so you work for your employer (i assume you’re employed) against your consent? 

fuuuuuck off

so if these shirts were in use for some time prior there would be shots of inmates in those shirts. Do those photos exist?

So if i said, wanna chip in for lunch? You would expect the money you chip in to be used for part of my gas and the movie im going to later that night OR you would expect all of your funds to go to the LUNCH i asked you to chip in for?

what about basketball or baseball?

i can appreciate an effort to educate people on the proper usage of phrases (the worst imo: “intents and purposes” vs. “intensive purposes”; clearly the latter is wrong and all who say it should be put to sea on a raft)

HAHAHAHAHA!

so when do you want to get together and start recording the new eps of our podcast? 

again, i disagree with your ultimate conclusion re: ownership of account and value of said account. you can take out a pen and paper and copy the info, you could also use a xerox to do it... still theft of trade secrets.

haha well lets just be clear about one thing. I have no fucking clue how this will shake out... I see your point. I dont think its entirely wrong. I have seen cases similar to this resolve in surprising ways. I enjoyed the discussion. Lets meet back here when this all resolves. 

thats interesting. I would argue they are consumers of the product facilitated by and distributed through the newspapers proprietary means (their twitter account) their contact information as subscribers is proprietary as it was collected by the papers social media account as a result of those individuals consuming…

fair enough. i concede it def isn’t “cut and dry” - as most legal issues aren’t.

the actual monetary value in terms of selling your phone on ebay? no.

i imagine the value of the account is in the click-through rate from articles and news breaks posted to the account itself. the followers of the account followed it likely because of the information added to it which was facilitated by the employment of the reporter which granted him access to the account itself.

“if you wanted to copy it before they would not sue because you copied your contacts. That information itself isn’t that valuable. They aren’t wiping his twitter account when they get it back.”

they do claim ownership over the address book in a number of industries where client base equals revenue flow. This seems like theft of trade secrets... which it is

inaccurate.. he was working FOR the paper. his work is FOR the paper. The paper owns the account. but good luck in your labor and employment practice

.

that was the point. The two pictures you posted are of the same guy. The comment was just vague enough in its wording to make it seem as though you were saying they were two different guys who looked similar. not a big deal just a little confusing to parse out what you were getting at due to the simplicity of its…

already happened 4 days ago.