "journalist" a bit thin.

        Their first order of business should be to clean their own house...not sue in court.
        I'd bet CC already tried an internal investigation to try to catch the guy, and the court is a last resort. Money's on he works somewhere in relation to the companies that CC contracts to print the ads.

      • Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Informative)

        by InsaneGeek ( 175763 ) <slashdot.insanegeeks@com> on Friday August 10, 2007 @03:11PM (#20187713) Homepage
        So in your opinion it's better to lay off a bunch of innocent people than to request the log files from a website? It's better for a bunch of people with family's to get laid off, possibly lose their house, car, etc than it is to request the log files from a website... glad you aren't in charge of the world.

        And just so you know, a subpoena is a LEGAL court order to turn over records, which is completely different than suing.
        • If Circuit City is a bad company (e.g., if they don't protect their inventory or business information against theft as well as their competitors), then Circuit City should go out of business and lay off their employees. Another company will then fill that market niche and re-hire those employees (at least those that are worth hiring). That's how a free market works. Companies are replacable and workers are mobile. How you care for your family and whether you can afford luxuries like a home and a car, is
        • but somebody breached confidentiality... it's not the "reporters" fault they have information and they shouldn't be harassed. On the other hand Companies sign contracts for big money with the stipulation they maintain secrets. If their employees don't keep the secrets, everybody suffers. That's the CONTRACT that was signed. We need to stop bending rules that used to be "immutable" simply because the proper course of action will hurt a bunch of people that didn't hold up their end of the deal. I can guara
    • The problem is this. The user of that website is (most likely) not affiliated with the organizations of CheapAssGamer or whatever other forums he/she is posting through. Being a member of a community does not make you a member of the organization, and therefore the organization that put the community together cannot be held responsible for the individual's actions. Think of it as the disclaimer you see before, during, and after infomercials on TV; the views expressed in this program do not necessarily re

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by MLS100 ( 1073958 )
        Entities that have information that could identify a criminal have been getting subpoenaed for quite some time. This has nothing to do with any fault of the entity being subpoenaed. This is why they are not bringing suit against the site itself for the user's actions, only formally requesting they deliver information to the court via subpoena.

        MLS

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Quila ( 201335 )
        Third parties get subpoenaed all the time to provide evidence in cases. Basically, if you have any relevant, specific information to any case, civil or criminal, it is your responsibility to give it up. If the information is sensitive you can get a protective order for it. About the only excuse I can think of right now for not giving it up is attorney-client privilege, and I don't see that applying here.

        I HATE seeing the "privacy" shield being thrown up in cases like this. It denigrates the term for everyon

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mosch ( 204 )
      A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW).

      Misappropriation of trade secrets is not necessarily a felony.

      And last I checked, companies aren't responsible for finding and convicting criminal offenders.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Quila ( 201335 )

        Misappropriation of trade secrets is not necessarily a felony.
        It appears Circuit City decided not to file a complaint with the district attorney, and is instead seeking its rightful civil remedies. State laws on this differ, although most have it as a felony, and I believe federal law does too.

    • Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tsheriffk ( 750882 ) on Friday August 10, 2007 @04:20PM (#20188907)
      is this really a corporate secret though? Anyone ever wonder why all name brand electronics are the same price whereever you go? All these items have MAP (minimum advertised price) restrictions that they must adhere to. All this means is that ALL retailers will be able to sell the PS3 for the new lower MAP price. Just because it leaked out of a CC ad, this price reduction is not going to be a CC only sale. I know i am assuming a bit on my last statement, but obviously unless they are doind one of those "instant rebate" type of sales, this price reduction would have been made by everyone. In addition, anyone that purchased the device ahead of the sale could get a price match, so they arent going to be making any more money on this is the info doesnt leak out. There is a lot of hoopla over nothing on this, where although CC is probably within their rights to seek out who is leaking it, are they really going to accomplish anything positive? Now all the gamers are pissed at them. I am sure they would still purchase from CC if they have the best price on stuff in the future, but if prices are the same they may be skipped over for an online or "less evil" (in their minds) retailer. And in the age of MAP pricing, how often are their really huge deals at one retailer over another?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Let's not confuse privacy with shielding yourself from just punishment for your actions.

      For my money it's less about privacy than sheilding the [cash|attention] cow that brings eyeballs and notoriety to CaG.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Newspaper ads do not constitute trade secrets. Internal memos MIGHT, but a sheet of paper you print MILLIONS of for the express purpose of handing out to the public does not.

    • not so fast (Score:2, Insightful)

      by m2943 ( 1140797 )
      A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW).

      Trade secret theft is a felony, but publishing trade secret information is not in general. In order to go after anybody, they first have to establish that a theft occurred. If they can't make a convincing argument to that effect, the presumption is that they simply handled their trade secret information carelessly, and that does not give them rights to go after anybody or infringe anybody's rights to anonymo

  • Is it worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RichPowers ( 998637 ) on Friday August 10, 2007 @02:51PM (#20187405)
    Speedy1961 regularly posts BestBuy, CC, and Target prices weeks in advance on CAG's forums. As a testament to his accuracy, Gamespot and other sites use his info in stories relating to price drops, as was the case with the PS3.

    My monthy videogame expenditures have increased thanks to CAG, but I'm actually getting more games now that I know where to shop. Prior to CAG, I would only purchase videogames online. Now I venture into brick and mortar stores like CC during their sales.

    But thanks to these events, I won't be shopping at CC ever again, and I'm sure other CAGers have similar sentiments. By virtue of being a price comparison/deals website, CAG attracts more "principled" and informed consumers. Is it worth pissing off 100,000 such people, CC? Even if this is a valid case, people will be pissed if their favorite "inside" man is silenced.
    • 100,000 people? You severely overestimate that number. If you see one-fiftieth that number get pissed off enough to stop shopping at CC over this (and I mean people who actually shopped there, not people who never shopped there and now say "Nah, I'm not gonna buy from there now"), I'll be surprised as hell.
    • By virtue of being a price comparison/deals website, CAG attracts more "principled" and informed consumers.

      Others might argue that CAG attracts some, well, cheapasses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zoward ( 188110 )
        Last Christmas, CAG's members donated over $10,000 to Child's Play. We're not misers, we just want good deals on videogames.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ucla74 ( 1093323 )
      So, criminal activity is okay, as long as you benefit from it? Because that's certainly the inference I'm drawing from your position.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by eric76 ( 679787 )
        What is the likelihood that he has signed any kind of confidentiality agreement with Circuit City?

        If has signed no confidentiality agreement, are his actions criminal?
    • Speedy1961 is the main reason I got a wii. I was able to see when the sale date was and was able to schedule time off to go sit out in front of the store. When I bought that wii I also bought an extra controller, nunchuck, memcard, and two games. I would not have done that if I wasn't able to plan for it. Every time I called best buy for a date when the wii would be there they just brushed me off. Even the day before the sale. Best Buy also does not release their ad till the Sunday of the sale even on
  • What a waste of time. I suppose the bottom feeders like lawyers need jobs too though. What's next? Prison time for somebody that released sale ads on the internet...oh my, the criminals out there have gotten hard core haven't they?! I'm sure glad I pay taxes so we can keep these dangerous criminals behind bars, now if they'd do something about the clowns so I can sleep at night.
  • In the case of the sony PS3 wouldn't it be sony that would be out since the price drop was across the board with the PS3? I've worked at Best Buy and we would get information before a major sale and usually would have the flier posted in the break room a few days in advanced. I know most places price match competitors and their own in 30 days. so even if circuit city had an item for less the day of the sale i can't see where this would a determent to Circuit city since you can have best buy match the lowest
  • Don't these sites also have disclaimers such as /.'s

    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    to nullifying any case against said websites and forcing Circuit City to take up any lawsuits with the user posting items/comments/etc?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      Well, sure. Except the web site operators are the only ones with any way to even remotely identify the person behind the posting. Without their assistance, there is no way to find the poster.

      Besides, all they are likely to get is an email address (probably anonymous) and an IP address. It does not lead to identifying the actual poster, just the computer used for posting.

      Sorry, this is the Internet. Until there is a way to connect a person with an IP address or there is a law that says the account holder
    • They are not being sued for the article/posting, per se. They are being sued for the identity of the poster.

      Big difference.
  • A few years back it seemed like there was this huge gray area regarding who is or isn't an online journalist but recent cases have come down in favor of erring on the side of caution. CC should have taken a look at how well Apple faired and never even filed the case. I realize the cases are not quite the same but this still sounds like a Freedom of the Press issue.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close