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."
You can tell a *lot* about a company by it's corporate culture. I remember a post I made a while ago to my weblog, before I did a domain change. It's about PHP Consulting but it really applies to this SCO article because of the no-good-theivery going on at SCO. I think SCO certainly faults on each and every one of the following:
Read on...
http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48789.htm?D E=1
Happened last week- old news in internet time. But applicable her because SCO's financial backing literally took a bullet to the head. I think the least of their concerns would be Groklaw's stolen pdf files.
Groklaw notes that SCO was pulling from both groklaw.net and tuxrocks.com. Even accepting that these are legal documents in SCO's own cases, it is amusing that they can't convert their own documents, but have to pull from OSS sites.
If you think deeply enough, you will have no single direction for your outrage.
1 in December.
1 in March.
Both people involved in Canopy.
Nothing strange or unusual about that. No sir.
Personally, I think it doesn't. Comments might but we're talking about markings here. This is just my personal opinion though. This still doesn't rise beyond mechanical duplication, IMHO.
I think it's questionable whether the PDF files count as a transcript which would be necessary since you would have to have a copyrightable work in the first place.
If memory serves me correctly, there was also a general consensus that
a) SCO sucks b) C&D'ing SCO could prove to be a very interesting publicity stunt c) SCO sucks.
i-ro-ny: 2. a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
It is quite ironic that SCO seems to think that only their most holy IP is significant to them. They should clarify that they couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone else's efforts, or they should at least credit people for doing the work they did instead of (perhaps inadvertantly) trying to make it look like they did this themselves.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
Tell that to Westlaw or Lexis. Both of these companies supply the full text of court decisions, statutes, administrative decesions, etc. etc. All of these are available free at the respective courthouses, gov't offices, libraries where they are stored. Why then would a basic subscription to the state law databases of one state cost around $125 per month? Because the gathering and reformating of this widely dispersed inconveniently printed material has imense value. Westlaw and Lexis do not own the content, but they do own the manner in which it is presented. In a simialr vein, while groklaw doesn't own the content of the documents it has presented, it certainly owns the files it has created.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
It MUST apply. After all, SCO has claimed copyright on them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
SCO thought ESR would just let it fly to use the FUD entry of the Jargon file to further their claims back in 2003. SCO: See also Bzzt! Wrong.
Help us build a better map!
Copyright infringement is one thing... Using other's IP without being liscensed...
But actually claiming rights to the IP? That's closer to piracy than anything I've ever heard that didn't acutally involve a boat on the ocean, and an eyepatched salty dog. More apt would be to call it "Claim Jumping"...
Perhaps we can yet see SCO hoisted from the yardarm!
The content isn't copyrighted, but the formatting is copyrighted under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0.
What does that mean, that the formatting is copyrighted? See this thread, on Groklaw. There are also court cases where the contents of a phone directory were considered public information, but their compilation, formatting, etc., were considered copyrighted. (I'm feeling to lazy to look it up at the moment.)
Still, does this really rise to the level of a Federal Case? Is it worth it to file suit, or even send a C & D letter?
At any rate, PJ has made it abundantly clear that she has no intention of pursing this legally. She just finds it very funny, as do I. The people crying for litigation are missing the point.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Its www.groklaw.net, not wwwgroklaw.net. Perhaps someone should review the article next time for errors before posting?
Brielle
I'm not so sure about that. The details are a bit vague in my mind (I don't remember the details enough to google), but there was a similar case in which some dude painstakingly traveled to a bunch of museums around the world, photographed a fameous artist's works (monet, van gogh, something like that), cropped, stitched, readjusted etc., and presented them on the web. Then, someone copied them onto another website and was sued by the original photographer. Sorry the details are so scarce, perhaps someone remembers this better than I?
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
The real irony is that they wrote the documents but are using Groklaw's scanned versions on their site--I assume because it is more difficult than finding the originals.
Especially, ironic as this site was their attempt at countering Groklaw's `lies' and all it contains is stuff copied from Groklaw ATM.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
It is entirely possible that SCO's use of Groklaw's PDFs is an FU to Groklaw.
Groklaw is arguing that open-source Linux can't be copyright by SCO for a wide range of reasons. SCO knows that you can't copyright a scan of a public domain document like a legal document, so SCO puts Groklaw in the awkward position of complaining that SCO has "stolen" their property.
To be sure, SCO is a hypocritical, scummy company based on usurping the IP of other, more generous people, but they are showing that they have a sense of humor, albeit an evil one.
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.
Remind SCO of their misattribution or lack of proper attribution, yes. But I hope no one is silly enough to make a legal issue of this, at least until the larger lawsuit is over and done with.
Nothing but bait.
There was a case in Texas, Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International that held that there is no copyright in laws. In Bender v. West West claimed copyright on pagination, but the case was never fully dicided as they struck a deal to avoid the question. But, most of the copyright claim was stricken.
Now, the terms of use is a different stury and may restrict the use of the information gathered from the site.
Fight Spammers!
This is no surprise. SCO has bashed Linux and the GPL for several years now, and all that time have been still attempting to sell their products based on Linux and other GPL software. The left hand slams GPL, while the right hand sings the praises.
Its just further proof that no one at SCO has any idea what the fuck they are doing. I've said it before, I'll say it again...those who can, innovate, those who can't, litigate. And now we can add that those who can't litigate successfully steal from those who can.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Man, where have you been? The Second Circuit pretty much settled this ages ago. The case you want is this: Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ. Co., 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998).
There was a prior 8th Circuit case to the contrary, but Feist pretty much killed it. IIRC, it hasn't been seriously reexamined since in light of the incredible difficulty of claiming that page numbering is original, and the strong public policy and due process arguments.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Is there any reason to even talk about this any more? I mean, is there anybody on the face of the planet, even McBride himself, who seriously thinks that SCO has even the vaguest chance of victory? The only thing that counts is the courtroom, and I doubt there's anyone left on Wallstreet who gives a flying f**k about SCO's FUD anymore.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And copying public domain court documents isn't copyright infringement.
Nope. So that's why what Groklaw did is legal.
What SCO did, however, is copy a specific representation of those court documents that was created by Groklaw. That, on the other hand, is copyright infringement.
For example, Bach's music is in the public domain. Making your own copies of Bach's music is legal. Copying somebody else's representation of that music is copyright infringement.
It seems that the defenders of the holy IP principle have hoisted the skull and bones.
You are seriously claiming IP rights in the PDF scan of a public document, or comparing the conduct with the allegation of copyright infringement? Give me a break!
Either we are trying to provide a public service by making documents available to the public to lend more light than heat, or we are as bad as they are and just blowing smoke. Public service means the public as a whole -- including the bad guys.
Seriously, by making petty bullshit allegations of wrongdoing for doing the right thing -- disseminating public information -- we lie right down next to the thing we are supposedly demonizing.
Don't fight battles on the wrong playing fields. You should proudly point out they are beginning to appreciate our virtues, not suggest that they are doing the same thing they accuse us of doing. They aren't, and we're not.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: I firmly believe that when SCO was Caldera and Caldera was developing Linux, contributing to Linux, and open sourcing some of their proprietary software, a lot of stuff that was used in their proprietary code was placed in Linux, and a lot of stuff that was in Linux was then placed in their proprietary software.
In other words, the programmers there had access to the source for both systems, and instead of reinventing things that already existed on one system for implementation in the other, they copied and pasted, perhaps making some modifications in the process. I firmly believe that this company did not keep a record of what was copied and in which direction.
Then, Caldera became SCO. Then, some idiot named Darl looked at Linux code, saw something that looked strikingly similar to SCO code, and jumped to the conclusion that it must mean that proprietary SCO code was illegally copied into Linux. Since IBM had access to SCO code, this was proof, in Darl's crooked mind, that IBM illegally copied SCO code into Linux.
He didn't consider the following possibilities:
- Linux code originally developed by--and belonging to--the community was illegally copied into SCO code. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
- SCO code originally developed by SCO or some company it bought in the past was contributed by SCO into Linux. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
- Code developed by parties who created *BSD--or by other parties not affiliated with SCO or with the Linux community--was illegally copied by SCO into SCO code, and this copying was later forgiven by the rightful copyright owners when it was discovered that both parties mutually copied from each other. Similar or identical code was later copied from open source projects such as the *BSDs into Linux. This may or may not be proper, depending on the rightful owner's wishes, but SCO never had rightful ownership of this code, and therefore was never wronged by its presence in Linux. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
I am not surprised at all that SCO is doing this thing with Groklaw's content. I'd give it a few weeks, and you'll see SCO suing Groklaw for copying SCO's copyright-protected text off SCO's webpage..."Most of the filings are PDFs which can be pulled off of PACER. Some filings are paper only. Frank Sorenson went down to the courtroom and paid for copies which he scanned and put up on the web as images stuffed in PDFs -- not OCRed."
Did he perform this humble service for the benefit of humanity, or for the benefit of all except one specific party to the case being discussed?
It is regrettable that his work has ended up being of service to SCO themselves, but then, not one word in these transcripts is favorable to SCO, so why on Earth would they want to present these documents?
If he wanted to protect against this kind of use, he should have included remarks in the documents of an editorial nature. Perhaps, harshly critical of SCO, so that they would never have simply used the documents in an unmodified form.
I really don't think it would be an easy case to argue to a judge, that you hold a copyright to a version of a transcript, which can be construed to solely exclude a party to that case which the transcript pertains to, from use or even from distribution.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Back in the early 80's, I was an EMT. I have seen far too many catholics commit suicide. I have never seen a suicide by a mormon (jack mormon, yes, but not by a practicing), even though I was in "little utah" territory.
....
I agree that it is possible for a religious person to commit suicide (esp. with so much pressure to do what the church and others believe is the right way to do things). But
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.