Slashdot Mirror
SCO to Take On Hollywood
An anonymous reader writes "Daniel Lyons, the man you may remember for calling the FSF 'Linux's Hit Men' is now reporting that SCO is 'Holding Up Hollywood.'
Their reasoning? It's because 'They're using a ton of Linux in Hollywood, so they've become a lightning rod for us,' says Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive.
As usual, Groklaw provides insightful commentary concerning rehash SCO has planted to remain in the news, saying 'Maybe they should fulfill prior threats before they throw out new ones? Otherwise, it could lead some of us to doubt their sincerity.'" At least it's smarter than trying to sell a license to every home user of Linux.
Lyons suggested that I didn't really care about the whole SCO fiasco, and I was trying to demonstrate the depth of my feeling. It was stupid. I'm sorry. It won't happen again.
Another thing he said that didn't make it into the article, for some reason, is that the reason SCO is taking on Hollywood is to generate publicity -- that anything to do with movies gets many times the publicity it deserves.
What this implies is that they don't really want money from this, they want press, they want buzz, they want to be in people's faces. The obvious reason would be to raise the stock price, something that has been flat for the last two months.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
It's because these are civil matters. The gov't for the most part doesn't get involved in contract disputes or IP issues between two entities (there are always exceptions). When this is all over the SEC might have some claims against SCO, but I imagine/hope they are either (1) waiting to see how this plays out or (2) gathering evidence.
The gov't can't issue a ruling on the merits of SCO's claims - that is what the courts are for. And as such, any intervention by another branch would be premature.
SCO, which has retained hired gun and Microsoft nemesis David Boies
IANAL, but doesn't this pose something of a conflict-of-interest? Boies is a M$ foe, M$ is covertly shovelling funds into the SCO coffers through capital investment firms in which M$ holds large stake - pretty damned convenient. They get to take on Linux AND call into question the integrity of a well-known lawyer who's scored big against them...
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
The $150,000 figure is "statutory damages." Such damages are available only to a copyright owner who registered his copyright either before the infringement happened or within three months after the work was first published.
Actual damages are not capped, but they're also much harder to get than statutory damages.
Will I retire or break 10K?
No, SCO wouldn't be going after the MPAA. They'd target the multiple small effects shops that run Linux on server farms. The MPAA itself has no Linux machines so would be immune from any SCO lawsuit. Now, since the MPAA is supposed to speak for these studios and the production companies then they'd have a reason to fight SCO, but it appears that the MPAA has become a self-perpetuating entity in itself and has already given up the pretense of doing what's right for its members.
Taking on a group with deeper pockets and more political clout than IBM?
Maybe more political clout, but Hollywood does not have deeper pockets than IBM. The best numbers I was able to find (without paying for access to research reports) is that the US media industry hit $100 billion in 2002. That's a lot of money, but that includes television, newspapers, music, movies and games. The gross box office revenues revenues for the top 10 movie studios for 2002 was $8.4 billion. Figure their total movie-related revenues were maybe twice that.
IBM, on the other hand, had 2002 revenues of $81 billion.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
----
Not to be confused with Col.