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.
First you decide that you need to take on one of the most powerful computer companies in the world thinking that you will make them roll over and pony up your extortion fee. IBM will basically make SCO eat their own lunch and then make SCO say "Thank you sir, may I have another".
Since that is not enough, you decide to pick on somebody else. Let's see...who might be using Linux that should just roll right over again....Oh, I know....Hollywood!!!
Yeah, those movie companies don't mind too much about paying extortion money to annoying gnat-like computer companies that have no legs to stand on. Excellent decision Darl. I am sure that Spielberg and his crew at Dreamworks and Lucas and others will surely just pay up, no questions asked.
SCO, I have to admit that you have some of the biggest balls in the computer industry. Unfortunately, your balls are filled with the hottest of air.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
They have sued for $3B but this is just a number. It could just as easily be a gazillion.
To collect anything in the unlikely event that IBM is found to be at fault, SCO needs to establish a Loss.
They way to do this is to stated a value times the Units used. This is most likely why they have introduced this silly $699 scheme.
For the value to be "deemed" acceptable they need to sell at least some licenses at that price . It is not enought to point to MS and say they bought licensing for $8M.
Now if they can swing somethng with a Film maker this would go a long way to establish "credibility", so I guess this is at least one more reason for this apparent Suicide mission.
Help fight continental drift.
Silly SCO - Hollywood only writes the copyright laws, they don't actually obey them themselves!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Those insane IP laws the studios wanted are coming back to haunt them. It's not so much the specific laws, but rather the culture they foster. This probably won't do anything other than further convince the fat cats in the movie industry that they need more protection from the proles.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Let's hope he continues this lawsuit mania. Why? Because most members of the gov'ts servers are linux. Congress (the democractic party at least) is beholden to lawyers who file these frivilous lawsuits. They won't institute tort reform until it bites them in the ass. Darl could just be the one to do that.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
One significant difference between IBM and Hollywood is that IBM has a HUGE staff of patent and copyright lawyers who are very capable. Hollywood's lawyers are focused in a totally different direction - the entertainment industry and their copyrights. The two have very little in common.
Thus, I can see IBM putting on a great defense regarding SCO's suit against them and a great offense in their suit against SCO. I can't say that I see the same level of legal practice in regards to Linux rights from the folks in Hollywood. Yes Hollywood has the money but the IBM legal staff is a strong team that has been doing this kind of thing for years. This could get interesting.
I can see Hollywood doing a double-take when they see 1000 dual processor CPUs being hit with extorsion licenses that exceed $1000 each. License fees of over $1-million would wake anybody up.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Surely anyone in the industry who is challenged just has to say "We're running a customised kernel, we have modified lots of code. Show us your code and we can tell you if we've replaced it or not".
They're not going to pay up if there's any chance they're not even using the SCO 'IP', are they? Couldn't this force an admission of code?
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
SCO has already contacted sony. Will sony pony up? Not a chance in hell. SCO is going after any one that is using Linux that they might be able to squeeze some money out of. With Novell buying SuSE and claiming it still has certain rights that it can wave.... SuSE is pretty much a safe bet. HP is imdemnifying its customers as well. Red Hat is waxing the floor with them. Are there any other companies that they can go after? The IBM suit is only between IBM and SCO. It does nothing else for the rest of the industry. SCO can still try to go after other Linux contributers that have access to SVR4 source code. DoD, that could be a funny attack. They are stupid enough to try it, but will not succeed. Hollywood s the only place they almost possibly have a prayer that they can extort some money. Everyone else is pretty much safe at the moment. They could go after other distrobutions, but there isn't any money left. If Novell does still have rights to waiver infringments....then all people have to do is switch to suse and keep on trucking. There shouldnt be any need to go back to windows or sun, irix,hpux, or other proprietary os. They also would have to prove that they have infringing code in the Linux kernel and other GNU software if they are to attack HollyWood.
I think SCO has just reached 100 deciJobs in the reality distortion field.
Stop signs are only Suggestions
IMHO, most linux users are pro Open Source, and the GPL, This is the fundamental problem. No Linux users are genuinely going to beleive the FUD that comes from Utah.
...
Lets say you work in a department and you use a considerable percentage of your machines are Linux, what are you and your fellow hackers going to say when mr PHB comes down from head office and asks you about the SCO thing ?
Hopefully you'll convince him that SCO are talking out of there ass. So there inherently lies the problem, most organisations are not going to change. I havent yet heard of anyone who's actually bowed down to SCO.
These absurd threats and forays they are making must surely be reaching a climax. I dont think there can be any doubt now that Microsoft are behind this. SCO are nothing but a pawn in Redmonds little game. One way or the other the results of this court case are going to forge the future business strategy of Redmond. One thing is for sure though, SCO are going down and the world will be a better place without them.
Redmond dont want to destroy Linux, they want it, the problem is it just doesnt fit with their proprietary business model. If only they could find a way to make Linux a proprietary system by invalidating the GPL. That is the real reason behind it.
My real fear is that when SCO finally does go down, who's going to get to pick up the peices ? i.e. the Unix rights?
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I'm preaching to the choir by responding to this, but it's worth saying that the difference bettween the two cases is that the holder of the copyright gets to declare the terms of distribution. If Hollywood wants to sell their product, that is their choice. If Linus (& friends) want to give their product away for free, that is their choice. If Hollywood wants to simultaneously reap the technical/financial rewards of the GPL and the financial rewards of selling their movies, there is no hypocrisy -- so long as in both cases the terms of the respective copyright holders are honored.
SCO, which has retained hired gun and Microsoft nemesis David Boies, plans to target titans of financial services, transportation companies, government agencies and big retail chains
I think the "Microsoft nemesis" meme here is very interesting. Lawyers are only enemies-for-hire. Since Boies is no longer working on the DOJ-vs-MS case, it doesn't make sense to think of him as their nemesis any longer. Still, I wonder if he was specifically hired to give "plausible deniability" to any alleged MS funding of SCO's actions (knowing how most people probably don't understand how dispassionate lawyers can be if enough money is on the table.)
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I still own one share of SCO stock and am holding on to it for no other purpose than to help bring suit to them
You probably won't be able to sue SCO executives unless and until they cause you to lose at least twenty U.S. dollars (Amendment VII). What is SCOX worth again? Have you held SCOX stock since late 2000, the last time it was worth $20 per share more than it's worth now?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Really... some legal group should get a cease and desist order put on SCO and their frivolous claims to IP infringement until 1 of two conditions are met..
They show the linux community offending code so that it maybe remedied.
Or the courts rule on their claims. In which case if their IP rights have been violated the linux community will be able to remedy the situation and life will go on without SCO making news every other day.
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
The sooner we stop paying it any attention, the sooner they will go away.
I say, ignore them, let them do battle and they will just... sod off and die.
I really get sick of hearing SCO fud.
We should just STOP listening to it!
Perhaps they (MS) know that the GPL would be held up in court.
Perhaps they know Linux would always best their products on the technical front.
Perhaps they're planning on SCO pissing off enough companies, Linux developers, and Linux users to force to sue SCO. Perhaps they are planning on using this litigation in a anti-Linux / anti-GPL / anti-open source marketing campaign.
See how litigous the Linux developers are? Do something with Linux that they don't like and they'll sue you!
It's possible. It's entirely possible. Perhaps we (the Linux community) isn't looking far enough ahead. We're playing a game of chess here and our opponent is distracting us with stupid moves of his pawns while the queen gets in position for the kill. It's possible that we just aren't looking at this from the right angle. We need to be predicting their moves further in advance. Thoughts?
And the idea of it being declared equivilent to public domain is fanciful at best - legally if the GPL is struck down, all copyrights then revert back to being handled under the 1977 copyright law. If a judge actually were to so rule, it would be immediately struck down on appeal - there's simply no legal basis for stripping the code of its copyright protections entirely without the express permission of the copyright holder.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
"McBride points out that Hollywood studios, keen to protect their movies from being pirated on the Internet, have preached the need to respect copyrights. 'It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying, "Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,"' he says."
Errrrmm, this may be because Hollywood generally pays someone to write a script or buys one from someone else, hires the actors, CGI guys, film crews, director etc., maintains a level of control over the production process then credits (and pays) those responsible for their contribution.
This differs from your claim which is based on the concept of "we didn't actually contribute any effort, development funding, or anything really but feel we deserve money because IBM included software THEY'D developed to work on UNIX into Linux" a concept that is stretching the term "derivative work" to the limit.
The two are wholly different claims and your idea as expressed above is akin to wholesale distribution of Windows or your proprietry UNIX or ripped of movies via the net.
Again, it's fairly easy to spot when a movie has stolen the plot of another movie makers work and you can bet Hollywood would jump on the back of anyone who stole significant chunks of a film script without crediting the original.
One more time:
YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SHRED OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CASE! YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ME OR ANY OTHER LINUX USER WITH ANY CONVINCING SOLID REASON WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY!
So until you are willing to put the proof to public scrutiny, and I can download the kernel source from any Linux distro or kernel.org so don't give us this "it'll be revealing our trade secrets crap, shut the fuck up and start behaving like an adult.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Most of the posts on article are modded "5 Funny", anyone would think that no-one's taking SCO's claim seriously.
Except Uncle Darl that is.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Lets say you work in a department and you use a considerable percentage of your machines are Linux, what are you and your fellow hackers going to say when mr PHB comes down from head office and asks you about the SCO thing?
Usually, PHBs don't ask tech about legal issues, they ask legal. Lawyers like to keep all bases open, so they're probably not ready to dismiss it completely, even if they have some clue about the case. Good old "Cover Your Ass", they don't have all the facts, so they can't make it 100% definitive. Then the PHB will percieve this as a risk, and *then* he'll come down to tech and go "Can we do something about this 'Linux' risk?" Don't expect him to take your legal advice "SCO is smoking crack" at face value.
Instead, show him all the people they've threatened. IBM (don't forget AIX), Linux distributors (Redhat countersuit, Suse getting gag order in Germany), Linux users, SGI, HP (which offered indamnification), Hollywood, the list goes on and on. Make them sound as if they're trying to take on the world, suing everybody and anybody, demanding money for allegations they won't prove. In short, make them sound like one of those "companies" sending out fake bills, only in this case they're using licence fees instead. "Pay us this licence fee/bill, or else..." "Else what? For what?" "Uh nevermind..."
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"We're going to force people down a path,"McBride says. "They can choose licensing or litigation. If someone says they want to see a court ruling before they pay, we'll say, Fine, you're the lucky winner. We'll take you first.' I'd be surprised if we make it to the end of the year without filing a lawsuit."
This is intense! We all know Microsoft doesn't have the best Karma on the planet, but at least they pretend to be friendly. This attitude is akin to professional wrestlers growling "I'm gonna tear off all his limbs and put them all back in the wrong sockets! He's gonna be crying for his momma when I pull out his tongue and hang him with it! GRAAAAAA"
I like the suggestions of making a movie out of this... I hope some Flash ninja will put together a comedy of this whole situation. Although it'd probably have to be based on the Moon, because it's so fucking ridiculous anyway.
The NSA was making a "secure" version of Linux weren't they?
Although I'm sure a lot of people could contribute to a fund for this. Maybe a collection plate can be passed around at the next VES awards for Thad's explosives fund ;-). Maybe have another one for the Deep Shadows Map thing ;-).
Yep seems a bit on the stunt publicity side. Afetr all most VFX studios are separate from the movie studios, except for a few notable exceptions. Why would they talk to the executives at Universal, since they contract their VFX work. Heck maybe even the executives at Sony don't know what Imageworks are using and must be thinking SCO is on crack or something.
How can they "crush" them?
It works like this:
There is no fight, there is no attack. There is just FUD, nothing more and nothing less.