backtop

Print 56 comment(s) - last by spydernk.. on Feb 25 at 12:39 PM

MagicJack sued news site Boing Boing after it wrote an expose revealing that MagicJack's website had faked services and that the company spied on its users. MagicJack has lost the suit and been order to pay damages.  (Source: Boing Boing)
Company finds that bullying news writers doesn't always work out so well

The news industry on the surface is a level playing field in which competitors look to showcase their products and services and writers seek to share information on events and products in as unbiased a manner as possible.  In reality its far from that.  Corporate bullying, payoffs, and subterfuge are sadly very commonplace -- as illustrated by DailyTech founder Kris Kubicki's now famous exposé on payola in the tech news industry.

For those sites and writers in the News Industry who strive for free speech and honesty, it's often a tough fight.  This was illustrated in the case of MagicJack v. Boing Boing.  Boing Boing, a tech news site, in April 2008 wrote a scathing review of MagicJack's flagship product, a USB dongle that allows users to place free or inexpensive calls over the internet.  

In the article, Boing Boing revealed that many aspects of MagicJack's site were fake -- namely its user counter was rigged to be a self-incrementing variable (regardless of actual user numbers) and the help service produced inaccurate results, stating that it was "scanning" your system and reporting "Your MagicJack is functioning properly" even if you didn't have one installed.  

More importantly, Boing Boing pointed out that the EULA -- not available at the point of service or on the company's website -- signed away users' rights.  The EULA allowed MagicJack to snoop on your calls and use them to target their ads at you.  It also contained legal languages that attempted to sign away your rights to sue them (such provisions usually don't hold up in court).

In response to the piece, MagicJack sued Boing Boing for defamation in March 2009 in Marin, California.  The suit claimed that the post was "false, misleading, and had irreparably harmed MagicJack's reputation by exposing it to 'hate, ridicule and obloquy'", according to Boing Boing.  It demanded the post be removed and unspecified damages be paid.

The suit was essentially just legal bullying.  As Boing Boing summarizes, "Our lawyers, Rob Rader, Marc Mayer and Jill Rubin of MS&K, determined that it was a SLAPP lawsuit: a strategic lawsuit against public participation. In such a lawsuit, winning is not the main objective. Instead, it is crafted to harry critics, not least with the high cost of fighting a lawsuit, into abandoning their criticism. New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella wrote that 'short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined.'"

Fortunately, California has anti-SLAPP laws on the books and when Boing Boing exercised them and MagicJack could not demonstrate a reasonable hope of winning in the case, it was dismissed. MagicJack CEO Dan Borislow then personally apologized to the site and offered to pay its legal charges -- if they kept the case confidential.  Boing Boing agreed to comply if Mr. Borislow donated $25,000 to charity.  Mr. Borislow refused.

Now at last the case is over, and it's another victory for Boing Boing.  A judge ordered MagicJack to pay Boing Boing $50,000 in legal costs for bringing the junk suit against the news site.

Boing Boing has more details on the case and MagicJack's sordid history here.  


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Mick
By amanojaku on 2/24/2010 9:13:44 AM , Rating: 5
You should seriously consider a journalism course. Someone pointed out last week that your article format is terrible. This one and the other you posted today have the same format already criticized: you put the important information in the middle or somewhere at the end of the article. A properly written news article, even an aggregated one, should have the most important information starting from the first paragraph.

And stop putting your personal feelings into these articles. The magicJack case seems like a no brainer, but an objective reporter would never say this is a "sordid" matter; that's unprofessional, even if it is true.




RE: Mick
By pwndcake on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Mick
By amanojaku on 2/24/2010 9:31:16 AM , Rating: 4
This is NOT a blog. When you see "blog" next to a name it means the person has written DT blogs. A blog show up on the extreme right of DT's main page. At this time this is an article, although I've seen articles become blogs, usually because of reader backlash.


RE: Mick
By Spivonious on 2/24/2010 9:35:07 AM , Rating: 4
This is not a blog post, it is in the Internet section of the site. The Blog next to the author's name is simply a link to go to his blog.


RE: Mick
By roostitup on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Mick
By Drag0nFire on 2/24/2010 10:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
An interesting note, take a look at the DT article Mick links to in the first paragraph. It's from 3 years ago, and it is a strong piece of original investigative journalism that also happens to be, *gasp* well written.

I for one, would like to return to the DT of old. And for starters, the next author who writes an article where the content doesn't start until past the third paragraph should be summarily fired and replaced.


RE: Mick
By Samus on 2/24/2010 12:05:11 PM , Rating: 4
you guys are like a bunch of bitter old women


RE: Mick
By chagrinnin on 2/24/2010 12:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's something in the cat food. :P


RE: Mick
By Runiteshark on 2/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Mick
By Motoman on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Mick
By AstroCreep on 2/24/2010 9:38:42 AM , Rating: 3
I think this is technically an article.
Click the "Blog" link next to his name (it's not a tag) and you'll see that his most recent blog entry was in December.

I could be wrong; afterall, I don't work for DT. If I am wrong, I ask one of the writers/bloggers to please correct me.


RE: Mick
By xprojected on 2/24/2010 9:42:42 AM , Rating: 3
No, it's under "Latest Headlines" on Dailytech.com. The (blog) next to his name is merely a link to his blog.


RE: Mick
By 306maxi on 2/24/2010 9:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
Whilst I agree that some of the articles could better written I disagree that the author shouldn't put any feeling into it. As long as they don't try and build something up to be bigger than it actually is of course as the BBC seem to do for instance, speaking of outrage etc etc when the general public just aren't that bothered.


RE: Mick
By SilthDraeth on 2/24/2010 10:09:02 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously????

When you can't find fault with the content of Mick's article you thrash on his literary competency?

On most of Mick's opinions, etc I tend to disagree and sometimes very strongly, but you are just being anal retentive here.

Take a journalism class? How about you take a class about leaving people alone? Instead of sticking your nose in other peoples business because you are "upset" and "disturbed" by their "lack of education" and catering to your "sense of fine tastes"

Yes I know I am doing that here to you, but a lot of us who generally do not complain get sick and tired of little conformists running around telling people they don't have good enough grammar, or spelling, and therefor they are dumb.

/end rant


RE: Mick
By SilthDraeth on 2/24/2010 10:10:14 AM , Rating: 2
My post is to the OP of this thread, not the one it replied to.

Apologies.


RE: Mick
By guffwd13 on 2/24/2010 11:04:51 AM , Rating: 3
First of all, this is most definitely a news article - it even says so in the article by calling it - gasp - a news site. If I wanted a blog, I'd go to a blog section, but frankly I couldn't care less what Joe Schmoe thinks of NASA's next directive. If I want an opinion, I'll go to the NY Times. Generally, the authors here are pretty good at keeping their personal beliefs out of their articles - hence article, not blog. But that is where the praise stops.

I've tried to stay out of this argument for quite some time - dismissing them as third-rate tech journalists that consistently report old news in brief, erratic and poorly researched articles - not to mention, of course the myriad of grammatical and spelling errors. I've seen it as a waste of time on my part to point out that others should strive to make themselves (and subsequently their readers) better. But really I can take it no more. I've all but stopped coming to the site because the articles frustrate me to no end. The only reason I stop by every now and then is out of boredom, and then I remember why I haven't been here in a while.

He and the rest of the Dailytech staff are writers. Whether they're bloggers or not, they do it (writing) for a living and should invest their time to better their skills at doing such. Word of advice: take the recommendations of other readers and take a course or two. Seriously, its not going to do you any harm. Try reading Anand's tech articles. They are extremely thorough, well-organized, well-written and tells me everything I could possibly ever need to know. Clearly, he has better work ethic and strive for betterment that is completely absent in the authors of this site. Too bad he doesn't report the news, cause then I'd never have a reason to come here ever again.

I'm sorry SilthDraeth if you're ok with mediocrity - or are too mediocre to notice the difference in the first place. Its because of people like you that these sites still exist. No worries though, the capitalist machine will triumph and as time goes on, we'll have fewer and fewer "mom-and-pop" news/blog sites - and be left with the Walmarts of online news reporting. And yes, you are dumb if you can't write properly (notice I didn't say write well). Go back and retake 8th grade English - maybe you'll notice a difference, unless of course you're too dumb to notice - in which case we're all doomed. God bless humanity for entirely eliminating natural selection. Its going to do wonders to the gene pool.

Dailytech: your business model will fail in the next decade if you don't change things now. Take the fact that I almost never post and I'm taking the time to write this as enough significance to spark your attention. Hopefully I'm not wasting my time.


RE: Mick
By T2k on 2/24/2010 12:50:58 PM , Rating: 3
Very long-winded post with very little logic or substance....

...another wannabee journalist?

FYI you are confusing a lot of things and rather basic ones... perhaps due to your pretty obvious arrogance...?

First you claim it's a news piece then you compare it to AT articles which are clearly NOT news, let alone most (not all but most) AT articles are written in a HORRIBLY BOOOORING, dull style - if you want to put it in journo terms: you are praising rather bad writers, pal.

In other words thanks God you bad taste has zero influence on this site.

As far as typos/grammar/etc goes I fully agree with you, it's disappointing and I HATE IT too.
OTOH generally I'd rather deal with few errors and read something more colorful, more interesting than a dull article without any error, sorry.
In the meantime you can go and read the Oxford English Dictionary - based on your weird sense of journalism that's a perfect daily read for you, I think...


RE: Mick
By guffwd13 on 2/24/2010 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
@T2K

Thank you for adding to my point. Either you didn't read the post completely, or were incapable of understanding it. I will for your sake assume the former.

1) If you are going to attack me back - please identify the text/points to which you are referring. ie - what is it that I am confusing.

2) I definitely stated that Anand does not do news - he writes reviews. Technical reviews. They are articles for technical people with information that is usually way above my knowledge of CS/ECE. It's not supposed to be entertaining, and even as one who isn't so technically savvy, I can still appreciate his attempt to communicate all that he knows and has learned of his topics.

3) For more interesting articles that are well written and entertaining, I read the nytimes. Though sadly, they don't cover all that I am looking to learn. And even for that publication - I feared for a while it was digressing in the quality of its writing (they were obviously not using their "A" team of writers - that is, until they realized the online revenue had the potential far greater revenue that its print edition). Being said, I do not hold dailytech writers, or any other writers for that matter (particularly NHL.com articles which are also generally poor) for not living up to those of the nytimes, because that is an unfair comparison and if they were that good at writing, they'd be (should be) working for that institution anyway. I only ask for writers who do do it for a living, to at least get the (relative) content to flow, and without error.

4) Clearly, I have no interest in being a writer. However, my high school homework assignments were expected to be better put together than these articles and I was certainly not amongst the cream of that crop. I make my living by designing buildings and selling photography. Given that, I chose to improve my skills in those arenas. If I were ever to venture down an alternate path such as writing, I would gather the necessary skills and information necessary to do so.

5) Long winded... yes. But that was also the point.

6) Yes I have been called arrogant by others. Ironically, not when it comes to my literary criticisms. This one is new - thus I thank you for your compliment and hope you find the irony in my statement if nothing else amusing.

7) We are not here for ourselves. There are two points to life: the first is to perpetuate it, the second is for everyone to figure that out for themselves. However, is there any point to our individual existences if we have not made the world better than when we got here? Sure its awesome to earn money, buy cool things, go on awesome vacations and drive fancy cars. I strive for those things as well. But it is so easy to live life for you and only you; the challenge is to do more than just that. Whether it be to pass on knowledge to our children, or to extend our learning on to a greater audience (as a journalist or as an architect, an entrepreneur etc etc), it only makes sense to do so and justify our raison d'etre. It would seem I am in the vast minority of persons here that think they are not here just for themselves. Nevertheless, I am not pretentious enough to claim any greater righteousness than anyone else.

8) Taste is an opinion, not a fact. For example, in your and probably many other's respective opinions I have bad taste. It does not however, devalue my point.

9) Zero influence - I suppose as you are demonstrating - I am evidently barking up the wrong tree.

10) Jason et al, At some point, you are going to look back on your life and regardless of how much money you made, how many children you put on this earth - you are going to look for the value in your existence. Do you want to look back and think of all the articles you just wrote, or do you want to remember the ones you really enjoyed writing - the ones worthy of framing and provided you the euphoric delight of a job well done. Can you take a challenge and strive for something greater if only for your own pride and satisfaction?


RE: Mick
By albundy2 on 2/25/2010 8:32:45 AM , Rating: 2
i'm sure dT will reimburse your subscription fee's due to your dissatisfaction.

oh thats right.... it's free.

with the amount of pissing and moaning these guy's get with everything they post [FOR FREE TO YOU], the fact they dont tell you where to get off tells me they have professionalism.

for jason and everyone else who get's crapped on by arrogant bastards like you... GET BENT!


RE: Mick
By the goat on 2/24/2010 9:58:26 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A properly written news article, even an aggregated one, should have the most important information starting from the first paragraph.


I agree that the writing ability of dailytech's reporters/authors is lacking. But the idea that a properly written news article must include the most important information in the first paragraph is outdated.

That idea comes from the unreliable telegraph lines of the 19th century. A transmission could be cut off half way through. So the author put the conclusion in the first paragraph and followed with several paragraphs of supporting data.

Nowadays communication links are much more reliable. But many news writers still insist on using the outdated article structure.


RE: Mick
By xprojected on 2/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Mick
By Jalek on 2/24/2010 10:38:54 PM , Rating: 3
I hadn't noticed, but I guess it's common for these "news" articles.

I read the headline, skim through the blah, blah.. looking for numbers and other obvious key points, then the summation.

That said, I do tend to find Mr. Mick's articles comparatively weak on substance and strong on opinion at times. I still read however because he obviously gathers news from more sources than I and directs my attention to topics I might seek more information about.


RE: Mick
By cochy on 2/24/2010 10:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
All article on this site share similar format. Most if not all of them first go into a review of past DailyTech articles/coverage of a story.


RE: Mick
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/24/2010 10:38:49 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
This one and the other you posted today have the same format already criticized: you put the important information in the middle or somewhere at the end of the article. A properly written news article, even an aggregated one, should have the most important information starting from the first paragraph.


I have to disagree with you. First, following a cookie cutter approach to any writing format is a horrible idea. In this article I feel I did a compelling job of
1.) Presenting a view on the topic of journalism and censorship, and a bit of our own site's discussion of it.
2.) The history of the story.
and
3.) Its conclusion.

The interesting part here is the story itself, not the conclusion, necessarily. My personal philosophy is to put the best parts of the story first. If the story is confusing without the context of background information I try to put that first as well to make the reader more familiar with the topic.

That said, I follow no single formula. For example, I did follow your suggested approach and put the breaking part of the news first in the Google article I wrote this morning, which invalidates your theory that none of my articles have the most recent info first.

See here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Italy+Convicts+Three+Goog...

Plenty of my articles do in fact.

But I don't see why I should be confined to some outdated cookie cutter approach; one that other major news sites don't follow (with the exception perhaps of press release-like AP articles that do, by and large, stick to your equation).

quote:
And stop putting your personal feelings into these articles. The magicJack case seems like a no brainer, but an objective reporter would never say this is a "sordid" matter; that's unprofessional, even if it is true.


It's absolutely not. The company in court has been slapped for having frivolous lawsuits and hides its EULA from customers. That certainly seems like grounds to call the company's dealings "sordid".

You'll find similar language in analysis pieces in such major publications as the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. If you read more news you'll realize this is nothing unusual, even at the highest tiers of journalism.

It's the job of the reporter to offer a degree of analysis, to the best of his or her ability. We're not just dumb pipes, to borrow an internet analogy. If you don't want analysis, you'd be best off not reading print news or watch televised news.

I would suggest that the discussion return to the topic at hand here.


RE: Mick
By the goat on 2/24/2010 1:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's the job of the reporter to offer a degree of analysis, to the best of his or her ability. We're not just dumb pipes, to borrow an internet [sic] analogy. If you don't want analysis, you'd be best off not reading print news or watch televised news.


Jason I agree what a lot of what you wrote until I reached this section. News reporting and news analysis should never under any circumstances be included in the same article (or be included in two separate articles in one publication).

One person performing both jobs is a huge conflict of interest. Isn't that why dailytech segregates news stories and blog posts?


RE: Mick
By geddarkstorm on 2/24/2010 1:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a primary news site, so analysis is not only proper, it's the major reason for even visiting this site, at least to me. Otherwise, one can just RSS a whole bunch of AP and Reuters channels if one simply wanted aggregate news to read on the web.

That's just my take on it anyways.


RE: Mick
By the goat on 2/24/2010 1:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's the major reason for even visiting this site, at least to me.

Don't get me wrong. I too enjoy the opinion posts on dailytech. I just wish they would call a spade a spade and put them under the blog title.


RE: Mick
By T2k on 2/24/2010 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
the goat

seriously: what on Earth are you talking about?


RE: Mick
By T2k on 2/24/2010 1:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, following a cookie cutter approach to any writing format is a horrible idea.


Yeah, this is so 101 I couldn't believe someone was suggesting this utter idiocy - pretty much this is what every journalist learns in the field on its first day.

quote:
The interesting part here is the story itself, not the conclusion, necessarily. My personal philosophy is to put the best parts of the story first


Well, outside of quick news bombs I'd probably never do that unless there is a twist later down ;) but you're right, it's absolutely the question of personal/ choice, writing style etc.

quote:
That said, I follow no single formula.


No journalist with the smallest amount of talent would do that, obviously.

quote:
It's absolutely not. The company in court has been slapped for having frivolous lawsuits and hides its EULA from customers. That certainly seems like grounds to call the company's dealings "sordid".


Absolutely correct.

quote:
It's the job of the reporter to offer a degree of analysis, to the best of his or her ability. We're not just dumb pipes, to borrow an internet analogy. If you don't want analysis, you'd be best off not reading print news or watch televised news.


EXACTLY. One of the main points in being a journalist is that [b]you can put things into context and you DO CALL ANYTHING ON ITS NAME[/b] regardless of how many ill-educated amateur couch potato thinks it's wrong.


RE: Mick
By Reclaimer77 on 2/24/2010 11:37:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but an objective reporter would never say this is a "sordid" matter; that's unprofessional, even if it is true.


Jason Mick objective ? Yesterday he said I was pro child prostitution and pedophilia because I disagreed with his opinions about China's E-waste !


RE: Mick
By B166ER on 2/25/2010 12:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
Jesus Christ, you dimwitted conservative moron, Mick said "You'd probably go right ahead and defend such pedophilia" as you were so vehemently against US accepting responsibility over the exploitation of children with the loading of E-waste in their countries. That is a fair statement, but not to you because it makes you look stupid to defend such actions. Don't take Micks words out of context, you sentence twisting crybaby. A comparison can be made quite objective.


RE: Mick
By T2k on 2/25/2010 11:58:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Jason Mick objective ? Yesterday he said I was pro child prostitution and pedophilia because I disagreed with his opinions about China's E-waste !


Ah shut up, you lying sack of shit, he never said such a thing for you, scumbag.


RE: Mick
By T2k on 2/24/2010 12:42:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You should seriously consider a journalism course. Someone pointed out last week that your article format is terrible. This one and the other you posted today have the same format already criticized: you put the important information in the middle or somewhere at the end of the article. A properly written news article, even an aggregated one, should have the most important information starting from the first paragraph. And stop putting your personal feelings into these articles. The magicJack case seems like a no brainer, but an objective reporter would never say this is a "sordid" matter; that's unprofessional, even if it is true.


I'm a former journalist (8+ years in TV and weekly magazines) and while I agree his formatting sometimes isn't the best I absolutely have no idea where did you get this nonsense about news come first...

...you truly sound like one of those HS-educated, self-entitled pseudo-journalist with no style and taste whatsoever.


RE: Mick
By p05esto on 2/24/2010 8:49:10 PM , Rating: 3
Mick, you are an idiot. When you own DailyTech and write the articles you can do it your way... if the author wants to give an opinion he CAN you flipping moron. Go away and post your stupid comments where someone might care.


good
By tastyratz on 2/24/2010 9:17:40 AM , Rating: 4
Things like this need to come to light and I am glad they did. I hope that everything that has to do with Magicjack burns to the ground in light of this article. Thank GOD I myself and none of my friends have not fallen for the Magicjack trap.

What a scam




RE: good
By JediJeb on 2/24/2010 10:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
I have always thought this thing was more of a scam any anything even without hearing of this story. I have always been amused at how they talk about buying a Magic Jack and just start making phone calls, yet never mention in the commercials that you need an internet connection to make it work. I wonder how many people who don't have internet or maybe dialup internet have purchased one of these things and then wondered why it doesn't work.


RE: good
By Etern205 on 2/24/2010 1:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
like those who buys a faucet, glue it to their wall and ask why isn't there water coming out.


RE: good
By XZerg on 2/24/2010 1:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder how many people who don't have internet or maybe dialup internet have purchased one of these things and then wondered why it doesn't work.


Just you... and few other tards like you.

This is how smart your comment sounds:

quote:
like those who buys a faucet, glue it to their wall and ask why isn't there water coming out.


RE: good
By Dorkyman on 2/24/2010 12:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno, although I've never used a MagicJack, I've hung around fora where the relative pros and cons of various VOIP products are debated. There are people out there who've had an excellent experience with it.

We have just adopted a VOIP solution for our two-line home, opting for an Ooma box instead of MagicJack or the more-conventional Vonage.

With the Ooma, we don't need to use one of our PCs as an interface. The Ooma box just sits there, connected to our DSL line and our internal phone lines. You pay $200 up front, then a modest fee every year. Voice quality sounds pretty much identical to POTS.

This is an experiment for us, but we were impressed by the overwhelming positive reviews of Ooma on Amazon. We'll see.


RE: good
By LuxFestinus on 2/24/2010 12:54:11 PM , Rating: 1
scam (skm) Slang
n.
A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.

I have been using the MagicJack for well over a year. It has totally worked for me. Scam would imply that they don't offer the service that they advertise. Well they do, so what you are saying is a lie.

I get phone service through 3 MagicJacks for less than 6 bucks a month. I would not call that a scam. I even bought and activated one for a soldier buddy so he can use it overseas.

If suspect you are a telcom industry shill trying to protect a dying business model.


RE: good
By tastyratz on 2/24/2010 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
aww conspiracy theory is cute.

I didn't say VOIP is a scam, I said magicjack is. There are many fine VOIP alternatives out there and VOIP really is the "wave of the future"

You have had a great experience? Great - you are the minority. They hardly hold exclusively stellar reviews.

Did you read the article? Would you not call the basis of this lawsuit a fraudulent business scheme? They SCAM you by FRAUDULENTLY misrepresenting support services, FRAUDULENTLY representing numbers, and FRAUDULENTLY misrepresenting basic rights through an EULA that they suspiciously hide which infringes on basic rights.

If anyone in this conversation is a shill I would certainly suspect you. Could you please tell your superiors to cut the crap with their SCAM service?


RE: good
By XZerg on 2/24/2010 1:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
As far as my experience with MagicJack, the price and what I get from it - I don't care what other "services" they claimed to have been providing and I am not receiving. I am happy with all the services they are providing - call display, call forwarding (I set it to forward to my real home phone line), free North America calling, ...

The problem is that many people trying MJ as their sole phone service and then they realize many issues with it. If you want a reliable service then don't touch MJ or any VOIP per se, MJ being even less reliable than VOIPs. But on the flip-side if you want a damn cheap service, you can't beat MJ for the features it provides for the price.

So again they might be false advertising or exaggerating some of the features and that's not cool. However for an alternative to ridiculous prices most home phone companies charges, I am very happy customer.


RE: good
By p05esto on 2/24/2010 8:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I have a MagicJack and it works great, for $40 a year I talk for free - no catch. I have a server that's always on in the house anyway so it's no hassle. The quality of the calls are crisp and I've had no problems at all. Think before you speak. You have no experience with a product and yet you call it a scam? sheesh


I for one
By UncleRufus on 2/24/2010 12:23:47 PM , Rating: 4
I, for one, enjoy most of Jason Mick's articles.

I can't help but assume that some folks here look at the author of an article and make up their mind whether to enjoy it or not based on that.




RE: I for one
By adiposity on 2/24/2010 12:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
I never even paid attention to the title until I started coming across those that seemed to have a distinct, annoying flavor. Then I started to pay attention to which writers had these flavors. So far, they haven't disappointed...but I am willing to give them another chance every time.


Journalistic Integrity
By bplewis24 on 2/24/2010 10:32:08 AM , Rating: 1
I realize that most people will focus on the scandalous attempt to silence a critic by MagicJack in this case. However, in my opinion, the real point that should emerge from this situation is how it comes back to journalistic integrity. If Boing Boing did not do their own research, did not have factual integrity and instead just spent their time drudging up unsubstantiated yet salacious rumors like a lot of media outlets do, they would have had a lot of trouble once this suit was brought upon them.

Because it turned out like it did, I can only assume they were 100% factually correct with their criticisms, and that is what saved them from this "SLAPP" lawsuit. More "journalists" should take notice. FUD does not pass for journalism, no matter what.

Brandon




RE: Journalistic Integrity
By NaughtyGeek on 2/24/2010 10:50:17 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell was that reply about? Journalists beware, even though these journalists had integrity and researched their article before publishing it, the rest of you don't? How about instead of trying to crusade against bad journalism, which doesn't have anything to do with this article, you point that scornful finger of yours at unethical businesses such as the one illustrated in the article?


RE: Journalistic Integrity
By bplewis24 on 2/24/2010 8:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the hell was that reply about?


You should probably have quit at this first sentence, because you clearly cannot read or lack reading comprehension ability if you thought I was crusading against bad journalism and didn't point the finger at the unethical behavior. Hyperbolize much? Good lord, way to butcher a discussion piece.

I was going to put my original point in simpler terms for you, but the reality is that if you couldn't understand it the first time and got completely sidetracked by an argument that didn't exist, it's not worth it. Especially considering other sheep have been persuaded by your post enough to rate mine down. Nevertheless, since NaughtyGeek derailed the compliment to Boing Boing, I'll just say once again, kudos to them.

Good day,

Brandon


I use Magic Jack and have for at least 2 years
By XZerg on 2/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: I use Magic Jack and have for at least 2 years
By Etern205 on 2/24/2010 1:24:02 PM , Rating: 1
If you want to call India, you can buy yourself a phone card.
Cheap and you can basically talk almost forever.


By XZerg on 2/24/2010 1:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ah but if I buy two MagicJack and send one to India where they have internet and have one with me, I or they can call anytime and talk for as long as we want.

Why would I want to bother with the hassle of phone cards? Many companies have a per use charge on top of the minutes, are small amounts and only work one way instead of 2 ways as with MJ.

As I mentioned I am getting annoyed having to pay about $40/month for home phone without any long distance features. I have been tempted to replace the home phone with this thing but with ISP not so greatly reliable and/or my router needs restart every now and then, I cannot. My parents are retired and cannot have them with no phone service if something were to happen to internet while I am at work. That's the same reason I haven't gone to any VOIP service either.

For someone who has a cell phone and not so many people at home, having VOIP or one of this is a great alternative to a regular home phone.


By Etern205 on 2/24/2010 11:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
Opinions in Articles
By ZachDontScare on 2/24/2010 2:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
1) I dont mind opinion in articles. The 'myth' is that 'real' news sources (such as the AP) dont do that - but they do, and they do it extensively. They just 'hide' their views by ignoring stories that dont re-enforce their views (eg, climategate - bias by ommission), or wording stories in subtle ways to promote a point a view. There is no such thing as objective journalism.... just journalism that tries to convince you its objective while stuffing opinion down your throat.

2) I agree with Mick that there's no need for every article to follow the same template. If anything, the state of American journalism today is absolutely atrocious, and its exactly because of 'journalism' schools.




RE: Opinions in Articles
By Vagisil on 2/25/2010 2:24:51 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly this article had some information about corruption in the media, Some background of dailytech and the kind of issues journalists may face and the final story. I feel it was well written (unlike my post), some may disagree but i honestly enjoyed reading it.

A writer should feel free to have his or her own style, If every writer played by the same rules this article would be entitled 'MagicJack Loseths Junketh Suit Against Siteth that Revealed it Spiedeth on Users, i don't think i could handle old english.

On that point while 'respected' media corporations hide their agenda by taking up one side of a story or get played into providing the information the source wants you to hear, on dailytech you'll sometimes get the journalists opinion, you may not agree with that opinion but at the very least its out in the open and this is one of the reasons i like dailytech it gives another perspective to consider without trawling the dark depths of blogging.

Oh and to those complaining of spelling and grammatical errors you'll notice i made plenty of them, Dailytech writers may make a few but even the BBC news website suffers these issues... and they pay their proof-readers a lot of money.


RE: Opinions in Articles
By T2k on 2/25/2010 11:56:10 AM , Rating: 1
AP is NOT A NEWS AGENCY, it's simply a syndicated stream of all sorts of news sources: big money news stations and little lo9cal papers as well - this means it also regularly includes fuckin' batshit crazy stuff from its weirdo "out there" contributors.

AP is not even properly monitored, they have to WORST track record on accuracy and fact-checking, you can read really-really crazy shit fairly regularly on AP.

WHoever pays for their crap is clearly fuckin clueless, AP is the WORST news source one can pick.


nettalk tk6000
By spydernk on 2/25/2010 12:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
nettalk is a good clean open alternative....they have a good user forum as well so you can see what issue are going on www.nettalk.com




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki