Slashdot Mirror
SCO Website Using Groklaw's Content
darkonc writes "It looks like they didn't learn from the
BSD debacle (where, having sued Berkley for copyright infringement, AT&T found that they were using BSD code without acknowledging it's source). Groklaw has an article detailing how SCO has documents created by and for Groklaw on their site -- without even acknowledging the source. It seems that the defenders of the holy IP principle have hoisted the skull and bones."
We should write to SCO to remind them of the fact. Here they are bashing the GPL yet go ahead and use content from an "unfriendly" Linux related site. After this message, I am gonna "overwhelm" their `contact us' mail box.
...they either a) Have some balls. Or b) are dumb as rocks.
Given their past behavior, I've gotta go with b. For a while, I was expecting ( but certainly not hoping for ) them to pull the rabbit out of their hat and set us all back on our heels. Their claims just seemed too silly not to be justified by *something*.
Now of course, we've all got a pretty good idea what kind of clowns these really are.
Still, to steal from groklaw...whew...that's just stunning in my opinion. You gotta respect the lengths these guys will go to.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I think SCO must be too buy looking over their mountain of discovery proceeds to add a simple attribution to their legal docs website.
Too busy, too cheap, too lazy... who knows what their excuse.
Perhaps it is simply that SCO does not want to give credit where credit is due.
Subdude
Oh come on. They didn't give Groklaw credit for scanning the court's documents. Boo hoo.
Scanning didn't create a derivative work. Scanning added no actual content. Plus, as legal filings they're arguably public domain in the first place in which case they'd still be public domain after scanning.
Yeah, sure I appreciate the irony of them using the work without recompense. But compared to the ghastly irony of continuing to offer Linux for download from their site this is piddling stuff.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
On the site where they are using Groklaw's and Tuxrock's documents. SCO has claimed copyright of the work.
So not only have they "borrowed" the work of others instead of doing their own (which apparently may be legal as that they are court documents, or may not be legal since the file itself may be copyrighted although the document cannot be etc... etc... ), they are also claiming copyright on the "borrowed" work.
Regards,
Z
This is like doing a research paper in college.
Let's say I look up some documents on Lexis-Nexus. I have to cite Lexis-Nexis; otherwise it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter where those documents originally came from. My citation must include a reference to Lexis-Nexus saying how I got this information.
If I don't do this, I've committed plagiarism. I would receive an automatic F and face the possibility of further, much more damaging to myself, ramifications.
I don't know about how this might play out in the minutae of copyright law, but in academics SCO would be in serious trouble.
I think Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation is an applicable precedent here; it states that when you have a two-dimensional work of art that is in the public domain, a photography of that work of art cannot be copyrighted, since even if you put a considerable amount of time and energy into getting the photograph right, you still have not created something original.
IANAL, but I assume that scanning court documents is similar - just because you were the one who scanned them does (I'd assume) not mean you have a copyright on those PDFs then. Of course, SCO is claiming copyright on these documents themselves, so that's not entirely unfishy, either, but most likely, neither PJ (of Groklaw) nor Frank of (of Tuxrocks) who scanned those documents have a real case here.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Don't worry. No courts necessary. They'll be shut down soon just from not having sold any products for years while their lawyers bills are building up.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
The ability to communicate clearly is, like the ability to do proper research, not valued highly by the Google generation.
Well, you would think that TSG would at least use their own copies of their own court filings (that they wrote) instead of scans from Groklaw especially as the trumped their new lawsuits site as a better alternative to Groklaw (and all it has ATM is stuff copied from Groklaw with no attribution). I guess this is indicative of the sort of idiots we are up against.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Ya, and plagiarism is not copyright infringement. Heck in the US, plagiarism isn't even illegal.
In this case, plagiarism is obvious, infringement would take a court to decide. (It isn't clear whether scans of documents can be copyrighted at this time... They represent effort, but not necessarily creativity. Further, some courts are starting to be careful about allowing loopholes that might "relock" public domain works.)
This is incorrect on both counts.
1. Groklaw is arguing not that Linux cannot be copyrighted. It can and is (Look at the source files) Just not by SCO.
SCO is claiming copyrights based on look and feel. This is not allowed under copyright laws. If they had patents they might have something.
They don't have the patents.
They don't have the copyrights ( Novell v. SCO)
They don't have the trademarks.
What they do have is greed.
What they do have is Support from Microsoft.
What they do have is a severe lack of ethics.
2. Once a document has been scanned and proofread, it can and is copyrighted by those who do the work. I am aware of atleast one case where the infringers incurred significant legal liabilities. If you think such things cannot be detected, think again. If they have taken them from Groklaw, and falsely claimed copyright, they can easily be sued. If They have not claimed copyright, they may easily have violated the terms of use.
But unless Darl and his buddies end up dirt poor, this has all been fun and games. That's the beauty of corporations: they can misbehave all they want, and when they are eventually killed, no real person has to suffer any meaningful consequences.
To beat the dead horse: this is why corporations shouldn't be treated as equal to humans by the law, because they don't play by the same rules and they don't have the same motivations and limitations. It's unbalanced.
Cheers.