CBS Interactive Sued For Distributing Green Dam

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CBS Interactive Sued For Distributing Green Dam

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday October 7, 2009 @01:29AM from the one-dam-lawsuit-after-another dept.

Dotnaught writes "Solid Oak Software, maker of Internet filter CYBERsitter, on Monday filed a $1.2 million copyright infringement lawsuit against CBS Interactive's ZDNet China for distributing the Green Dam Internet filtering software. Green Dam was going to be mandatory on all PCs in China starting in July, but widespread criticism, including reports of stolen code, forced the Chinese government to reconsider. The lawsuit, if it succeeds, could force companies to give more thought to the risks of complying with mandates from foreign governments that violate US laws."

133 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well by rinoid · 2009-10-07 01:33 · Score: 0, Troll

Mmmph-mmmmph-mmmmmmmphhhhh-ppppphhhhhffffffmmmmappppffffff.
Rip .... oh there. I just pulled the tape off.
Capitalism is evil.
1. Re:Well by ground.zero.612 · 2009-10-07 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Capitalism is evil.
  I think you more properly meant that the people doing evil are doing it under the guise of capitalism.
  
  --
  "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
2. Re:Well by commodore64_love · 2009-10-07 02:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I really wish people would stop calling "capitalism evil". Capitalism is nothing more than your neighbor building a chair, or bed, or whatever his specialty might be, and you saying, "That's really nice, can I buy it or give you something else for trade?" That's capitalism and it's not evil. It's the basis of human interaction between neighbors and goes-back 5000 years.
  Have some of the corporations gotten out of control? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we need to kill capitalism. We simply need to downsize the corporation (or kill it off completely), same way we removed the kings and replaced them with democratic-elected assemblies.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
3. Re:Well by rinoid · 2009-10-07 02:28 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Just because I left words unspoken, for effect, doesn't make the post a "troll" post ... hopefully meta-mods will see this as a totally crazy mod. So some mod who is hyper-capitalist modded me a troll, what for?
  I am not a troll, I am a 6'2" fit male who knows a few languages and can make his way through a crowd.
  But yeah, capitalism has spawned the ability for a very small minority to amass a very enormous amount of wealth. These people are not contributing more to the world, are not necessarily smarter, and it is immoral to think that somehow they are worth 10,000 times more than the average human being. Capitalism has given a majority in America the delusion that they too can win the lotto, they too can be the next 10million dollar a year winner but instead they don't realize that they are stuck as economic vassals.
  The pres of my company makes a modest salary by ceo/pres standards. I will work 20 years at a decent salary (top 10%) for my region, save 20% of my salary a year and it will not equal what he makes in one year! There's something woefully wrong with our system.
  I agree with @commodore64_love ... no need to kill it off completely but we need some serious reform, and, as a society, neigh, as a civilization we need to come to terms with who we are, what humanity is, and where we see ourselves in the world. Will it be some dystopian vision of capitalism writ large, or some blinded by mythologies version of this?, or can we be reasonable?
4. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  and, as a society, neigh, as a civilization
  Feeling a little ho[a]rse are we?
  s/neigh/nay/
5. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Just because I left words unspoken, for effect, doesn't make the post a "troll" post ...
  
  So, but the shouty-rant without any useful contribution *does* make it a troll post...
6. Re:Well by mcgrew · 2009-10-07 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The trouble with capitalism is that it's become a religion; in fact, it's the US's dominant religion. And it's an insidious one; people who consider themselves Christians or Athiests worship this god.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
7. Re:Well by Jeremy+Erwin · 2009-10-07 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I really wish people would stop calling "capitalism evil". Capitalism is nothing more than your neighbor building a chair, or bed, or whatever his specialty might be, and you saying, "That's really nice, can I buy it or give you something else for trade?" That's capitalism and it's not evil. It's the basis of human interaction between neighbors and goes-back 5000 years.
  So.... where does capital enter into this little exchange?
8. Re:Well by ZeRu · 2009-10-07 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Then move away to Cuba. I'm sure that you'll have no trouble finding a Cuban who will be more than willing to switch their place with you.
  
  --
  If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
9. Re:Well by jbezorg · 2009-10-07 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Capitalism has given a majority in America the delusion that they too can win the lotto, they too can be the next 10million dollar a year winner...
  I think gambling predates capitalism.
  
  The pres of my company makes a modest salary by ceo/pres standards. I will work 20 years at a decent salary (top 10%) for my region, save 20% of my salary a year and it will not equal what he makes in one year! There's something woefully wrong with our system.
  The fact that you may be completely incapable of doing what the President of your Company does nor willing to be responsible for what is expected of the President of your Company does not even factor in to your equation. Only the fact that he makes more than you.
  Consider that perhaps the bottom 10% of your region think the same of you as you think of the President of your Company. That you don't deserve the salary you earn. Thus, I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and adopt the income of the bottom 10% for your region.
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
10. Re:Well by ChienAndalu · 2009-10-07 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  But yeah, capitalism has spawned the ability for a very small minority to amass a very enormous amount of wealth. These people are not contributing more to the world, are not necessarily smarter,
  That is not for you to decide
  
  and it is immoral to think that somehow they are worth 10,000 times more than the average human being.
  It is stupid to equate wealth with the value of a human being.
11. Re:Well by Tetsujin · 2009-10-07 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  I really wish people would stop calling "capitalism evil". Capitalism is nothing more than your neighbor building a chair, or bed, or whatever his specialty might be, and you saying, "That's really nice, can I buy it or give you something else for trade?" That's capitalism and it's not evil. It's the basis of human interaction between neighbors and goes-back 5000 years.
  So.... where does capital enter into this little exchange?
  At the beginning of a sentence or a proper noun.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
12. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps the neighbour owns a set of tools.
13. Re:Well by Jeremy+Erwin · 2009-10-07 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  But has he negotiated a license to use said tools?
14. Re:Well by Garrett+Fox · 2009-10-07 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The builder's skill, effort, tools, raw materials, and workplace are his capital. Those who denounce capitalism deny that he should be able to own any of those; they're the property of the State to redistribute. Note that that list includes the builder's mind and body.
  
  --
  Revive the Constitution.
15. Re:Well by Cytotoxic · 2009-10-07 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  capitalism has spawned the ability for a very small minority to amass a very enormous amount of wealth. These people are not contributing more to the world, are not necessarily smarter, and it is immoral to think that somehow they are worth 10,000 times more than the average human being.
  If you believe that your worth and your wealth are the same thing, then there is no hope for you.
  
  The pres of my company makes a modest salary by ceo/pres standards. I will work 20 years at a decent salary (top 10%) for my region, save 20% of my salary a year and it will not equal what he makes in one year! There's something woefully wrong with our system.
  By your own logic; what makes you worthy of a salary greater than 90% of your neighbors? Why should you earn more than the unfit, 5'1" dullard who is illiterate in any language who cleans your table at lunchtime? How many years would she have to work to have what you make in a year? How is that fair? Indeed, why should anyone earn more than the minimum wage? Anything more would be unfair, wouldn't it?
  
  Capitalism has given a majority in America the delusion that they too can win the lotto, they too can be the next 10million dollar a year winner but instead they don't realize that they are stuck as economic vassals.
  Therein lies the misconception. Those who believe in capitalism don't believe you gain wealth by winning the lotto. You aren't given a prize for being the smartest either. You do it by adding value - not some metaphysical value that adds to your worth as a human being, but value that someone else can see and is willing to pay for. Sometimes that person is very smart, like Wozniak and Jobs, but more often they are just providing a service that a lot of people are willing to pay for. Like the lady who invented those little buttons that people put in their Crocs. I can personally attest that I would never in a million years have created that product - due to the fact that I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would ever don a pair of Crocs in the first place, let alone adorn it in such a hideous fashion. I would bet that I could best her in a "smarts" contest. You probably could too. But she made a couple of million bucks in her first year in business and you and I are collecting salaries working for someone else. And she deserves every penny of that money, and you and I don't no matter how great we think we are, because she went out there and earned it, and we didn't.
16. Re:Well by Draek · 2009-10-07 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  But yeah, capitalism has spawned the ability for a very small minority to amass a very enormous amount of wealth. These people are not contributing more to the world, are not necessarily smarter, and it is immoral to think that somehow they are worth 10,000 times more than the average human being.
  Funny, but people in general seem to think they are. Otherwise they wouldn't pay extra for Bono's music, Cruise's movies, and Jobs' computers. Now, it's not a 1:1 relationship between perceived worth and income, of course, but that's less due to capitalism and more about corporatism's state-granted monopolies (copyright, patents et al), disallowing competition and preventing the free market from operating correctly.
  
  Capitalism has given a majority in America the delusion that they too can win the lotto, they too can be the next 10million dollar a year winner but instead they don't realize that they are stuck as economic vassals.
  No, that's the US' idiocracy which is independant of economic models.
  
  The pres of my company makes a modest salary by ceo/pres standards. I will work 20 years at a decent salary (top 10%) for my region, save 20% of my salary a year and it will not equal what he makes in one year!
  Then go to the company's shareholders and offer your services to them for half his price. They'll clue you in as to his worth to the company and your lack thereof.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
17. Re:Well by moxley · 2009-10-07 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you, but I would also add that I don't think capitalism is the right word for our system...
  It certainly isn't pure captialism. What we have is a sort of soft fascism, a corporatism of protected markets. The markets aren't free, despite what people call them, they are protected and artificially controlled/manipulated - and that's not even getting into how corporate power is protected and government and corporations work together to get around regulation/law.
  It's certainly not a great system for the majority of people and is getting worse by the day.
18. Re:Well by Teufelsmuhle · 2009-10-07 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Then go to the company's shareholders and offer your services to them for half his price. They'll clue you in as to his worth to the company and your lack thereof.
  Well of course they will. The company's shareholders are all cronies of his company's president. His position has almost nothing to do with his talents or skills, and almost everything to do with his connections. It's not what you know, it's who you know after all.
  
  Admittedly though, figuring out how to meet, befriend, and influence the right people is a skill in itself, and it's a skill in which the average Slashdotter is either woefully inadequate or not morally bankrupt enough to pursue.
19. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  OK thanks Ayn...
20. Re:Well by Jeremy+Erwin · 2009-10-07 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Those who denounce capitalism deny that he should be able to own any of those; they're the property of the State to redistribute. Note that that list includes the builder's mind and body
  Should the builder have the right to sell his mind and body, and not just rent it out?
21. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  I think it turns into an argument over semantics:
  - There is the brass tacks concept of capitalism, which I think most people would be cool with and what it sounds like you're describing.
  - The word capitalism is also used as shorthand for the larger societal and cultural structures it seems to have led to, and those are what many people feel uneasy about and what people refer to when they say "Capitalism is evil". This includes things like prioritizing monetary gain for self to the exclusion of caring about the common good or public safety -- obviously not core tenants of the concept of capitalism, but related nonetheless.
  If anyone wants to get in a tizzy saying or arguing against "capitalism is evil", let them do it. Save your breath for people who are willing to look at some of the problems that may come from extremist capitalism, and explore solutions.
22. Re:Well by hidave · 2009-10-08 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  In general, the high amounts of money top CEO's sometimes make doesn't just drop from heaven. They earned it through risk-taking, long travel away from family, good business sense, and incredibly hard work (how does 90-100 hours per week sound?). Occasionally, but rarely, the money comes from fraud and other criminal activity. If illegal activities were properly investigated and prosecuted, we'd all be better off. Capitalism is simply a realization that no one does anything (except simple charity) without expecting to make a profit. Why would anyone start a company if they knew it was going to lose money? Nobody would -- they start companies hoping to make money -- HOW EVIL!!
  
  --
  Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
23. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-08 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah yeah yeah -- blah blah blah ... 10s of millions is BS and nobody is worth this amount and I am qualified to decide!
  Listen, I could pick this apart with example after example but the bare truth is paying someone 1000 times more than the average employee is immoral and unjustified no matter the "sacrifices" the CEO employs in his daily routine. YES many are indeed more skilled at the right stuff but that "right stuff" is mostly nothing more than yucking it up with cronies. YES in contradiction most are better at managing business relationships and they indeed deserve more but their is this magical worship of top executives which has eroded worker trust in management and leadership.
24. Re:Well by commodore64_love · 2009-10-08 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  You kidding?
  I would *love* to be a CEO but I don't have any idea how to do that. For example how did the CEO of General Motors reach that level? I suspect it was pure luck. And the ironic thing is even if he fails, he still earns the same amount of money as I will earn over my entire life.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
25. Re:Well by jbezorg · 2009-10-08 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  You kidding?
  I would *love* to be a CEO but I don't have any idea how to do that.
  There in lays the problem. Correct?
  
  For example how did the CEO of General Motors reach that level? I suspect it was pure luck.
  Or perhaps not luck at all? Lets look at his C.V.
  
  Summary from: Frederick (Fritz) A. Henderson - GM President and Chief Executive Officer
  Prior to graduate school, Henderson was a certified public accountant. He received the William A. Paton Award for achieving the highest score in Michigan on the May 1980 CPA examination; he also received the Elijah Watt Sells Award for attaining one of the top 100 scores in the U.S.
  Bachelor of business administration degree with high distinction from the University of Michigan in 1980 with an emphasis in accounting and finance.
  Master's degree in business administration from Harvard Business School in 1984 graduating as a George F. Baker Scholar.
  After graduating, Henderson started his career at General Motors in 1984 as a senior analyst in the Treasurer's office in New York.
  Perhaps he worked his balls off for 20+ years in the same company?
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
Blue Dam isn't Green Dam by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-10-07 01:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Theirs goes, 'Ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.' Ours goes, 'Ding ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.
It's clearly not the same at all.
1. Re:Blue Dam isn't Green Dam by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you're talking about Queen vs. Vanilla Ice
2. Re:Blue Dam isn't Green Dam by Cytotoxic · 2009-10-07 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Pop-pop pop goes the Weasel, the weasel. Pop-pop pop goes the Weasel, the Weasel.
  ---I'll see your obscure reference and I raise you an even more obscure reference to your reference.
What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2009-10-07 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

If they want to operate in China, they've got to comply with Chinese laws. If they don't comply, the Chinese government has all sorts of levers to apply (fines, jail, blocking their site, etc).
Personally, I would just choose to not do business in China until such time as there is even a hint of transparency in the business and legal environments, but that's just me.
1. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by noundi · 2009-10-07 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I would just choose to not do business in China until such time as there is even a hint of transparency in the business and legal environments, but that's just me.
  Exactly what everybody with a hint of conscience is thinking, thus exactly why everybody with a hint of conscience is rooting for the destruction of such money grabbing whores. Hate the player, change the game.
  
  --
  I am the lawn!
2. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by ad0n · 2009-10-07 01:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I would evaluate the risk vs. reward, but that's just me.
3. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 01:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Personally, I would just choose to not do business in China until such time as there is even a hint of transparency in the business and legal environments, but that's just me.
  You might be in for a bit of a wait there my friend. Perhaps you could do some Sudoku puzzles to help you pass the time...
4. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by NoYob · 2009-10-07 01:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Chinese leadership is fighting a losing battle and I believe they know this. When they opened up their country to the West and doing business with free countries, it is only a matter of time for their regime to weaken and for Western influences to take hold. Not doing business in China wouldn't do anything except maybe quiet your conscience.
  The more Western entities in China there are, the more their regime weakens. It will take time - maybe a generation or more, but the Chinese people will be doing the changing on their terms instead by mandate from Westerners.
  Telling others how to live and how to govern themselves has never worked.Notice that whenever the Chinese government is criticized, the Chinese people are right there backing their Government.
  Real change will have to come from within and the Chinese people will have to do it and do it according to their values.
  
  --
  It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
5. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by gzipped_tar · 2009-10-07 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering why ZDNet bothered to offer this software on its website. They are a news site, not a computer manufacturer/retailer.
  
  --
  Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
6. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by commodore64_love · 2009-10-07 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations are not people. They don't have a conscience to restrain themselves from illicit endeavors, which is also why corporations should not have rights. Giving rights to a corporation makes about as much sense as giving rights to a rock or tree.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
7. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by noundi · 2009-10-07 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations are not people. They don't have a conscience to restrain themselves from illicit endeavors, which is also why corporations should not have rights. Giving rights to a corporation makes about as much sense as giving rights to a rock or tree.
  Shareholders are people.
  
  --
  I am the lawn!
8. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by zippthorne · 2009-10-07 02:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To paraphrase the GPL of all things..
  If they want to operate in the USA, they have to comply with US laws. Compliance with Chinese laws doesn't absolve them from US requirements, if they can't do business satisfying all applicable law, then they must refrain from doing that business.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
9. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by zippthorne · 2009-10-07 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Chinese != Japanese, you crazy racist.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
10. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by smidget2k4 · 2009-10-07 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  So if the company does something illegal, let the shareholders be personally responsible and serve time for the company's crime.
  
  Problem Solved!
11. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by MBGMorden · 2009-10-07 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  They act as a group though. Strange that such a lovely quote would come from such a goofy movie, but Agent K summed it up nicely:
  A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
12. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by gzipped_tar · 2009-10-07 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, naive my ass.
  I'm a native Chinese living in China. Here we nobody gives shit about this Green Damn thing. Not even govt officials. There are thousands of private-owned tech websites in China and none are required to offer Green Dam download service. Should some website operator be TOLD to do this, it means someone in the local government are not well fed and want a pony. Just send in cheques and you are done.
  Now get off my lawn.
  
  --
  Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
13. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Rocketship+Underpant · 2009-10-07 02:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, the point of a corporation is that a board of directors contractually assume legal and financial liability from the shareholders â" so they're the ones who should be punished for the company's crimes.
  
  --
  He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
14. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Sique · 2009-10-07 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Telling others how to live and how to govern themselves has never worked.
  ... except for most of the time in history. There those strange things like social pressure and peer pressure, and there is simple force by the ruling group.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
15. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by lisaparratt · 2009-10-07 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it had to come through the barrel of a gun?
16. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Jesus_666 · 2009-10-07 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Except that peer pressure doesn't work well on a national level. The United States are an example; lately they often do things the rest of the world doesn't condone. They know that they can get away with it so peer pressure is irrelevant.
  
  Likewise China: They could operate even with heavy trade sanctions by virtue of sheer size, they have twice the population of Europe (and 2.5 that of north america) and their economy is booming. Even if we imposed sanctions on them, within twenty years they will simply be able to ignore them as nobody can afford not doing business with them anymore. Peer pressure is only a minor concern for someone their size.
  
  As for simple force by the ruling group: That would require a ruling group. Nuclear weapons ensure that no single country will ever get to that point.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
17. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by noundi · 2009-10-07 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  So if the company does something illegal, let the shareholders be personally responsible and serve time for the company's crime.
  Problem Solved!
  Legal or not, that wasn't the point. I was talking about a conscience, and if you truly believe that the chinese people will benefit from this software then you may invest in such companies, with a clear conscience. But if you don't and you go against what you think is right for personal profit then you're an asshole.
  
  --
  I am the lawn!
18. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by heritage727 · 2009-10-07 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Chinese != Japanese, you crazy racist.
  We Chinese love Sudoku, you insensitive clod!
19. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by smidget2k4 · 2009-10-07 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you completely. The problem is that there are plenty of assholes with money to go around. Perhaps my overtiredness came off as sarcasm, but the idea is that as a shareholder you "own" part of the company, right? So why should you not be proportionally responsible to your ownership, within reason, to the actions of the company? Especially if the shareholders knew what was going on but kept their money in the company anyway.
  
  It might force the aforementioned assholes to reconsider investing in companies that do Bad Things.
  
  (Not that Green Dam is illegal, as it is most certainly legal in China, and still would be an asshole move to invest in it. The above was a digression.)
20. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Sique · 2009-10-07 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't personificate a country, and even if I did, there is still the question which other countries can be considered peers (as in "being of the same social rank") in this case. That in fact the U.S. constitution considers all citizens peers to each other is something completely different. For a hierarchical society like the feudal states of Middle Age Europe, "peer" means someone from the same social group: pawns are peers to other pawns, craftsmen peers to other craftsmen, barons to other barons, and kings were peers to other kings. "A jury of peers" as stated in the Magna Charta thus means, that a baron was not allowed in a jury to judge a pawn, and a craftsman was not allowed in a jury deciding upon a count.
  And yes. If we somehow sort countries by "social rank", we indeed find that some peer pressure works between states. The U.S. and China are different in a way that they don't have any peers.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
21. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by demachina · 2009-10-07 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  "The Chinese leadership is fighting a losing battle and I believe they know this."
  Excepting that the Chinese people, at least in the cities, are seeing a rapid improvement in their standard of living, and the country as a whole is an economic juggernaut. Regimes seldom have problems when they are delivering economic prosperity and the Chinese Communist party knows it, so thats whey they are pursuing a policy of prosperity at all costs. The Nazi's were far more brutal and repressive than the Chinese but they also produced an economic miracle and so were quite popular until they led their country to ruin through war.
  Repression and Capitalism actually work quite well together, its pretty much what Fascism was all about. Fascism suffered a tactical defeat in World war II but appears poised for strategic victory through China in the 21st century. Its very profitable to have a subservient work force where someone gets out of line the party hammers them. Managers like it when they don't have to worry about malcontents interfering with production.
  It will be interesting to see if, now that both the Democratic and Republican parties have led the U.S. to ruin, if the American people have enough backbone left to stand up and say enough is enough, now that American prosperity is disappearing. Repression like China's is bad but incompetence, corruption and selling your country down the river for a few million from lobbyists has a new place in my book as the number one reason for ridding yourself of a regime. Flipping between Democrats and Republicans and pretending it makes a difference or is "change" doesn't cut it any more.
  
  --
  @de_machina
22. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Ken+D · 2009-10-07 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Nor do the courts treat corporations as people, thus corporations have an unfair advantage.
  If a person refuses to comply with a subpoena the court can charge you with contempt and then put you in jail until you comply.
  While in jail you cannot earn money, you cannot conduct business, etc.
  If a corporation refuses to comply with a subpoena the court can charge it with contempt and then impose a daily fine until they comply.
  While being fined, they continue to earn money, probably much more than the fine.
  While being fined, they continue to conduct business as usual.
  How is this fair? This is plutocracy, where having enough money means you can break any rules you want.
  Fines do not make corporations accountable to the law. And when juries try to impose a fine large enough to attempt to penalize corporations equivalently, the courts throw those penalties out.
23. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Jesus_666 · 2009-10-07 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. That's the point I dried to make - you can't expect the western world proclaiming their displeasure to somehow be relevant to Chinese policy (especially when proclaiming the displeasure is all the western world does). You can tell your peers how to live and when enough people do it but that limits peer pressure's reach to, at most, the people in one country and maybe those neighboring it. Any further and the societies are disjunct enough that their members aren't peers. The only kind of peer pressure that could reach China is national-level peer pressure, which of course doesn't work either.
  
  In short, there's not much we can do to tell the Chinese how to run their country.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
24. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  I could see how bribing a government official would be the first suggestion from some nongmin. It works when you squirt out your second brat, so it must also work if you're a foreign corporation. LOL
  You're all but admitting to common government corruption and bribery. This seems to support the original poster's sentiment that it is probably best not to do business in China in the first place.
  When this case goes to court (unless it's settled out of court) I am willing to bet we'll see that government pressure was exerted on the company to make the download available.
25. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by DigitAl56K · 2009-10-07 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Longer term, I'll be surprised if companies are only sued for copyright infringement relating to Green Dam. If I distributed software knowing that its intent was to block recipients reaching the web properties of world+dog then world+dog could possibly argue that I've harmed them by doing so.
26. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by jc42 · 2009-10-07 06:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So if the company does something illegal, let the shareholders be personally responsible and serve time for the company's crime.
  Probably a good idea. But it goes against the basic reason that corporations exist. If you dig into the history, you'll find that one of the primary motives in creating such legal entities was to insulate the officers and shareholders from legal liabilities. The whole point of a corporation's existence is to allow the people running it to say "I didn't do it; the corporation did". Stockholders' fines for corporate criminal behavior is usually limited to their investment, and it's exceedingly rare for such fines to be imposed. Instead, the corporation is fined.
  Of course, there were and are other reasons for corporations, such as different tax laws. For example, here in the US and many other places, people pay income tax on their full income, while corporations pay tax on only their "profits". A corporation can deduct all expenses of doing business; if a living human tries the equivalent and doesn't pay taxes on the portion that they pay for food and/or shelter, they are likely to end up with a good fine or jail time. (Yes, tax laws often make some portion of such things deductible, but rarely all of them.)
  Also, a corporation usually doesn't pay the same taxes on equipment (vehicles, machinery, office supplies, whatever) that a human would pay. This is why individuals or families sometimes form corporations. That way, equipment can be bought and owned by the corporation, not the individual. This is also used to avoid inheritance taxes, since the deceased didn't own the money or building or equipment; the family corporation did, and it didn't die.
  In all of these examples, we see that the corporation relieves the people running it from legal liability for something. Usually it's liability for taxes, which are lower for corporations. But all too often, the laws only impose a minor fine on a corporation for actions that would be criminal violations if a human did them.
  There was a fun bit of journalistic "research" a few years ago in the US, that consisted in tallying the punishments that the courts gave to corporations for actions that resulted in deaths, such as contaminated food, incorrect medicines, overly dangerous equipment of various sorts, etc. The bottom line was that corporations were on average fined about $300 per documented death. This is a whole lot "better" than the sentences handed down to killers that are humans. It explains why many corporations consider criminal law to be not much more than a minor tax on their business operations, and why such fines often have little effect on corporate behavior. If the likely fine is less than the profit, there's no reason a corporation shouldn't do it.
  It's true that in a few especially egregious cases, the officers have been charged and tried for their part in the actions. But it's pretty rare that they are actually convicted of anything.
  See also last week's PartiallyClips comic.
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
27. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by jandrese · 2009-10-07 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  People who would likely sue the pants off of the company if the pulled out of the huge and profitable Chinese market.
  
  That's quite the choice for a CEO. Get a massive fine from the US government, or get blocked by the great firewall of china and then sued by the shareholders, possibly ousted from the company.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
28. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by mattmarlowe · 2009-10-07 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  OK, Let's say you were running ZDnet when the decision came on whether to pursue this deal.
  Option 1:
  Say no because morally you don't feel right about supporting censorship. Bzzzz, you are now being personally sued for not looking after the best interests of your shareholders (which by law, is limited to financial concerns). You will also likely get fired and replaced by a CEO who will do the deal and thank his lucky stars that he got the opportunity to be promoted because his prior boss had a conscience. So, you lose your job and deal gets done anyway. Great work.
  Option 2:
  Do the deal. Unless you can phrase your objections to the deal in financial terms, you really don't have any other option. Really.
  Basically, what I'm trying to say is that:
  a) companies themselves are neither bad nor good and it makes zero sense to demonize any of them for pursuing shareholder interests
  b) the ceo's of these companies shouldn't be blamed for the choices either (if they should be blamed for anything, it is for accepting a job in the first place after being informed by their lawyer about the legal requirements for pursuing shareholder interests.)
  If we want to stop these type of things from happening, than what we really need to be doing is finding a way to help, not hurt, executives of these companies. Change laws so it is harder to sue them for considering anything other than financial aspects in decisions. Of course, the problem is that it is very hard to determine how to do this right. If you give the CEO's too much leeway, the impact could be equally severe -- companies that deliver horrible financial performance year after year, which means all the families that invested end up with sharply reduced retirement savings because they lost a few critical percent of growth to their savings for every year for an extended period.
  Only on slashdot are there any easy answers.
29. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2009-10-07 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if there is a matter of jurisdiction to consider, something about this troubles me. The idea of a company having to comply with all of one country's laws even for operations that are completely in another country irks me. It just works to make it impossible to do business, and in the long run, I don't think that is of benefit to anyone except the pro-protectionist crowd. Pseudo-protectionism may serve political interests, but I don't think they serve economic interests.
  The infringement wasn't done in the US, by the US operations, for US customers, so I wonder how liable the US operations would be for actions that weren't done in the US. Also, was any part of the operation aware of the infringement? There may be some form of absolution for operating in good faith not having known about the infringement.
30. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by Rakishi · 2009-10-07 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but my conscience doesn't feel very right about letting a billion people wallow in poverty, disease, starvation, abuse and so on. Then again I care about actually improving the lot of mankind not about deluding myself so I can feel better than some other guy. The world is not black and white. Every government does horrid abuses of one form or another. How many innocent bystanders died in Iraq due to actions of the US? How many died in Africa because you're not donating an extra $x to help them?
  In the end the Chinese government is doing a bloody good job and who am I to complain about them. The west took centuries to transition over to democracy with abuses of every kind and type. You don't shove "democracy" onto people not prepared for it and let them fend for themselves unless you're a monster. The Chinese government seems to understand that political freedom is inevitable given their economic plans and a slow transition, with a slow cultural transition, seems infinitely more likely to succeed. That said I don't believe the Chinese system is stable in the long run and massive abuses are possible in the future, as they had in the past, however as I see it the alternative is having massive abuses happen now.
31. Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? by commodore64_love · 2009-10-08 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  >>>Shareholders are people.
  Yes and the shareholders, as human beings, still have their rights protected. The corporation, being not human, has NO rights. That means no right to lobby our Congress or EU Parliament and pervert the people's government.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
gotta love it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 01:46 · Score: 0

it always makes me feel good to see two evil entities fighting each other.
Nostalgia by Ed+Avis · 2009-10-07 01:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes, I remember Cybersitter. Back in the day (1995ish) it used to block me from pages hosted at Oxford University and other random things. This was running on Windows 3.1 with Program Manager crippled so you couldn't start any programs apart from those already in the program groups. I got around it by opening winword.exe with Notepad and randomly changing a few bytes at the start of the file. Now, on trying to run Word, Windows would abruptly crash to a DOS prompt, where I could fix a few things. Ahhh... those were the days...

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
1. Re:Nostalgia by tepples · 2009-10-07 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  This was running on Windows 3.1 with Program Manager crippled so you couldn't start any programs apart from those already in the program groups. I got around it by opening winword.exe with Notepad and randomly changing a few bytes at the start of the file.
  Microsoft fixed this bug since then. The software restriction policies in modern versions of Windows use a hash value of the executable file, not the presence of a file at a given path, to determine whether to run it.
2. Re:Nostalgia by TheRaven64 · 2009-10-07 02:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If you could run Word, there was a much easier way around this. Go to the Insert menu and select 'other'. This would open package manager. Select the DOS box app as the object that you wanted to package and hit insert. You then had a Word document containing a link to the DOS box. Double click on the link and the DOS prompt opens. From there you can run any other programs.
  Oh, and Oxford University was probably blocked for having too many occurrences of the letter X in their URLs or page texts. That was a popular heuristic for spotting porn in the '90s and made looking for information about Linux, UNIX, or XFree86 very difficult.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:Nostalgia by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-10-07 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Now, on trying to run Word, Windows would abruptly crash to a DOS prompt, where I could fix a few things.
  That's been a standard feature for a while now.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
4. Re:Nostalgia by Tetsujin · 2009-10-07 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Now, on trying to run Word, Windows would abruptly crash to a DOS prompt, where I could fix a few things.
  That's been a standard feature for a while now.
  Nah, Windows doesn't crash to a DOS prompt any more...
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
5. Re:Nostalgia by Hognoxious · 2009-10-07 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and Oxford University was probably blocked for having too many occurrences of the letter X in their URLs or page texts.
  It was all mirrored over at Scunthorpe Poly.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Given the situation by Smidge207 · 2009-10-07 01:53 · Score: 1, Informative

If china PCs had been hammering my servers for updates to their plagiarized software, I'd have called the CIA to see what to slip in next update. And this *has* been done before. During the Cold War, in order to disrupt the Soviet economy and serve them some comeuppance for their industrial espionage activities, the CIA, in partnership with American Technology companies ensured that hardware and software with carefully arranged "flaws" found its way into Soviet hands.
In one particular instance a "flawed" natural gas pipeline software and associated hardware went "haywire" (i.e. it ran the ultra-high pressure test) after a planned period of normal operation. The result was the largest non-nuclear man-made explosion ever seen from space (the satellites designed to detect plumes from ICBM launches detected a tremendous flash from the area near Vladivostok where the pipeline in question was located).
This article covers some of the details excerpted from the book At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War as recalled by Thomas C. Reed, a former Air Force secretary who was serving in the National Security Council at the time.

--
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
So... by Random2 · 2009-10-07 01:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

They're just profiting off of a company that was following the laws of another nation? No wonder why everyone tried to do things back-handed now.

--
"Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by rsmith-mac · 2009-10-07 01:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

This strikes me as desperation. Solid Oak Software obviously can't sue the violator, who is China proper, so they're suing any 3rd party they can find.
As far I can tell, the ZDNet China site is basically the same thing as Download.com, CBS American freeware/shareware/trialware download site. If this is the case, then CBS isn't directly making any money off of offering the software since they aren't selling it (they do however get ad money). It's freeware, and CBS would have no way of knowing that it contained copyright-infringing code. To add insult to injury, Solid Oak wants the full price ($40) of their own filtering software awarded to them as damages, for each copy downloaded from ZDNet China.
If this goes to trial and Solid Oak were to win, it would end up being a precedent-setting event. What Solid Oak is basically arguing is that 3rd parties are fully liable for any copyright violations in the software they distribute. That would immediately make download sites such as Download.com, FilePlanet, and MajorGeeks an impossible thing to offer. And who knows, maybe even Linux mirrors would be liable if some Linux component/package was found to be violating copyright?
If Solid Oak has their way, the idea of rehosting free (as in beer) software is dead.
1. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Well, how is this different from RIAA's "making available" theory?
2. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by benjamindees · 2009-10-07 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, "making available" was a way for the RIAA to try to expand copyright to restrict acts other than distribution, and lower their burden of proof.
  In this case it's different because the plaintiff can likely prove that the defendant actually distributed the copyright infringing code, rather than just offering it.
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
3. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by Zantac69 · 2009-10-07 02:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  /laughs - why not sue ZDNet China?
  
  Green Dam is made form code stolen from Solid Oak. (yeah its crap code but that is not the point)
  ZDNet China is knowingly distributing material that violates copyright.
  ZDNet China profits from this distribution via advertisement.
  ZDNet China is owned by CBS American.
  CBS American is liable for the actions of its subsidiaries.
  CBS American is borked.
  
  And yes...CBS KNOWS that there is copyrighted code in there. This has been going on for months - this was not a "suprise - that violates - here is your lawsuit!" situation.
  
  And this is not even close to the same thing that was with Pirate Bay, because they are actually hosting the download.
  
  And this wont kill free software. It will either encourage new novel code...or implementation of coding tricks so that copied code does not look like copied code.
  
  --
  1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
4. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by PhilHibbs · 2009-10-07 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  In the case of a "traditional" copyrighted work, it is possible to tell that the copy is related to the original - the picture looks the same, the plot and characters' names are similar, etc., but with software you don't have any way to tell that some of the source code is a direct copy. Judgements need to take this fundamental difference into account.
5. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by Nadaka · 2009-10-07 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you can often (but not always) tell if some source code was copied.
  1: Comments. Sometimes when code is copied, they leave the same comments in, possibly even including the name of the author or original product.
  2: Variable, method and class names. If these are left unchanged, it leaves a signature in the code.
  3: Magic numbers/strings. Arbitrary assignment of the same value to magic numbers, enums or strings can demonstrate copy.
6. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by AHuxley · 2009-10-07 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, they want the fun of expanding into China and the warm safe protection of the USA.
  Bring on Section 311 of the Patriot Act.
  If you cannot get to the source of the problem in China, then make sure any party with a connection feels the reality of US intellectual property when doing deals in China.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
7. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by Maximum+Prophet · 2009-10-07 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you do. Sometimes the copy is a blatant binary copy. Even if the code was copied from source, and complied with different compilers, you can look for things like all the string texts being exactly the same.
  
  Sometimes you can find an unused string in the copied code that looks like "Copyright 2009, The Original Authors (tm)" That's a dead giveaway.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
8. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by PhilHibbs · 2009-10-07 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you're hosting an installer package or an executable for download, then you can't see any of that.
9. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by mcgrew · 2009-10-07 02:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  CBS isn't directly making any money off of offering the software since they aren't selling it
  So it's OK to post a copy of Metallica's Free speech for the dumb on your website? Actually, I would be ok with noncommercial use always being non-infringing (but they'd still fall afoul, as since there are ads, it's commercial use) but the law says any distribution.
  CBS would have no way of knowing that it contained copyright-infringing code.
  They knew as soon as they got the takedown notice.
  To add insult to injury, Solid Oak wants the full price ($40) of their own filtering software awarded to them as damages, for each copy downloaded from ZDNet China.
  ZDNet is lucky they didn't post that Metallica song -- it would be not $40, but $700,000. They're getting off cheap if you ask me.
  What Solid Oak is basically arguing is that 3rd parties are fully liable for any copyright violations in the software they distribute.
  Seems reasonable to me. Ignorance is no excuse.
  That would immediately make download sites such as Download.com, FilePlanet, and MajorGeeks an impossible thing to offer.
  They must be doing a far better job than ZDNet, because nobody's sued them for infringement yet. I mean, if you saw your commercial program on download.com what would you do? If Microsoft saw Office on download.com what would they do? Even if the respective programs had been renamed?
  If Solid Oak has their way, the idea of rehosting free (as in beer) software is dead.
  No, it means that hosts will have to do a little more due dilligance when posting, rather than just slapping up any program shot their way.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
10. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by Nadaka · 2009-10-07 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sure you can, all that is in the executable itself. All you have to do is view a hex dump to catch some of it, decompile/debug to find the rest.
  That is besides the point. In this particular case, the software had a nice feature to phone home and download updates. When the code was stolen, they forgot to change or disable this feature.
  Its like saying you can not tell if a movie you sell is copy written because you didn't watch it yourself. It has been known for a long time that green dam was stolen code, and they knowingly continued to distribute it.
11. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by Rich0 · 2009-10-07 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I tend to agree with your points. The only question I'd have is whether ZDNet was contacted about the copyrighted materials and asked to take them down.
  If the copyright holder asked them to take down the materials and they refused, then clearly they're completely liable under the DMCA.
  On the other hand, if the first notice they've gotten about hosting the files is a lawsuit, then that is a bit unfair (and not generally compliant with the DMCA).
  The issue isn't so much that file-hosting sites exist. The problem is when they don't respond to requests to remove illegal content.
12. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by PhilHibbs · 2009-10-07 03:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The only one of the three elements listed that survives into the executable is the strings, but most of those are going to be changed (into Chinese, probably). De-compiled code - if that's even possible depending on the language - usually bears very little resemblance to the original source. This kind of reverse-engineering (which some might claim is even illegal under the DMCA) is an unreasonable burden to place on software hosting sites.
  
  It has been known for a long time that green dam was stolen code, and they knowingly continued to distribute it.
  Yes, that's a valid point.
13. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by stephanruby · 2009-10-07 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  ZDNet China is knowingly distributing material that violates copyright.
  No, ZDNET China is knowingly distributing material that *may* violate copyright. Just like in the SCO vs. Linux former fiasco, a lot has been said, but nothing has been proven yet. Having a company very loudly asserting ownership rights doesn't mean it actually owns anything.
  Perhaps ZDNET was also knowingly mirroring some of the Linux distributions while the SCO controversy was still going on, if that were the case, may be CBS-US should also have been sued by SCO for any of the Linux distros its subsidiaries in China, in South America, or in Africa, mirrored over there as well.
14. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  Green Dam itself contains code pirated from another filtering application. Having them sue for infringement makes as much sense as having the Pirate Bay sending out DMCA notices.
15. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by chrb · 2009-10-07 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  CBS American is liable for the actions of its subsidiaries.
  Unfortunately this is where your argument likely fails. Bhopal disaster precedent:
  In May, litigation was transferred from the US to Indian courts by US District Court Judge. Following an appeal of this decision, the US Court of Appeals affirmed the transfer, judging, in January 1987, that UCIL was a "separate entity, owned, managed and operated exclusively by Indian citizens in India".
  Union Carbide India, Limited was a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation, UCC was a US. based corporation.
  An international corporation is a separate legal entity that exists within a specific national legal jurisdiction. If CBS American were liable in the U.S. for copyright violations by a Chinese corporation in China, then it would also be liable for violations of other laws by that company. If that were the case, the U.S. courts would be filled with cases filed on behalf of people in the third world wanting better working conditions.
  A corporation generally isn't even liable for wrongdoing by its subsidiaries within the same nation, quote:
  It is a general principle of corporate law that a parent corporation is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries.
16. Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can by mpe · 2009-10-07 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, ZDNET China is knowingly distributing material that *may* violate copyright. Just like in the SCO vs. Linux former fiasco, a lot has been said, but nothing has been proven yet. Having a company very loudly asserting ownership rights doesn't mean it actually owns anything.
  
  Indeed it may well be that they are trying to draw attention away from their own actions. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a company which makes a lot of fuss about copyright turns out to be enguaging in copyright violations themselves.
From precedent... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 01:56 · Score: 4, Funny

... 2 billion PCs multiplied by 1 million per infringing copy ...
CBS Interactive owes CYBERsitter 2 million billion dollars.
Maybe they'll settle for 1.5 bajillion out of court.
1. Re:From precedent... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  No worries, the Fed will print all those bajillion dollars out just in time and we'll all be carrying $Billion US dollar notes around the world! Everyone becomes billionaire! Isn't that nice?
Win-win situation by argent · 2009-10-07 01:58 · Score: 2, Funny

A battle between a repressive government and a company that makes repressive software? So there's basically no downside?
1. Re:Win-win situation by digitig · 2009-10-07 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A battle between a repressive government and a company that makes repressive software? So there's basically no downside?
  Yes there is. Lawyers will profit.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
2. Re:Win-win situation by petermgreen · 2009-10-07 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately not, the people being sued are not the repressive governemnt but a mere download site distributing what they beleived was legit freeware.
  If this succeeds it will put running a freeware/shareware/FOSS distribution site into a similar risk category as running a warez site.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
3. Re:Win-win situation by argent · 2009-10-07 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately not, the people being sued are not the repressive governemnt but a mere download site distributing what they beleived was legit freeware.
  They would sue the Chinese government if they thought they had a chance, but they can't, so they have to work through a patsy who was unethical enough to think that redistributing repressive software was a good idea.
4. Re:Win-win situation by petermgreen · 2009-10-10 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  They would sue the Chinese government if they thought they had a chance, but they can't, so they have to work through
  I'd disagree with calling this "working through", I doubt a legal attack on a download site will have any impact on the Chinese government whatsoever.
  a patsy who was unethical enough to think that redistributing repressive software was a good idea.
  Is it really unethical to run a large archive of freeware/shareware? Can you really expect them to look at the ethics of every peice of software uploaded?
  Even if you do think they should be checking the ethics of software that is pretty tangential to this case. Software for an "ethical" purpose can also contain unknown copyright violations.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
5. Re:Win-win situation by argent · 2009-10-10 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Is it really unethical to run a large archive of freeware/shareware? Can you really expect them to look at the ethics of every peice of software uploaded?
  That depends on the nature if the archive and where they're operating. For example if they're being sued in the US and they're simply operating as an ISP and providing hosting for whatever random software some yobbo uploads, then they're protected by the safe harbour provisions of the DMCA. Now, I can't read the ZDnet China page... but if it's similar to other ZDnet sites then they're operating more like a computer magazine than an ISP and are responsible for the software they choose to share.
For those who could not understand the summary. by will_die · 2009-10-07 01:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Solid Oak Software is using CBS Interactive for $1,238,450 on the claim that CBS Interactive copied 3,000 lines of code from Solid Oak Software's CYBERSitter and used it in Green Dam software.
The amount they are sueing for is $39.95, the cost of the CYBERSitter software, times the 31,000 times they say the Green Dam software was downloaded.

Since both companies are US based this comes down to simple intellectual property lawsuit.
1. Re:For those who could not understand the summary. by tazochai · 2009-10-07 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see anywhere in the article that says CBS Interactive wrote Green Dam. All I see is that CBS Interactive distributed it.
  Who wrote Green Dam? Also, the article refers to Blue Dam. Who wrote that, and does it include the same copied code from Solid Oak?
  In an article about Intellectual Property, the name of the person/company responsible for writing Green Dam is a key piece of information.
2. Re:For those who could not understand the summary. by will_die · 2009-10-07 02:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Blue Dam is the Chinese government's replacement for Green Dam. Blue Dam is aimed for the servers and make use of hardware and software and is suppose to be multiple times more effective then Green Dam was. It is not part of this lawsuit.
  Found an article that better explains it. The chinese government hired Jinhui Computer System Engineering who wrote the software, and would of been the company that stole the code. They are China based so no lawsuits on them.
  CBS Interactive is being sued because they are US based and distributed the software. It is still down intellectual property.
3. Re:For those who could not understand the summary. by Ocker3 · 2009-10-07 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just pleasantly shocked that Solid Oak is suing for Cost x Number of Violations, rather than Some Number We Think We Were Hurt By (trademarked by the RIAA). It's not seventy bajillion dollars, it's the amount of money they would have made if the actual software had been purchased rather than illegally copied, something like what happens in Australia if you're found to have insufficient licences for your business' software. You have to buy licences, and they may monitor you, and perhaps fine you if it's been particularly egregious, but the upshot is that you simply have to pay for the software you've been using.
4. Re:For those who could not understand the summary. by chrb · 2009-10-07 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  CBS Interactive is being sued because they are US based and distributed the software.
  TFA alleges ZDNet China distributed the software. ZDNet China may be a subsidiary of CBS Interactive, but they are a completely separate legal entity. CBS Interactive is not liable for their actions.
Gooooood luck! by hesaigo999ca · 2009-10-07 02:01 · Score: 1

Well, even if they get a ruling in their favor, good luck going into another country that does not recognize our laws, and try to get that money from whomever, the Chinese will laugh at the US, and this could be one of those catalysts that evolves the relationship into a terminal one.
1. Re:Gooooood luck! by digitig · 2009-10-07 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  AFAICS, a US company is suing a US company. Who is going to have to go to "another country that does not recognize our laws"?
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
2. Re:Gooooood luck! by commodore64_love · 2009-10-07 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  >>>the Chinese will laugh at the US, and this could be one of those catalysts that evolves the relationship into a terminal one.
  Without the support of China, our medicare and retirement programs will collapse due to lack of incoming money.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
3. Re:Gooooood luck! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  A US Company suing a US Company based on what another Company (affiliated/owned) was doing in another country as mandated/authorised by the government of that other country. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I sure as hell would not want to own stock in a US company. Now US companies need to worry about overlapping / contradicting international law?..... Good luck with this mine field! This should be thrown out!
4. Re:Gooooood luck! by AHuxley · 2009-10-07 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  The US likes its intellectual property. They can make it so hard to trade outside China that world ignores you. You become the computer worlds 'North Korean banker"
  You can host and offer all the files you want in China.
  Try to use your brand name or skills outside China and life gets interesting for anyone dealing with you.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
5. Re:Gooooood luck! by digitig · 2009-10-07 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's a minefield. But if (big "if" -- it's for the court to determine) they were contravening US law in the US in order to comply with what a foreign government told them to do then I would expect them to get pretty short shrift. After all, if a foreign government told a US national to assassinate the US President then I think that US national could expect US law to take precedence over what the foreign government told them to do. (NSA: Please read the whole message -- nothing to worry about!)
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
6. Re:Gooooood luck! by cdrguru · 2009-10-07 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  The US seriously needs to be on a self-sufficient footing. The first question in any trade negotiation should be "What happens if there is an embargo?" The US has failed to consider that with respect to China - they are the sole supplier for many things, including some military items. A war with China might be over very quickly because if China cut off supplies the military might not be able to fight for very long.
  Financially, relying on China or any other country for the level of loans that the US has is absurd. China could, in theory, dictate policy to the US. The current health care reform efforts could be substantially altered should China enter the discussion. Obviously, China could dictate that costs must not be above current spending as they would not finance further debt. This might come as a bit of a surprise to some folks in Washington should it happen.
  China could also instruct the US to end operations in Iraq and Afganistan immediately. Failure to comply with China would collapse the US and much of the Western economies. Probably the only reason this isn't happening is it would also knock China off their current high income levels. What many people do not understand is that it is not up to the people in China, it is up to their unelected leaders and that China has suffered from a really bad economy for a very long time. It wouldn't be anything new to the people there. And it wouldn't really affect the leaders that much - they wouldn't suffer one bit.
7. Re:Gooooood luck! by hesaigo999ca · 2009-10-07 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Hate to tell you, China trumps US in a world power, when it comes to world influence, especially now that everything is brought in from or made in china...also we are talking about software, not an actual physical object to sell, so patents are not really recognized per se as real theft in certain countries (like India) where theft of an actual physical thing(s) would lead to cooperation of sorts...
8. Re:Gooooood luck! by hesaigo999ca · 2009-10-07 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  You bring up some important points about the relationship the US has with China, and I think your right, the US has to reevaluate its dealings with China to protect itself, should China (on a powerplay) decide they are cutting us off.
9. Re:Gooooood luck! by hesaigo999ca · 2009-10-07 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  However, this is where you are wrong, they were an American company doing whatever in a different country with different laws, then bringing their paychecks home, so the money mad elsewhere is not taxable in the US if it was made elsewhere, same as the products made there or sold there...
  ther is no ground for the US to intervene, unfortunately.
10. Re:Gooooood luck! by JustNiz · 2009-10-07 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  >> The US likes its intellectual property.
  I agree, but its stupid. Does the US seriously believe it has any commercial technology (i.e. not top-secret military type stuff) the rest of the world doesn't already have too?
11. Re:Gooooood luck! by mpe · 2009-10-07 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  A US Company suing a US Company based on what another Company (affiliated/owned) was doing in another country as mandated/authorised by the government of that other country. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I sure as hell would not want to own stock in a US company. Now US companies need to worry about overlapping / contradicting international law?..... Good luck with this mine field! This should be thrown out!
  
  There's going to be a lot of lobbying from large transnational companies to get this thrown out. Since such a case is highly relevent to the way these entities like to be able to do business.
12. Re:Gooooood luck! by Jedi+Alec · 2009-10-07 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  You bring up some important points about the relationship the US has with China, and I think your right, the US has to reevaluate its dealings with China to protect itself, should China (on a powerplay) decide they are cutting us off.
  s/should/when/;
  You're setting yourself up the bomb, and selling the detonator.
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
You can't serve multiple masters by MikeRT · 2009-10-07 02:10 · Score: 1

The lawsuit, if it succeeds, could force companies to give more thought to the risks of complying with mandates from foreign governments that violate US laws.
To paraphrase the Bible: pick your poison, you will end up serving a master (God, money, the devil, sex, the state), so you might as well make an informed decision.
You Control the Update Servers! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 02:11 · Score: 0

This is a good time for Solid Oak Software to get creative. If they control the update servers which these computers check, figure out a way to ID those machines, then make them all do something annoying like email the ministry of technology and say "pay us $40 for our software!"
NOTE: This is actually the worst idea ever as it would likely piss a lot of people off, but it'd be a much more hilarious story.
That's an odd comment at the end by MartinSchou · 2009-10-07 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The lawsuit, if it succeeds, could force companies to give more thought to the risks of complying with mandates from foreign governments that violate US laws.
First of all - if you're doing business in more than one country, you are going to have to comply with the laws of those countries.
Secondly, if the recent polls are an indication, about half of Slashdot aren't in the US, so why would we care if some foreign country mandates something that may be illegal in the US? Now, if it had said "could force US companies [...]" it'd be a lot better.
But why are people surprised, that if you operate in a country, you will have to abide by the laws of that country? If you operate in a country that makes it illegal to give your customers' info to any third party without a court order, and another country has a law that says any government official can ask and it's illegal to deny the request - you're going to have to figure out how to build airtight shutters between the two companies.
Duh!
1. Re:That's an odd comment at the end by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  about half of Slashdot aren't in the US
  I noticed a statement like this somewhere before and I was indisposed to comment but, I think'll I'll say something today. First of all, only VA Software (the owners of Slashdot, Sourceforge, et al) knows the real breakdown of slashdot readership with ip logs (and even that's not the whole story). The vast majority of slashdotters don't even read the comments, they just read the summaries. The vast majority that read the comments don't post or participate in polls. So, your argument is barely even a hypothetical.
  Also, I'd like to say that, obviously many readers here come from places with a much more socialist, gimme society than what we have here in America. As a consequence, that seems to translate into, we use the internet so it's now ours. We use slashdot so we now own it. Guess what. You are deluded. Again, VA Software runs this show. If you don't like it, start your own slashdot. There's a japanese slashdot and they seem to be doing fine so it is possible. Most of what I see from the non-Americans on here boils down to little more than site vandalism anyway. You people add very little to this site. The vast majority of the intelligent commentary in the comments comes from Americans. Some people wonder why slashdot doesn't cover happenings in the European and Russian technical community. What European and Russian technical community? Nokia? Ha. All you people do is sit in your hovels and attempt to hack American's bank accounts. That's it. Your entire technical competence is essentially coming up with new ways to steal. Why would we cover that on Slashdot other than how to avoid you? You are a pestilence on this site. The quality of this site's comments are a shadow of what they were before you all discovered it. Please go away and make your own.
2. Re:That's an odd comment at the end by jc42 · 2009-10-07 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  But why are people surprised, that if you operate in a country, you will have to abide by the laws of that country?
  Because generally this isn't true.
  First, you only need to obey laws that are enforced. This is often less than half the laws that are on the book; the others you only need to worry about if you offend someone in power.
  Second, the enforced laws can often be ignored, with care, plus a few, uh, contributions to the right people in the government. This is as true in the US as elsewhere, and often goes by the name "campaign contributions".
  For example, consider the company formerly known as Blackwater USA, then Blackwater Worldwide, and now Xe Services LLC. It's a private military contractor, with headquarters in North Carolina, USA. Google will find you a lot of information about its history (and probably a bit of misinformation here and there). It fairly obviously operates outside the law in various parts of the world, as a supplier of private "protection units", and a good number of local people have died during some of its operations. This is widely documented in the media, but you'll have trouble finding any successful prosecutions of the company or its officers under any nation's laws.
  Blackwater is merely one of the more notorious of such companies. It's easy to find others. Thus, as we've been hearing lately, there are illegal movie and music copying operations all around the world, often done in the labs of "legit" companies. The (non-pharmaceutical) drug business is operating illegally almost anywhere, and usually only the lowest-grade employees have any danger of arrest or prosecution, while the officers and shareholders become wealthy. (Of course, a good part of their wealth often goes to paying their private armed guards. ;-) Most such corporations operate quite openly, as they must if they are to succeed as retail-sales organizations. But they are rarely taken to court, despite the generally illegal nature of their main business.
  The idea that corporations "have to" obey laws anywhere is a bit naïve; the reality is sometimes rather different.
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
This in NOT interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 02:39 · Score: 0

It's copypasta.
solid oak crying again.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-07 02:50 · Score: 0

solid oak software has a history of throwing hissy fits. they made threats to media3 to block all sites under their IP block, and even mailbombed some poor woman who complained about their software...
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-207930.html
Milburn is an arrogant dick.
Clearly not possibly a troll by Tetsujin · 2009-10-07 04:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am not a troll, I am a 6'2" fit male who knows a few languages and can make his way through a crowd.
Oh... You're tall and educated. Therefore you couldn't possibly be a troll. :)

--
Bow-ties are cool.
Four... Three... Two... One... by Tetsujin · 2009-10-07 04:13 · Score: 1

I thought it had to come through the barrel of a gun?
Keep my head way down.

--
Bow-ties are cool.
What Capitalism Isn't by handy_vandal · 2009-10-07 04:27 · Score: 1

Capitalism isn't the right to buy and sell anything you please -- not in practice, anyway.
If it were, I would already visited my local butcher, to indulge my curiosity about the taste of human flesh.

--
-kgj
West Eats East by handy_vandal · 2009-10-07 04:31 · Score: 1

When they opened up their country to the West and doing business with free countries, it is only a matter of time for their regime to weaken and for Western influences to take hold.
Does that work both ways? Now that China has tasted of Western freedoms, will the West indulge in oriental despotism?

--
-kgj
forced? by dwater · 2009-10-07 04:34 · Score: 1

> but widespread criticism, including reports of stolen code, forced the Chinese government to reconsider
Ha - pure speculation. What evidence do you have to show why the government chose to reconsider?

--
Max.
DMCA by denbesten · 2009-10-07 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not that I am a big fan of the DMCA, but this seems like a perfect example of where its Title II provision is intended to be used.
If White Oak Software started by filing a take-down notice and ZD does not comply (or contest it), then damages are fair-game in my book.
Re:Free Market != Capitalism and Ferdinand Magella by uassholes · 2009-10-08 02:40 · Score: 1

commodore64love is wrong. bitemykarma is correct but s/he was modded into oblivion:

What you describe is not capitalism, it is a free market. Capitalism is the financing of an enterprise with the expectation of a return on investment. For instance Christopher de Haro, and Charles V financed the 1519 voyage of Ferdinand Magellan. de Haro put up the money for 1/4 share, and Chuck put up the other 3/4 of the cost of the voyage. In other words they owned stock in Magellan's corporation, expecting to eventually receive 1/4 and 3/4 share of the spoils respectively. The same thing goes on today when we buy stock share in a corporation.