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

Where are the Linux kernel copyright holders?

[isolation]

As a Free Software developer this SCO news bothers me more and more as the story unfolds.

From GPL violations to this gangster type activity you would think that someone would put SCO to task here. 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 for these type of actions. What can they be nailed on and how can I as a stockholder help?

Note: I sold the rest of my SCO stock when this mess first started and purchased Novell.

Great...

[tolldog]

Right when I am getting ready to start work in the entertaiment industry again (in a week) SCO has to pull this stunt. I sure hope this doesn't scare people into dropping linux on the desktop or the renderfarm, the industry has just really started embracing it. The cost of swtiching to linux wasn't cheap, the cost switching back, that would be way way too expensive. Compaines with 1000+ box render farms would probably fight SCO on this (I can only hope) because the non linux solution would be going back to Solaris or IRIX, neither of which are cheap OS's or cheap hardware.

This could be the last stupid move that SCO makes. Maybe they are wanting to be bought out. HP has to hate this too, because they are really, really heavy in the CG industry as a Linux solutions provider.

-Tim

Is anyone else just BAFFLED?

[JayBlalock]

I'm starting to think that SCO's strategic decisions are being made by the proverbial room of infinite monkeys. The last few pieces of news about them haven't been maddening, just sad and funny. Opening themselves to thousands of IP lawsuits from Linux programmers? Making a marketing move which virtually hands Red Hat's case to them? And now, attacking an entity which has the power to crush them without a second thought, or even doing more than digging metaphorical pocket change out of the couch?

It's just insane. I can't find any cohesive thread tying all this together.

Re:Is anyone else just BAFFLED?

[TrombaMarina]

Last time I came out with this sentiment I was modded a troll, but I think I'll try this again because it seems to answer your question:

News Flash: the SCO case will not be decided by Slashdot readers. It will be decided by average Americans like the judge in a recent hacker case who was tripped up by the defendent using the technical term, "cut and paste" and had to ask, "you mean, with scissors?"

The SCO view:
SCO is operating on the assumption that Open Source, by it's very nature, gives away the intellectual property that our capitalist computer industry is based on. The US government (and almost every other government) provides protection for inventors, authors, and corporations for their creations and trade secrets through patents and copyrights. This system has encouraged our country to rise from the "wretched refuse of [other countries] teeming shores" to the great nation it is today. SCO believes that Open Source software and the GPL short-circuit those protections in a way which is dangerous for business, discourages invention, and is ultimately bad for society as a result. Even if Open Source works in some sense, how can it compete with the grand designs of our forefathers which have proved their worth in the past however-many decades (centuries?).

SCO can not concieve of how a leaderless group who calls themselves "hackers" and (according to the media) prides themselves on not being outside the norms of society could possibly have anything good to contribute to that society. Nothing could delight SCO more than the electroinc attacks some hackers launched against SCOs web site. They will say to the court, "this is the kind of people who work on Open Source projects. Hackers will be hackers."

The Open Source view:
Anyone who has selflessly given their time, energy, and expertise to an Open Soure project has done so in the spirit of giving to the community. The software they have created will always benefit the software community as a whole, and therefore improve the average quality of all software written by the community, and improve user experiences with software at the same time.

Summary:
Each of the above viewpoints is based on faith. The first is about faith in the capitalist system, the second about faith in the power of giving and community. Unfortunately, the case will be judged by the arbitrators of the system that created copyrights and patents in the first place, and that could just come out in SCOs favor. Granted, SCO has been doing some things which could undermine its credibility. But if SCO's lawyers can keep this case about "Hardworking Capitalists" vs. "Anarchist Hackers" they have a pretty good chance of winning it.

I have to say that I am a Hard Working Capitalist by day, and an Open Source Hacker by night. Long before copyrights and patents, Jesus himself taught that sharing was good for society in the parable of the loaves and fishes, as well as other stories. The value of sharing is stressed in every other major religion, and Economics. Sharing has been proved good for society for millennia. SCO, while thinking it fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, is actually defending the "Me" generation it proclaims to hate. If they win this case, they are essentially making it illegal to share intellectual property, even if the inventor/author wishes to do so.

Open Source does not undermine existing copyrights or prevent people from obtaining future ones, it meerely provides an alternative that allows inventors/authors at their own discretion to give the fruits of their labors freely to the community for the benefit of all.

P.S. (RANT)
Instead of moderating this with a -1 troll (you cowardly bastard), why not post an intellectual argument telling my why I am wrong so that we can have a debate here. I'm really sick of the amount of back-patting on this issue where people go on and on about how screwed SCO is while moderators silence dissenting oppinions.

Let's See...

[TWX]

• SCO Takes on IBM, that is bad from many people's perspectives, but the media doesn't take notice, so many others don't care.
• SCO takes on Sun, SGI, and the like, and no one really cares beyond the computer enthusiasts.
• RedHat files against SCO. No one who isn't a computer enthusiast seems to really notice.
• IBM counterfiles against SCO, which is slightly noticed in SCO stock, but probably more because it's IBM suing, rather than what the suit is about.

What's going to happen when SCO starts actively taking on the very media that has publicized it's side but not publicized the other side of the argument? Remember, many media conglomerations own movie studios, television networks, newspapers, internet sites, and radio stations, or if they don't own them outright, they have a significant financial interest and a certain level of control. If the media feels that it's being attacked, it's in a great position to do two things: show the stories in a positive light for others that are also being attacked, and to villianize the attacker. This has the potential to be the single largest screwup that Caldera International d/b/a SCO Inc has committed.

This one I'm actually interested to see play out. This is going to be fun to watch.

Re:Let's RUMBLEEEE!!!

[TomV]

And it all ties in nicely with an earlier story on Groklaw which pointed out that what SCO are doing is the very thing which the RI AA describes as 'stealing'.

Anyone for a quick round of Celebrity Lobby Group Deathmatch?

tomV

Losing the media

[Nucleon500]

Although it's taken far too long, I think the mainstream media (Forbes, in this case) is beginning to catch on. Before, they just parroted SCO ("SCO, owner of Unix, has sued IBM, and the free Unix derivative Linux is at risk.") Now, however, we see the media going under the surface, creating quotes like "[SCO] didn't even play a role in creating Unix," and, "McBride's assault on the "peace and love" Linux movement already has made SCO the most hated villain in the computer industry. Now he wants to shake down the people who make cartoons for kids." I expect that in a month or so, the media will be overtly telling people how much of a farce this really is.

This article was mostly good, but I wish they had picked apart McBride's "'Boy, this free stuff is sure cool!'" lie - the difference is that the creators of movies don't want them to be free, while the creators of Linux do, and McBride's the one usurping our copyrights. Also, the author slipped up and called Linux freeware, but that's a minor distinction to everyone but us. And there was quite a bit of emphasis on people investing in SCO, but hey, this is Forbes, so what a company does is secondary to how its stock will react.

As for SCO itself, it's difficult to understand why they are so suicidal. They've ruined their defense against RedHat by explicitly threatening to sue their customers (assuming RedHat has at least one customer in Hollywood.) They're extorting from companies even bigger than IBM, companies which might have more to lose, companies that exert some control on the media, which SCO desperately needs. Everyone assumes Microsoft, but one would think Microsoft could buy higher-quality FUD, and hide its ties better. Pump-n-dump doesn't quite fit either - McBride isn't making any attempt to appear like he has a case anymore. Anyone who can't tell he's a raving lunatic isn't looking hard enough. I remain frustrated at our incredibly slow legal system, which won't do anything about this for at least two more years.