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.
In a shocking move today, DreamWorks Studios announced the next Bruce Willis feature would include the company SCO as the primary antagonist. "Yes, Bruce Willis' character will have to blow up SCO. It should be quite the scene." said director Mark van Flemburg of the as yet unnamed movie.
Now that will be interesting. The MPAA in one corner, SCO in the other, and no-one wants to bet on either of them.
home
Taking on a group with deeper pockets and more political clout than IBM? That has to be the biggest brain fart in history.
McBride needs to remove his golf shoes before he steps on his dick again.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
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.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
*Wipes away a tear*
The Internet is just so wonderful...
clifgriffin > blog
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.
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
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
anonymous coward us and tell us what the hell is going on up there? Someone get their hands on a little too much nose candy?
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.
If nothing else, SCO could sue Lucasfilm for using Linux in a very inappropriate way....digitally creating Jar Jar Binks
That has to be worth some amount of punitive damages...
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
It's just insane. I can't find any cohesive thread tying all this together.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
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.
This weekend only! Live in Hollywood!
In this corner, the reigning heavyweight champion, with millions of dollars in court awards over the years: The heavyweight champion, the MPAA!
In this corner, the challenger, featherweight SCO. With no significant assets, no business plan, and no hope in hell, SCO.
Personally, I don't really care who wins. I'm just hoping it goes the distance and we see a lot of blood...
Silly SCO - Hollywood only writes the copyright laws, they don't actually obey them themselves!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
First question I have is this:
Are SCO/Sontag/McBride digging their own financial graves should the suit get thrown out as being baseless?
Whats the likely effect on Hollywood? Are they going to be scared of the SCO monster and back down, or will SCO have made another enemy that mobilises its army of lawyers?
Can the investment firms named also be sued? Like in class action lawsuit?
StarTux
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.
"I'd be surprised if we make it to the end of the year without filing a lawsuit."
Yeah, I'd be surprised, too.
The revolution will be televised. Blackout restrictions apply.
- 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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
In this hilarious update of the much-loved Hollywood classic, Steve Martin turns in a winning performance as Darl McBride, the befuddled CEO of SCO who has a hard time maintaining his grip on reality when Hollywood effects shops unexpectedly chooses to use Linux. Tickling funnybones and touching hearts of critics and audiences alike, this entertaining treat chronicles Darl's hysterical trials and tribulations leading up to his downfall. Funnyman Martin Short lights up the screen as the off-the-wall Linus Torvalds. Father of McBride promises to love, honor, and deliver the kind of motion picture fun you'll thoroughly enjoy.
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.
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.
Litigious bastards
It's IBM! and whats that in it's hands? It's a chain saw! They're taking them both out in one fowl swoop. What a grisley display.
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.
The Crack Smokers Association of America sues SCO for bringing their name into disrepute.
Maybe SCO hopes Hollywood is more likely to buy it out.
Unlike IBM, Hollywood is unfamiliar with the legal underpinnings of the GPL and more vulnerable to smoke and mirrors.
Yet, like IBM, Hollywood also has deep pockets.
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
Let's see what they dig up.
You forgot "and cover up." Remember that MPAA studios own all major commercial television news media in the United States (except for MSNBC until NBC merges with Universal). They'll dig up a lot of dirt on SCO and cover up their own faults.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is like getting previews and teasers to one of the most anticipated movies of all time. I just want to be able to see what the outcome of this case is. I want to see SCO's ass kicked in court.
This has to be a unique moment for me personally. I normally don't give a rat's ass who wins a litigation in the USA - it seems to happen to damn often - but SCO are really asking for it. They're like the dumb little kid in the playground who's taunting the big fat kid, and you just want the big fat kid to pound him so bad...
Gentlemen, start your penguins
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...
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?
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?
Rollin' rollin' rollin'
Keep that FUD train movin'
Damn my ass is swollen
Rawhide!
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!
This page says that "SCO Clears Linux Kernel but Implicates Red Hat and SuSE"... so why is it g oing after linux users in general?
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?
I will not pay you in Japan,
I will not pay you in Thailand.
I will not pay in Spain or France,
I will not pay you, not one chance!
I will not pay you, S-C-O,
I need not pay you, no, no, no!
Will I retire or break 10K?
"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
Ah, so Darl thinks he's Zeus now? The thing to remember is that after the storm and noise are done, it's the lightning rod that remains. And he should be careful with electricity when he and his claims is so obviously groundless.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I find this move particularly convincing as proof that a relationship between Microsoft and SCO exists.
Consider:
1. clustering is one technology that Microsoft has not had much success with. Part of it is the structure of Windows itself that leads to technical hurdles. But, even if they had efficient clustering built into Windows right now, the licensing terms that Microsoft has held dear for so long (i.e. one computer, one license) would kill them in the clustering marketplace.
2. Bill Gates, in an interview that I can't find right now (I'm sure someone out there can provide a link), claimed that one of the features of the new Longhorn product would be the ability to share computing power over the network and allow anyone on the network to take advantage of idle computers on the network. Most of the analysts took this to be a reference to Grid computing, but I saw it as a direct shot at the clustering capabilities of Linux.
3. Notice that SCO's claims from the beginning (specifically the suit against IBM that this all started with) named multi-processor capability as one of the technologies stolen by IBM and imported into Linux. Notice also that SCO's licensing for Linux has always discussed a "per-CPU" license, not a "per-computer" license. As far as I know, Microsoft's licensing, other than the fact that the version of their OS that runs 2 CPUs costs a little more (not double) than that which runs on a single CPU and the version that supports more than 2 costs more than that (still not linear cost increments with the # of CPUs), does not exact a fixed cost "per CPU".
Make no mistake about it. This has all been carefully orchestrated by Microsoft to make Windows look more attractive in a market that traditionally has belonged to Linux and Unix variants. When Longhorn is finally released, I predict that it (or atleast one version of it) will have:
1. clustering capability built-in (can you say "my cluster neighborhood"?).
2. the ability to remove (or disable) the GUI, whose overhead is not needed or desired in clustering situations. Isn't a CLI something they have been touting lately?
3. a pricing structure that will look ery attractive when compared to SCO's $699 per-CPU cost. Where did SCO come up with that price anyway? I suggest it was fed to them by Microsoft.
It's interesting--most people don't realize that lightning rods are put in place in order to decrease the chance of lightning hitting there. The pointed tip 'leaks' out the electric charge of the earth, decreasing the voltage and the resulting chance of arcing.
So does that mean that the fact that Hollywood uses lots of Linux mean that they have a lower chance of being sued?
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
The 60's were the hippie decade.
The 70's were the "me" decade.
The 80's were the Al Franken decade.
The 90's were the dot com decade.
So far the 00's are shaping up to be the Who Cares If Everybody Knows You're An Asshole As Long As You Make Money decade.
The main thrust of 21st Century innovation, at least in America, seems to be in blatantly profiteering from defects in the system and shoving it in everybody's face. Sleazy business tactics like obstructive litigation, bogus intellectual property claims and political bribery are nothing new. The innovative element is that these activities now occur right out in the open. In many cases we know damn well that what some CEO is saying is absolute and utter crap. They know that we know; they just don't care. They've spent a lot of money tailoring the legal system to their needs, and they aren't going to hesitate to use it just because they might look bad. Advertising and low prices will eventually buy public forgiveness.
There is no pride or shame in high places anymore, only a pervasive arrogance.
"Yes, Bruce Willis' character will have to blow up SCO. It should be quite the scene."
Especially considering that Hollywood[tm] will be buying out SCO so that in the filming they will actually be blowing up the real SCO offices, and if law enforcment agrees, it will still contain SCO executives when it is blown up.
A Hollywood[tm] producer was quoted as saying: "Some might say that it is too expensive to blow up the real SCO offices for a special effect, but we think we will make it up at the box office."
The rumor that Linus Torvalds will be making a cameo has not been confirmed.
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
I think this is a "good thing"[tm] for at least one reason: people are going to start saying, "Hey, even Hollywood uses Linux? This must be something pretty cool. Let's take a look at it."
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
----
Not to be confused with Col.