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
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!
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
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.
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.