Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Forced To Take Down University Toolkit
bobbocanfly writes "Ubuntu developer Matthew Garrett has succeeded in getting the MPAA to remove their 'University Toolkit' after claims it violated the GNU GPL. After several unsuccessful attempts to contact the MPAA directly, Garrett eventually emailed the group's ISP and the violating software was taken down."
for copyright infringement as well.
Now that would be poetic justice.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
On the other hand, the MPAA should have had all it's ducks lined up in a row. They're big boys, they can afford to do things right. The fact that they didn't bother is another indication of their above-the-law attitude. They really just don't care. I'll bet they're caring now, and I'll bet there are some heads rolling in the legal department right now.
The delicious irony here is that the MPAA drafted the DMCA and were primarily responsible for pushing it through Congress.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I saw no indication that the MPAA was hosting their own apt repositories with source. If you mean that sources.list was pointing at Ubuntu's servers, that's not good enough. That's Ubuntu doing the distribution.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Instead of saying they "violated the GPL", let's keep this simple. They violated copyright law. By their own definition, they're "pirates". They stole. Etc.
Do you have ESP?
They won't care. There's currently the idea that some people are above, below or completely outside the law. Since they were involved in drafting some copyright laws they are of the opinion that those laws are not for them and are only for the peasants.
If you are, in fact, a lawyer, I'll happily defer, but in my layman's opinion I don't think that's the correct conclusion.
If you violate one of the GPL terms, your license to use the software is terminated. Fine. However, as long as the software is still being offered to anyone under the GPL, you can just go, conform to every part of the GPL, and use it again. You can think of it as one license being terminated, but then going and getting a new one; the GPL is an "infinite stack" of licenses: all you need to do to get a new one is to play by the rules.
There's nothing in the GPL that says 'if you violate this once, you're out for good,' although I'm not sure that would be an entirely terrible idea. But that license-termination clause doesn't necessarily imply that.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Well, it depends on what they changed. If they added code to phone home a lot with lots of personal information....that would be interesting from more than a purely academic point of view (IMO).
Max.
quote ">Seriously?
No, this is all just a joke. Really.
>I don't nor does the Slashdotters posting here except the rabid, fanatical F/OSS fanboys.
How can you assert that? Did you do a survey?
>This is not a victory.
Then tell us what it is.
>Silly kids, go trim your neck beards and worship Stallman some more.
How do you know "kids" are responsible for this? What backs up your suggestion that if they are kids that they are silly? How old do you think Matthew Garrett is? Go google it.
Maybe you should take a chill pill and leave this topic alone if you aren't interested in it. You are making baseless assertions just to try and stir shit.
You come across as a dumb ass.
Copyright laws do need to be changed to take reality into account, but the issue here is that the software is being distributed in violation of the license. Copyright law is just the "enforcement stick" of this license.