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.

Comments

Let's see how this plays out...

[overbyj]

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.

They need to establish a "Loss"

[bstadil]

Unfortunately this might not be as idiotic as it seems on it 's surface. I addition to the Stock issue that will be mentioned here ad nauseam SCO needs to extablish some sort of loss if they are to collect anything.

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.

Hollywood Doesn't Care

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Silly SCO - Hollywood only writes the copyright laws, they don't actually obey them themselves!

Maybe this'll drive a lesson home

[ShatteredDream]

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.

Right to sue in de minimis cases?

[yerricde]

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?

Re:Is anyone else just BAFFLED?

[JayBlalock]

Except their posting up of their OWN Linux build defeats all that. If the GPL is upheld, they get sued by thousands of Linux programmers for breech of contract. If the GPL is broken, they get sued by thousands of Linux programmers for IP infringement. There is NO scenario wherein they can claim the right to distribute their own Linux without adhering to the GPL.

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.

There's a difference Darl.......

[mormop]

"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.

If he comes to you...

[Kjella]

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