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."
Linking to a LiveJournal post that reads:
MPAA don't fuck with my shit.
(And yes, I did attempt to contact them by email and phone before resorting to the more obnoxious behaviour of contacting the ISP. No reply to my email, and the series of friendly receptionists I got bounced between had no idea who would be responsible but promised me someone would call back. No joy there, either.)
Awesome.
This is news?! What is up with that! Every body knows that the RIAA is a completely honest and upright organization. They practice what they preach. They obey everyone else's takedown notice, be it gpl or dmca, whatever, just like they expect you to obey their takedown notices. I can't wait to see the day that all these trolls on slashdot finally go the way of the dinosaur and the true intellectuals out there call the RIAA what it is! It is an honest, upright, artist first organization! IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THAT GET OFF SLASHDOT!!
;)
I got a catholic block.
Next they'll contract a russian ISP and put the torrent up on one of their trackers...
Explanation.
As TFS & TFA have little info, here's some background:
The MPA(A) released a Xubuntu derived livecd with a bunch of F/OSS tools to assist universities in monitoring their networks. *rolls*eyes*. More info about the software in this Washington Post article.
Unfortuntately the CD as shipped contained no source & no written offer for the source, so was in violation of the GPL (and hence, the MPAA are in violation of various software author's copyright).
After several attempts to reach contact the MPAA, the ubuntu developer sent a takedown notice to the hosting ISP.
I hope he now presses for copyright violation - as he so elequoently says: MPAA don't fuck with my shit.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
but at the same time rather worrysome what a simple email to the ISP can do, even if it's for a good cause. Why not sue them and make things bullet-proof and at the same time strengthen the GPL in court, rather than sorting things out vigilantism-style? A pile of court-issued takedowns might be a more impressive repellant against future violations of the GPL (or any other such license) than a pile of social-engineering-issued takedowns. Don't associate "social engineering" with the negative connotation of spam/phising/etc. as I used it; instead, read it in its original meaning: someone requested a blocking of content from an ISP, essentially (TFA is void of details) only with convincing arguments but no hard proof that the GPL was indeed violated.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
Everyone that has GPL code in xubuntu and the tools that come on the CD should file copyright violation for $9250 per line of code shared.
"The MPAA/RIAA has distributed 1500 copies of my work. I offer that software at $50,000 per copy. They owe me 75 million dollars in damages!"
That's basically what they big media is trying to do to the consumers, isn't it?
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
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?
You do not have to distribute "changes in the form of a diff", or "distribute your code changes" in particular.
You must distribute (or offer to) the complete source code corresponding to the binaries you distribute. The whole purpose of the GPL is that someone getting a binary can get the full source for the binary.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
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.
You wouldn't steal a handbag!
You wouldn't steal a car!
You wouldn't steal a baby!
You wouldn't shoot a policeman
and then steal his helmet.
You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet!
And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow.
And then steal it again!
Hello little man. I will destroy you!