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.
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
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?
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 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.
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 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!
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
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?
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.
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