Slashdot Mirror
FSF Statement on SCO vs. IBM
tomdp writes "Eben Moglen, Law professor and general counsel for the Free Software Foundation, has written a statement about SCO's lawsuit against IBM."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Quote from FSF Statement:
"Moreover, there are straightforward legal reasons why SCO's assertions concerning claims against the kernel or other free software are likely to fail. As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems. Those systems were distributed by SCO in full compliance with GPL, and therefore included complete source code. So SCO itself has continuously published, as part of its regular business, the material which it claims includes its trade secrets. There is simply no legal basis on which SCO can claim trade secret liability in others for material it widely and commercially published itself under a license that specifically permitted unrestricted copying and distribution."
So instead of claiming they inadvertantly GPLed it, we should rather say, they only made it worse by distributing it themselves, and cannot claim any liability from other people doing the same.
Or, and this is pretty far-fetched, perhaps they covet the Linux kernel and GNU software. Their conjecture is, if they can win, maybe they can take ownership of GNU/Linux and hijack the whole deal. They realize that they can't make their OS better, so they are now attempting to steal ours.
Clickety Click
Most of what's come out of SCO is so self-contradictory that the only intelligent response is "What the hell are you saying?" Until they can nail down exactly what they're complaining about, there's nothing else to do but demand that they give the particulars.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
You can download the UNIX source code all over the Internet. So what's the big secret already?
I bought a book on Unix a few years back that had a CD in the back with the source code.
It was for educational purposes...
The signifigance in pointing out that Linux (the kernel) and GNU/Linux (The "OS") are separate would deflate anything that SCO had to say against any company that distributes a GNU/Linux distribution. If IBM did indeed do what SCO claims, then the issue only exists between IBM and SCO. (Much like the RIAA going after people sharing songs rather than downloading songs) The other point here is that even if SCO wins against the Linux kernel, the rest of what companies like Redhat and SuSE put into their distributions is still exempt. All they would have to do is either replace the Linux kernel with something else or work feverishly to replace the few lines of SCO code with something else therefore making Linux exempt as well. There really is a distinction between the kernel and the rest of the GNU software that make up a general impression of a Unix-like operating system. The GNU software was coded by different people and they started from scratch. It is completely untouched by SCOs claims. SCO however wants to blur this distinction to make those who are less knowledgable about the distinction fearful, uncertain and doubtful about GNU/Linux distributions. In a way, this whole SCO thing is actually quite useful in driving RMS's statements about GNU/Linux home. Kudos to RMS and the FSF for thinking this far ahead.
It took me a few years to understand that difference between Linux and GNU/Linux, but now that I do, I can see how beneficial it really is. As much as I hate politics and would rather avoid them, there are times when you can't. This is one of those times. In a perfect world without scoundrels like Microsoft and SCO, it wouldn't need to be this way, but it's not a perfect world. Embrace the GNU GPL. It guarantees YOU freedoms.
Un-news
Uhm, what the hell are you smoking? Businesses primarily are supposed to value their own best intrests first, otherwise what is the fucking point in starting a business? The fact that some businesses seem to value their customers is only a side effect of the fact that for them that brings in the most profit.
Individual freedoms must superceded any rights that corporations have. It's time that we really restructure the way business works.
Incase you hadnt noticed, this was the "basis" for marxism, communism and other similar political views. While people value money, this is never going to happen. If individual freedoms supercede any group rights, then why should Unions be ok at the same time?
If this negatively impacts you, you currently have little you can do about it unless you have a lot of money.
Stop shopping there or doing business with them. Simple. Just because they have wrong you according to your views doesnt give you the right to wreak heavenly vengeance on them, any more than I have the right to punish someone who breaks into my house.
Corporations need to answer to the citizens of the world for all the injustices that they have wrought upon us.
Governments first. Then all political parties. Then religion. THose three groups have "wronged humanity" in more ways than corporations ever will. Corporations have never wrought injustices on citizens, they may not do stuff as you see fit, but then my neighbour dresses with no color sense. Should i hold him responsable and be allowed to make him answer for this?
In all instances where business negatively affects citizens, the business should be called to task and made to answer for it's wrongs.
Businesses are there to make money. Dont like that? go to some place where they arent allowed to. As i said earlier, they may not precisely follow your own moral rules, but the worlds a big wide place, and if i were you, id stop having a tantrum, and grow up. The worlds not perfect, and neither, it seems, are you.
While I'm generally not all that fond if the name nitpicking either, it's actually a relavent distinction for once - SCO has been spouting off things about "whole programs copied" which tends to imply that they're talking about quite a bit more than the kernel. Which also raises questions - we can all figure out where kernel source code came from. Not all projects are as careful about logging changes.
Why?
I posted the original post. Yes it was a bit of a troll, but I firmly believe that corporations have gone too far in their quest for profit. The fact that the auto industry would sell unsafe cars and try to keep this from consumers is a perfevct example. When they are finally forced to reveal that there is a problem with their product, then do a recal and put the least amount of money and effort into rectifying the situation. That is morally and ethically wrong. By doing this, it would appear that they place the value of their corporate bottom line above a human life. The funny thing is that all you corporate supporters would easily cry foul with regard to abortion saying the "human life is god's greatest gift" like Reagan did back in the 80s. And yet, when a human life is put at risk by a product that a corporation sells, you do a 180 and say, "well... it would be bad for business if we had to resolve each problem for each individual. It will cut into profits." Sorry, but I think anyone that thinks that way is ghoulish as well as hypocritical.
Think of all the rotten things that businesses have done to consumers in the name of profit. All the dangerous chemicals they's been feeding us in our food and giving us as "medicine"... All the coverups to try and keep critical life saving information from reaching the public. If there is one thing that we all should be aware of as human beings, it's that we should put our fellow man far above profit and personal gain. If you can't do that, you have failed as a human being.
I agree.. but I am starting to question the point of every person under the sun making statements about the validity of the lawsuit, before the case actually begins. I guess some people need to be constantly reminded about how non-sensical (is that a word?) the whole thing is. I think for all intents and purposes, at least in the Slashdot community, most people realize what is really going on... Hopefully the stream of people exposing the deception in SCO's case, and SCO's history (particularly Mr. McBride) being involved in things like this will prevent further damage to Linux's reputation in the enterprise environment... personally I think that the fact that they won't identify the code that infringes to the public or more importantly the kernel list, AND the fact that they were a part of the Linux community up-to and briefly after beginning this nonsense is evidence that their case is at least somewhat shaky (to put it mildly).
How can this be?
Did not SCO have developers working on the code inhouse?
If they are modifying and distributing the code themselves, and over a period of several YEARS, you would think that someone there would have caught this, eh??
No, incompetence and ignorance is not an excuse.
They KNEW what code was in the kernel and distributed it under the GPL.
If they did *not know* then they are ignorant bastards and that's just too bad for them, they still ditributed the code under the GPL and had ample time to not only catch but to rectify any descrepancies...
In this case, the distinction is entirely relevant. That is why he mentioned it, not because of 'Richardism'. I think you should reconsider your attitude towards the phrase 'GNU/linux', because the FSF hammers on the distinction precisely because of what is happening now. This is why it is relevant!
What is omitted from this discussion, and what Eben certainly must already know, is that if SCO redistributes in good faith Free products that it receives from the community, then the illegal inclusion by a third party of material copyrighted by SCO does not in any way lessen SCO's claim to that copyright.
That depends on whether the court holds that SCO should have been more diligent in reviewing the source code before they released their version of Linux. If they had done a thorough review they would certainly have found the offending code This could be a lose-lose situation for Open Source.. If the court finds that SCO was not responsible for reviewing the code, then the copyright infringement case against the authors of Linux can go forward. If they find that SCO was responsible and that the code is now GPL, it would mean that anybody who publishes open source software is responsible for its content, whether they wrote the code or not. I have no idea which way the courts will come down on this issue, but it could definitely complicate publishing open source software.
What's pretty obvious is that Open Source Software functions like an online magazine or bulletin board, to which malicious or incompetent users may illegally post copyrighted material.
This argument didn't help Napster. There's a distinction in the law where financial incentive is concerned. Bulletin board operators don't gain anything by copyrighted material being posted on their systems (unless they do it themselves to attract users). Software vendors do gain an advantage by using code from other software since they save the cost of writing the code themselves.
Amen to that. They need to grow up over there. Especially since in THIS case it IS Linux under attack and NOT the GNU Project. To date all of the disputed features live in /usr/src/linux.
.iso of GNU 1.0. And if it is actually useful they can return to being the center of mass for the Free Software Revolution. In other words, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
Their problem is the fear of becoming irrelevent and I have some news for them. Shouting "call it GNU/Linux" several times a week is one of the fastest ways to make that fear come true. The Free Software community is a harsh meritocracy and of late about all the FSF has been producing is nonsense about GNU/Linux and not a lot of code or other useful work. Think about it; They have devolved into a political action committee. Not saying there isn't some good work to be done in that dept, but they are expending most of their political capital delivering bog standard screeds about "GNU/Linux" instead of advocating Free Software (marketed under the more popular Open Source brand, which they also expend a large effort undermining).
Most of the more useful FSF projects have been shifted to more capable hands. The center of mass of GCC and GLIBC have been with Cygnus/RedHat for years now and GNOME has been at Ximian/RedHat from day one, being FSF Projects in name only. And if you take those parts out of the body of GNU the whole GNU/Linux argument becomes silly since the rest is stuff most users never see anymore and could be replaced (admittedly with less capable versions, I love the GNU utilities regardless which platform they run on) from BSD. It would be more accurate to call it XFree86/Linux these days. (I don't think anyone objected a bit when Yggdrasil used to use Linux/GNU/X on thier login banner.)
If they want to be relevant again, they should get off their butt and finish GNU. Get an actual working HURD combined with the GNU toolchain and X, invest the effort (since they ran Debian out of the GNU project) of packaging it all into a coherent whole and put up an
Democrat delenda est
Headline: Microsoft Bankrupt, Linux Rules the World ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman is pushing his "GNU/Linux" agenda!
Headline: Linux Marketshare 60%, Microsoft GPL's Windows ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman wants to take over the world!
Headline: Extraterrestials Obliterate Eastern Seaboard ...GNU/Linux...
Stallman:
You: Wah! Stallman said that phrase again!
Dear Sir,
I am not sure if you goal was to take the polar opposite stance of the post you are replying to but you have made just as grievous errors. Let us begin.
You seem to imply that valuing one's customers is only a side effect of the best interests of the company (which your point seems to be is to make money). This is a terribly cynical POV, however is the the view most companies take. Perhaps on the other hand a company should have a goal of making profit but not have it be the blinding exclusive goal.
Point 2. I am not sure what book you got our definitions from but just generally one does not associate strong personal freedoms with Marxism and communism. Unless you are look only at the alleged 'anti- private business/ownership' angle. Of course both of those are in the theory. As we all know the practice of those philosophies turned out different. As for unions, well (again ideally) they are supposed to advocate the rights of the workers.
Instead of driveling on here let me sum up. I believe that businesses (corporations) should have no 'rights' in the sense that individuals have. Corporations are artificial entities. We as people with rights can grant on to them (corporations) privileges, that may mimic the rights an individual has. However with all privileges we stipulate the responsibilities that that one has to meet in order to keep those privileges. Thus a business can run and make money for its owners, pay its employees, while not gaining the illusion that it it entitled to the rights and actions of an actual human being.
There is a general idea that some people have that Linux is THE operating system. The fact of the matter is that Linux is just the kernel. Everything else (for the most part) isn't Linux. People need to be educated on that fact.
My favorite line from the statement:
"... SCO's public statements are at best misleading and irresponsible."
Duh! But not everyone understands, so thanks for saying that.
It's not so much about the merits of the lawsuit itself, but about the public opinion statements SCO has been making, trying to affect the free software world in a really negative way, based on vague statement sabout the ramifications of this lawsuit.
As everyone knows, they went from "Trade secret" to "license violation" to "copyright violation" to alleging "patent" almost.
They went from talking about their secrets making it into linux, to pointing out it was actually code that was NOT their secret, but that they technically may have an exclusive license to, due to some wording in IBM's Unix license.
They are saying many confusing things, and backing it up with little.
Sco -vs- IBM is between SCO and IBM. Hopefully the rest of the world is smart enough to realize that the free software world is more than happy to obey the law, if only someone would tell them what they are doing wrong.
So it's good for people, lawyers, and organisations to put forward their own researched opinions as to what the ramifications of SCO's actions are, because the public needs both sides.
"This article seems to confirm my suspicion that this lawsuit is a business strategy rather than a principled legal action."
Wow, this is a surprise - we're talking about a corporation here, not a philanthropist. This is like saying 'the way this shark is circling around me confirms my suspicion that it wants to eat me and not be my friend.'
Corporation's motivations and ethical motivations are completely orthogonal to one another. In some cases, what's best for the company (& shareholders) is ethical. In some cases it's not ethical. Either way, the corporation will chose what it thinks is better for the bottom line.
"Rather than doing something just and benevolent (as lawsuits are intended), this suit seems to seek to exploit a weakness for selfish gain or malevolent satisfaction."
See above. Like a shark, SCO's motivations are not malicious (although the CEO appears to be a butt-head) - it's goal is to make money (for top executives first, shareholders second), and if they think they can do it by throwing around lawsuits, they will.
It would apply, however, if they start suing Linux distributors or users. But that isn't really on the horizon.
I think we can all be fairly sure it won't come to that. No rational reading of derivative work would grant the entirety of GNU/Linux to SCO.
1) SCO would never have any argument for ownership of the "GNU" part of GNU/Linux.
2) Any current hardware support by the Linux kernel, to name just one important feature, would have no conceivable connection to SCO's code and thus would not be a derivative work.
3) Depending on which code is copied, SCO would have, tops, rights to a small amount of code that interacts with it, but not the entire kernel.
No offense intended, but this is just fearmongering. Popular misconceptions:
"SCO is after the GPL!" Wrong. SCO is bringing a suit based on alleged contract violations by IBM; IP ownership and the GPL don't come into it.
"SCO is after ownership of Linux!" SCO would not be able to gain ownership of Linux as a whole; but rather damages from IBM for disclosure of SCO code. Perfectly fair, in my opinion, if IBM really did disclose SCO code in violations of IBM's contract.
"SCO is just trying to be bought out by IBM." I don't know where this one comes from, but why would IBM buy SCO? Especially after such an antagonistic move like this?
"SCO wants to make all Linux users pay through the nose." How would SCO get back payments from home users of Linux for a contract violation by IBM? The culpability stops with IBM (or perhaps Linux distributors); the letters SCO sent out were a calculated ploy to make "true" Unix look more appealing for corporate users than Linux. SCO doesn't give a shit what we Slashdot users run on our own PCs; it's not like we'd all be buying SCO Unix instead.
Slashdot readers like to complain about SCO "FUD", but they are easily the biggest victims of it.
When do the legal festivities kick off?
For most of us, that surely is the point. This is Slashdot, of course we are all Linux fans, of course we want to see SCO kicked into the long grass. But even if it were to turn out the "wrong" way, it were better done sooner than later. Just suppose SCOs allecagtions are true (I doubt this as much as most). IBM gets hit with massive damages - bad for IBM shareholdres but IBM, and they, will live. But SCO has revealed all the bits of GNU/Linux it believes to be ripoffs (it has to, in order to estimate the damages and to claim future royalties). So the Linux community cuts them out, does without some of them, and puts in a panic effort to do a cleanroom rewrite of those that are really necessary. I bet that if Torvalds, Stallman & Co. put out a "Save Our System" call, any really crucial bits of the system could be duplicated in three months.
And the Linux cimmunity could get back to growth as normal. This is because the FUD would have been dissipated. The harm being done by the SCO lawsuit hanging over GNU/Linux, and SCOs threatening letters, is far greater than the harm done by ripping out the offending code - if there is any. We, the Linux community, need a quick resolution.
In English law - I don't know about US law (and IANAL anywhere) - there is a duty on a plainiff in a civil case to take all reasonable steps to minimise any losses resulting from the harm being done to them. If you think I am infinging your copyright, you have a duty to tell me as soon as possible, not wait cackling while my potential fine piles up. If such an obligation exists in US law, SCO are not observing it. The cannot claim that every line of GNU/Linux is theirs. In fact, they cannmot claim that the fragnents allegedly stolen by IBM are crucial to the system, because it existed as a working system before IBM ever became involved. But they do claim that they have lost sales of their Unix product because Linux, incorporating their stolen code, is so good. It seems to me, therefore, that they have a duty to expose the code they allege to be stolen, and allow the Linux community to remove it. If their theory about the value of their code (if any) is true, Linux will drop in functionality and their sales will correspondingly recover; they may then claim for past, but not future, sales lost. In fact, I think that Linux would barely huccup. As I say, three months top level work by the community should repair all significant holes in the system.
So if anybody knows how to speed thes up, pleas tell. And for heavans sake, nobody do anything which could slow it down.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Its a lot more than just GNU, so you can call it:
GNU/Linux/XFree/KDE/etc.
Or, if you choose a single name, choose the most singificant single contributor: GNU.
This is the FSF claim.
> choose the most singificant single contributor: GNU.
What has GNU contributed to Linux? The GNU tools don't count since they a) predate Linux and b) according to the FSF are strictly intended for GNU and any use others make of their Free Software is just a bonus. So just what has the FSF/The GNU Project done with the express purpose of aiding the Linux based distributions? (Hint: there are some, but not many and those are often tangential. Certainly not a significant share though.)
I'm sorry but the FSF can't have it both ways, either they ARE still working on GNU and shouldn't be creating confusion by trying to stick that name to other people's unrelated work or should admit defeat and adopt one of the existing distributions into the GNU Project and rename it as the Official GNU System. Hell, they could fork RedHat and do the world a real favor by providing a freely redistributable version of a stable RedHat. I'd even BUY that from them if they didn't want per seat licensing.
In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if you expect people to call it GNU it better have a GNU on the login screen, not a hat, lizard or penguin.
But to date, Linux is not GNU. As to the Linux the kernel and Linux the OS confusion, it really isn't. We all know what people mean when they use the word, and to date if it uses the Linux kernel and the distribution want to call it Linux and fly the penguin flag everyone accepts it as a new member of the Linux family.
In the end this is why they are so hysterical about GNU/Linux and don't give a crap about renaming Solaris to GNU/Solaris. Because of Linux, few people care anymore whether GNU ever ships a working system. Linux is a threat to their ego and their need to control. It is the penguin they hate, bacause in the marketplace of ideas more people consider themselves followers of the Penguin banner than members of the GNU herd.
(yea, bad pun)
The FSF has done some wonderful things, and will probably do more in the future, but I for one am glad things worked out where the FSF was never given that much control because like most fanatics they serve a useful purpose but should NEVER be given real power. (See current world affairs for examples.)
p.s. This isn't flamebait. If you disagree, point out where I'm in error instead of modding.
Democrat delenda est
OK. Think of it this way. Let's say the GNU project didn't exist and none of the GNU tools was available. You wouldn't have much of an OS with just the Linux kernel, would you? Sure, someone probably would have written what was needed, but it would have taken a lot longer for GNU/Linux to get where it is today. And chances are that most of those additions probably wouldn't have been made under as license like the GPL. They would probably all be BSD. Given that... what would the point be then? Linux (the kernel) is just a kernel with nothing that does anything in userspace for the average user. All that userspace stuff is handled by GNU and XFree86. Given all this, that means that if you want to refer to a distribution as something more acurate than just "Linux", it should probably really be "Linux featuring GNU and XFree86". The distinction MUST be made because none of these projects would be particularly useful in a free software context all by themselves. Before the Linux kernel, GNU was not praticularly relevant to anyone but the most technical user. Before GNOME, X was not particularly useful to anyone but the most technical user. Without X or GNU, the Linux kernel would be nothing more than something interesting to watch boot until it hit init. That's the way it is.
Un-news
you might think about stallman's stance whatever you want, but in this situation clarifying a few things (like linux is the kernel of the gnu system) goes a long way combatting sco'd fud
Whats even funnier is they hired a lawyer who couldnt even get a decent judgement against microsoft for anticompetetive practices, after the introduced obviously fabricated evidence into court
I'm really tired of reading all of the flames of Boies regarding the Microsoft case and the Bush v. Gore decision. The tech-heavy, law-light readership of Slashdot seems to be unwilling to come to grips with the fact that Boies is a very talented attorney.
Boies has an extraordinary track record, both while he was at Cravath and after. The enormously high-profile cases he has taken can never be reduced to the skill of one (or even a group of) attorney(s) alone. The law deals with facts and other uncontrollable aspects that can serve to tank a case no matter how skilled the lawyer. Moreover, the law is an imperfect process at best.
Would you really be happy with a legal system that permitted attorneys to always wins, regardless of the facts of the case? While you consider that, also remember that Boies represented Napster in the 9th Circuit case (where he lost on dismissal, but did stay an injunction). Was the eventual loss Boies' fault? Or, maybe did some of the facts surrounding Napster's loose-cannon approach to copyrights and over-restrictive copyright laws have something to do with it?
Slashdot is understandably perturbed by the SCO deal. And, I believe that their case is utter crap. That's possibly a good reason to resent Boies for his choice in representing SCO. However, it's a far cry from claiming he's an incompetent lawyer.
I don't understand your argument about the GNU tools not counting. When you write a program, it doesn't touch the kernel directly; it gets all its services from language support libraries (the C and C++ libraries). These are all GNU. Similarly, without the GNU tools you don't have a usable system.
But in answer to some of your other questions: the FSF provided key funding to get the Debian distribution launched. Eben Moglen, the FSF lawyer, has worked behind the scenes to pressure more than a hundred different GPL violators to comply with the license, and has helped many people who didn't assign their copyright to the FSF deal with legal issues (notably the mysql folks).
The Debian folks are working on a distribution that runs the GNU C library and Debian packages on top of a BSD kernel. You won't be able to tell, when using such a system, that you aren't using a Linux-based system, because all the apps will work just the same.
You are right that the FSF tools aren't designed specifically for Linux, they are key infrastructure for all the BSD systems as well, and also Apple's OSX.
I'd say their view of copyright law, software programming, and giving respect by calling things by their given name is considerably "grow[n] up". What you don't appear to understand is that SCO's language is purposefully unclear so they can leave their options open on what to sue for. The FSF was simply being thorough in their explanation by showing that SCO's language lead to a losing case.
No on both counts--their fear is probably closer to not having enough money to do all the things they want to do, and no you don't have any news for them. Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know what contributions the GNU project has made to our community (ideological and programmatic). The political forces are at work challenge both the Open Source and Free Software movements and must be met by focusing our efforts on lobbying for political support, not just more code.
Getting a working GNU/Hurd system has been accomplished and looks to me like it is now in the stage where it is not ready for most computer users but it does boot. Improvements and extensions to the system (as well as getting the Hurd on a new microkernel) continue to arrive. This is all significant and needed progress but more code will not help stop harmful policies from being adopted under the cry of "harmonization" (such as EU adopting software patents or stopping the US Congress from extending the term of copyright again), nor will it stop various US states from adopting legislation that could (among other things) make it illegal to have a firewall unless the local telecommnications corporation says otherwise, or a host of other things that adversely affect our community. The FSF continues to speak on these issues and support Free Software development; the FSF is relevant nearly 30 years after they began.
Don't think that developing code must be done instead of working on other issues. All this and more needs to be done and is being done all at the same time.
Digital Citizen
"Revocation of corporate rights is revocation of individual rights in disguise. "
I'm afraid you are quite incorrect. The 'revocation of rights' for corporations as you call it does not infringe or revoke the rights of the individual. As, you have correctly stated, a corporation is an imaginary construct we are real people can but any or all the limitations on them as we deem fit. To raise a corporation to the level of 'being', that we afford actual people implies that corporations are the equal of said individuals. Thus making a corporation more than it is, or we, people, less than we are.
"By opposing corporate rights, Anticorporatists seek to deny rights to a specific group of individuals who hold views opposing their own: the representatives of corporations. Reborn in modern liberals, it is the age-old totatiltarian instinct to deny rights to those who think differently; Special rights for special classes, not equal rights for all."
All I can say is HUH? Im not quite sure when this became an 'anti-corporation' argument. And I haven not suggested denying rights to any individuals. People who represent corporations have all the rights as an individual has. Being part of a corporation does not grant them some new superset of rights or privileges. Might I remind you that your attempt to 'labelize' liberals as totalitarians is not only currently false but also historically. Generally speaking those who wants equal rights for all people don't usually end up becoming totalitarian dictators. If you are wishing to advocate equal rights for all fine. A corporation is not part of 'all', they are not real, they do not breathe, they do not eat. they do not bleed or have children. Its an abstract construct concocted by humans. Thus human have the final say about what the privileges and responsibilities we foist upon such entities. If you wish to advocate that a non-being has the same level of 'being-ness' as you do, feel free. I choose to think otherwise.
Absolutely no one has suggested that people working for corporations shouldn't have the right to do whatever they normally have the right to do. They simply say the individual people should be accountable when they violate the law. (And, of course, you don't have the right to violate the law, by definition.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
to deny rights to corporations is to deny rights to individuals
More correctly, to grant rights to corporations is to weaken the rights of individuals.
Due to wealth and size, corporations have the ability to impact and influence issues far more easily then any individual. A perfect example is the SLAPP (Strategis Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suit. These suits are generally baseless countersuits launched by corporations against non-profit organizations or individuals who speak out against, sue, or press charges against corporations who have violated the law or acted unethically, and the only purpose of these suits is to bankrupt the corporation's opponents until they shut up. So tell me how this benefits individual rights.
Another good example is the influence of said corporations on the political systems, internationally and particularly here in the U.S.
The travesty here is that coporations are able to act like 800 pound gorillas in the public arena fue to their equal standing as "individuals" and the fact that so much of what passes for "justice" and "speech" is really just exercising one's wealth. And the loser in this system is the individual.
fuck you.