I see your point, and in this way the NRA has it easy. But that may be to put too fine a point on it in that there are things about copyright that people hold dear to their hearts. How about a campaign based on public domain works that have become very popular? "What if the Little Mermaid's mommy had an abortion (cease and desist letter)?" Most of Disney's famous repertoire is based on what were public domain works at the time, so perhaps this is the glaring target for NRA-ish tactics the OP was imagining.
You overstep your point in ignoring the idea that the shareholders would have a share in the assets of the company. It's not about fair-use, it's about property rights as an end-run around this copyright mess.
If the RIAA wants to buckle the copyright courts, then why not add a bit more chaos to the mix? Don't worry, people won't forget how to make music.
But what does matter is that Bush & company are publishing information that is tantamount to revealing someone's vote.
"Tantamount" ain't enough. If they don't want anybody to know their political views, then stop participating in the racket of "donations are political speech". The only time someone's vote is revealed is if they tell someone or they have someone looking over their shoulder. Donations are a form of "telling someone" (that's the point, isn't it?). It's only the ballot votes that are secret. But the specter you raise does have a shiny side: perhaps money can become less of an influence in politics.
And as the sites advertised as such, showing that was your intent is much easier.
Are these devices available anywhere *besides* gray stores? Proportionally, if the gray stores outnumber the "legit intent" stores (by your logic), a prospective customer might assume that one is limited in the kinds of stores that these devices are available. If MurderMart is the only gun shop around, and it's a huge chain that extends to miles around, surely ones intent can't be divined by an inability to find Dubya's Shoot Shop out behind the Hardee's.
Of course M$ will do everything in its power to bury linux, what's the news here ?
That they don't have the power.
Re:Here's an interesting quote
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Surely it has a right to some recompense (even if only a reimbursement of reasonable costs) for its input?
Well, aside from getting illegal kickbacks from the industries who benefit from the laws like any other public servant, I don't see where you'd say they have a "right" (read: entitlement) to some benefits of the law. Why would they, isn't good faith participation in the public sector reward enough? If they're so concerned about their standards being used without compensation, then they can sue to keep their standards out of the law and let the standards stay private. You can't have your greed and spread it, too.
The court said that the SBCCI (here's a nudge to actually read the article so you can spell things correctly) specifically comes up with templates to be used as laws. Laws can't be copyrighted, even if the law incorporates copyrighted references. So - and this is covered in some of the transcripts - the SBCCI seems to have chosen a business model incompatible with the internet, and it's just that nobody cared to look laws up in places other than City Hall or the library that this didn't come up before. Huzzah for Mr. Veeck.
They've already caught you uploading songs to other users on the internet, which is probable cause to search your computer.
Probable cause? Like in a criminal case? The fallacy of this idea is better illustrated in other replies, so I'll leave it at that, but you should put some extra study-time into the fact that copyright infringement is a civil matter, like that contractor you hired who painted your bathroom poorly. Or that friend who didn't pay you back for those Mudvayne tix. C-I-V-I-L
However, I didn't even have to read that far. How exactly do you figure that they've been able to figure out who has been downloading from a given IP in a decentralized network? What is the mechanism for getting "caught"? There isn't one. The RIAA can't see who's downloading from you, that's why they're only going after sharers.
I think the gentleman from the RIAA either didn't get the point - or didn't care (and I believe the latter).
It's for this reason that it's pointless to critique Mr. Oppenheim's comments based on what the question asks, or even what you'd expect him to reveal in response to a question. His job is to keep the file-trading discourse firmly on the RIAAs side of the court and to stay "on message". He is not participating in this questionnaire to increase understanding of the RIAAs position because everybody already knows where they stand. He's there to repeat all of the things that the RIAA has said before, nothing more. It's fairly similar to SCO's antics in effecting a stance of "if it's repeated often enough, people will believe it." Filesharing is wrong, failing business models should be subsidized by legislation, copyright trumps all, etc. ad nauseam.
If anything - and I doubt the p2p consortium recently announced will be able to accomplish this - filetraders should create more visibility for a coherent platform of concepts inherent in this fight. The RIAA uses every opportunity to repeat their message regardless of the context of the interview/article/etc., and this is also what the lobbyists behind other troublesome legislation. Fight fire with fire, I say.
This isn't quite true. Headphones are fundamentally different than speakers in that the sound source is pinned to your ears. This causes a few problems: The stereo qualities of the recording are diminished when you can't move your head in respect to the speakers; the mix of the piece is thrown off as some instruments have a different apparent volume in headphones than speakers and there are frequencies which aren't absorbed by the listening environment; the bass suffers from the speakers of the headphones being so small. I certainly use headphones for games and other times when I'd like to minimize the bleed into my neighbors' apartments, but I'm inclined (uneducated guess) that those who are serious about headphones use them as a necessary adjunct to speakers, and not as a substitute.
What's been tweaking MY panties lately are the growing number of cart-spammer retailers who add things to your cart without your knowledge or permission and expect you to notice the items at checkout and remove them at that point.
Heh, checkout their "privacy" policy and try to figure out what definition of "privacy" they're using. I don't want to get into any "I told you so" hoohah, but I can remember when Trust-E and the first upswing of privacy policies were coming out, and it just seemed like that was just going to be a reason for companies to come up with privacy policies that don't guard privacy, they just tell you how much you don't have. That myauto.tv privacy policy basically says "We will spam you for ourselves, we will spam you for other people. We keep every bit of information you ever submit and use it for marketing. We will have other people spam you. If you don't give us spammable information you may not be able to purchase anything from the site. We may change this policy at any time without telling you." Ad nauseam.
every linux supporter is somehow being effected by this SCO/Linux issue.
You're hysterical. All anybody has to remember is that the SCO junk is only about contracts between IBM and SCO, that's it. No copyright. No patents. Just legalese that doesn't mean anything.
They are doing the _right_ thing. Go after people breaking the law, not the entire service.
They aren't going after the people who are breaking the law, though. They are going after people who are exposing files, but the distribution aspects of their claims don't occur until the file is downloaded. In order to distribute the file, you'd have to be pushing them onto people, or at the very least engaging in an action that causes the file to be received. So, by this logic and your reasoning, the services *are* the ones being indirectly prosecuted since the only difference between having legally-ripped personal-use MP3s on your hard drive and being a scourge-of-the-industry "distributor" is to run a particular kind of software.
Yes, but only if you refused to sign on to the "I want my $0.13!" class action suit a few months back. Those who participated in the recent class-action and settlement have already agreed to forego any additional claims. So either enjoy your nickel or start circling the wagons.
I'm not saying that this is the Holy Grail of GPL tests, or that SCOs claims have any merit. This is just a good opportunity to start getting some caselaw down on these issues. As I see it, there is quite an important issue here in that SCO seems to want to pull back from their GPL stance; to take their ball and go home (with a fat wallet). Perhaps this is all about arcane contract terms, but it's playing out like SCO wants to make IBM answer for Linux and the terms of the GPL. Is it possible to withdraw from the GPL? This is exactly the kind of horror that Microsoft brought up back in the original Halloween document. Well, maybe this can also be a case of making SCO answer for the predatory legal establishment and EULAs to some degree. Now, I'm getting a little far afield.
The short answer is that I doubt there would ever be a "Mother of all GPL tests", but the more caselaw is down on the books and the more legal tests of *aspects* of the GPL that can be used in the future, the better.
Like a lot of people around here, I've been watching intently as I perceive something that seems to represent freedom to be under assault from a bunch of greedy and self-serving corp-lawyers. Taking a step back, I've begun seeing this as a good thing because this is exactly the kind of threat that the GPL has been begging for over the years: a battle for legitimacy. Did you think that testing the GPL was going to be a small potatoes deal? The way it's playing out is perfect: a single-minded company wants to pull itself out of a GPL-induced (I'd say, given their Caldera competence) downturn, and an opponent who can well afford the time, money, and expertise to fight this without weaseling out into a settlement. Well, I hope for that last part, but you know what I mean.
Counterintuitively - and not a little bit idealistic about the legal system's ability to judge without outside influence - perhaps the thing to do is to root for SCO a little bit. Egg them on with false love! Give them a hand up the hubris ladder! Kneel down as they fawn over their petards! Make this the fight that covers many bases as possible so that these things we seem to share an attachment with are the stronger for it.
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about how goverment agency X attempts to enfoce the unenforcable with new and buggier technology, then proceeds to hange some poor guy or gal on the highest pole they can fine.
Consider it this way: Why would the government allow anything unpoliceable to live? In this sense we all have some kind of limited P2P and chat future ahead of us, because why? Because everybody uses them. Never doubt that it is always illegal to exist outside of the system, in some way. Look at how much P2P is going on, the RIAA/MPAA and the government (backing the 'AA's up) all want to make them pay, get some cheddar on the go, and here we have the FBI part of the recipe dropping into place. Gotta have a way to bust people for not paying their tolls, right? Apparently the way to do this is to put law enforcement in place before the tolls themselves.
Is the failure of conventional music sales reinforcement that the RIAA's business plan just doesn't work, or will it just provide them with more ammunition against the P2P crowd?"
The RIAA uses P2P as a scapegoat for the failed business models of the labels it represents and their inability (or unwillingness) to adapt their copyright stance in the face of new technology. In fact, the answer to your question is "both" in that as the reports of declining sales come out, the RIAA uses P2P to distract attention from the fact that labels have degenerated into top-heavy marketing machines.
The RIAA is not the record industry. When the RIAA says "we", they mean the big 5 record labels (Universal, Sony, EMI, Warner's, BMG). The RIAA is the recording industry's lobbying arm, charged with keeping the names of the labels out of the headlines as they seethe forward into the breach.
I'm wondering if accused P2P users can adopt a defense that they are non-profit broadcasters who got caught not paying their compulsories.
Here's an idea, SCO files suit against IBM, forcing IBM to take responsibility for Linux. This may not be about IP in the way the SCO is portraying, but if the IP in Linux can be legally tied to a corporate entity, then Microsoft, et al can compete against Linux again, since it'll just be an extension of their textbook strategies against any competitor. This could be the real fear, that Linux doesn't even have a body, really, and that's what corporate America (adopters and technological competitors) really fears. They don't know how to deal with it, and if SCO can tie IBM as the caretaker of Linux, then the GPL becomes secondary under US/International corporate financial, commercial, and governance laws.
It doesn't matter who's name is on the deed to your house, if you sell that house and the deed with it, the new owner now has all rights to it....conveniently overlooking the fact that if you don't have the deed in your name that you don't have the right to sell the house.
This just makes apparent something that has been bubbling under the surface for me over the past week: Darl McBride is trying to interview for his next job. Everything out of his mouth throughout this whole crapfest has been just another instance of proof that the guy can bullshit, lie, and exaggerate to the national news media and to the US Judicial system. Expect to find him in government or some large and periodically-hated company somewhere in two years.
Unfortunately, the recording industry does not have that same initial cash flow to cover the costs of development. Each live performance has the same costs as the last, so live performances only help exposure. Radio play costs as much as it pays. Their only means to recover money is through sales of CDs.
Much to the industry's dismay, as it is a big part of why the RIAA's backers will be left in the lurch by the internet, the costs of production have plummeted in the last 10 years. With albums being much cheaper to produce the only thing left for the labels to do is marketing and legal services. This is how they can add value to their offerings: trim their offerings to the functions that they're actually good at. The world is realizing that listening to music doesn't require a $10,000/hr studio, $100,000/hr "independent radio promoters", 18.98 CDs filled with fluff, or any of the other rackets that the music industry uses to keep its various troughs overflowing with corruption.
This would be an interesting form of legal martyrdom. To get access to the code and straight up posting it all over the place with your name on it and not even trying to be sly about it. P2P, FTP, WWW, IRC, it's time we put this internet thing through the proverbial wringer of the courts.
This just in (well, the other day...buried under the licensing story):
SCO brings Active Directory authentication to Unix
By Online Staff May 20 2003
The SCO Group has announced that it is releasing SCO Authentication for Microsoft Active Directory in partnership with Center 7, a developer and provider of IT infrastructure management and authentication products.
The company said SCO Authentication enabled end users to use a single login in mixed Unix and Windows environments.
It said companies with business-critical Unix applications could benefit from "the enhanced security and reduced management costs" associated with existing Microsoft Active Directory environment.
"This is a great solution for organisations managing networks running Windows, Unix and other operating systems where authentication is typically insecure and difficult to manage," said Kieran O'Shaughnessy, SCO's regional general manager for Australia and New Zealand.
"SCO Authentication for Microsoft Active Directory allows IT teams to seamlessly integrate Unix-based system logins with the secure authentication technology they've already paid for in the form of Microsoft Active Directory."
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point, and in this way the NRA has it easy. But that may be to put too fine a point on it in that there are things about copyright that people hold dear to their hearts. How about a campaign based on public domain works that have become very popular? "What if the Little Mermaid's mommy had an abortion (cease and desist letter)?" Most of Disney's famous repertoire is based on what were public domain works at the time, so perhaps this is the glaring target for NRA-ish tactics the OP was imagining.
Or how about an LCD Projector, like you see in conference rooms?
You overstep your point in ignoring the idea that the shareholders would have a share in the assets of the company. It's not about fair-use, it's about property rights as an end-run around this copyright mess.
If the RIAA wants to buckle the copyright courts, then why not add a bit more chaos to the mix? Don't worry, people won't forget how to make music.
So, what kind of penalty could you expect for breaking an NDA?
You have to take a job at SCO.
But what does matter is that Bush & company are publishing information that is tantamount to revealing someone's vote.
"Tantamount" ain't enough. If they don't want anybody to know their political views, then stop participating in the racket of "donations are political speech". The only time someone's vote is revealed is if they tell someone or they have someone looking over their shoulder. Donations are a form of "telling someone" (that's the point, isn't it?). It's only the ballot votes that are secret. But the specter you raise does have a shiny side: perhaps money can become less of an influence in politics.
And as the sites advertised as such, showing that was your intent is much easier.
Are these devices available anywhere *besides* gray stores? Proportionally, if the gray stores outnumber the "legit intent" stores (by your logic), a prospective customer might assume that one is limited in the kinds of stores that these devices are available. If MurderMart is the only gun shop around, and it's a huge chain that extends to miles around, surely ones intent can't be divined by an inability to find Dubya's Shoot Shop out behind the Hardee's.
Of course M$ will do everything in its power to bury linux, what's the news here ?
That they don't have the power.
Surely it has a right to some recompense (even if only a reimbursement of reasonable costs) for its input?
Well, aside from getting illegal kickbacks from the industries who benefit from the laws like any other public servant, I don't see where you'd say they have a "right" (read: entitlement) to some benefits of the law. Why would they, isn't good faith participation in the public sector reward enough? If they're so concerned about their standards being used without compensation, then they can sue to keep their standards out of the law and let the standards stay private. You can't have your greed and spread it, too.
The court said that the SBCCI (here's a nudge to actually read the article so you can spell things correctly) specifically comes up with templates to be used as laws. Laws can't be copyrighted, even if the law incorporates copyrighted references. So - and this is covered in some of the transcripts - the SBCCI seems to have chosen a business model incompatible with the internet, and it's just that nobody cared to look laws up in places other than City Hall or the library that this didn't come up before. Huzzah for Mr. Veeck.
They've already caught you uploading songs to other users on the internet, which is probable cause to search your computer.
Probable cause? Like in a criminal case? The fallacy of this idea is better illustrated in other replies, so I'll leave it at that, but you should put some extra study-time into the fact that copyright infringement is a civil matter, like that contractor you hired who painted your bathroom poorly. Or that friend who didn't pay you back for those Mudvayne tix. C-I-V-I-L
However, I didn't even have to read that far. How exactly do you figure that they've been able to figure out who has been downloading from a given IP in a decentralized network? What is the mechanism for getting "caught"? There isn't one. The RIAA can't see who's downloading from you, that's why they're only going after sharers.
I think the gentleman from the RIAA either didn't get the point - or didn't care (and I believe the latter).
It's for this reason that it's pointless to critique Mr. Oppenheim's comments based on what the question asks, or even what you'd expect him to reveal in response to a question. His job is to keep the file-trading discourse firmly on the RIAAs side of the court and to stay "on message". He is not participating in this questionnaire to increase understanding of the RIAAs position because everybody already knows where they stand. He's there to repeat all of the things that the RIAA has said before, nothing more. It's fairly similar to SCO's antics in effecting a stance of "if it's repeated often enough, people will believe it." Filesharing is wrong, failing business models should be subsidized by legislation, copyright trumps all, etc. ad nauseam.
If anything - and I doubt the p2p consortium recently announced will be able to accomplish this - filetraders should create more visibility for a coherent platform of concepts inherent in this fight. The RIAA uses every opportunity to repeat their message regardless of the context of the interview/article/etc., and this is also what the lobbyists behind other troublesome legislation. Fight fire with fire, I say.
This isn't quite true. Headphones are fundamentally different than speakers in that the sound source is pinned to your ears. This causes a few problems: The stereo qualities of the recording are diminished when you can't move your head in respect to the speakers; the mix of the piece is thrown off as some instruments have a different apparent volume in headphones than speakers and there are frequencies which aren't absorbed by the listening environment; the bass suffers from the speakers of the headphones being so small. I certainly use headphones for games and other times when I'd like to minimize the bleed into my neighbors' apartments, but I'm inclined (uneducated guess) that those who are serious about headphones use them as a necessary adjunct to speakers, and not as a substitute.
What's been tweaking MY panties lately are the growing number of cart-spammer retailers who add things to your cart without your knowledge or permission and expect you to notice the items at checkout and remove them at that point.
Heh, checkout their "privacy" policy and try to figure out what definition of "privacy" they're using. I don't want to get into any "I told you so" hoohah, but I can remember when Trust-E and the first upswing of privacy policies were coming out, and it just seemed like that was just going to be a reason for companies to come up with privacy policies that don't guard privacy, they just tell you how much you don't have. That myauto.tv privacy policy basically says "We will spam you for ourselves, we will spam you for other people. We keep every bit of information you ever submit and use it for marketing. We will have other people spam you. If you don't give us spammable information you may not be able to purchase anything from the site. We may change this policy at any time without telling you." Ad nauseam.
every linux supporter is somehow being effected by this SCO/Linux issue.
You're hysterical. All anybody has to remember is that the SCO junk is only about contracts between IBM and SCO, that's it. No copyright. No patents. Just legalese that doesn't mean anything.
They are doing the _right_ thing. Go after people breaking the law, not the entire service.
They aren't going after the people who are breaking the law, though. They are going after people who are exposing files, but the distribution aspects of their claims don't occur until the file is downloaded. In order to distribute the file, you'd have to be pushing them onto people, or at the very least engaging in an action that causes the file to be received. So, by this logic and your reasoning, the services *are* the ones being indirectly prosecuted since the only difference between having legally-ripped personal-use MP3s on your hard drive and being a scourge-of-the-industry "distributor" is to run a particular kind of software.
Yes, but only if you refused to sign on to the "I want my $0.13!" class action suit a few months back. Those who participated in the recent class-action and settlement have already agreed to forego any additional claims. So either enjoy your nickel or start circling the wagons.
I'm not saying that this is the Holy Grail of GPL tests, or that SCOs claims have any merit. This is just a good opportunity to start getting some caselaw down on these issues. As I see it, there is quite an important issue here in that SCO seems to want to pull back from their GPL stance; to take their ball and go home (with a fat wallet). Perhaps this is all about arcane contract terms, but it's playing out like SCO wants to make IBM answer for Linux and the terms of the GPL. Is it possible to withdraw from the GPL? This is exactly the kind of horror that Microsoft brought up back in the original Halloween document. Well, maybe this can also be a case of making SCO answer for the predatory legal establishment and EULAs to some degree. Now, I'm getting a little far afield.
The short answer is that I doubt there would ever be a "Mother of all GPL tests", but the more caselaw is down on the books and the more legal tests of *aspects* of the GPL that can be used in the future, the better.
Like a lot of people around here, I've been watching intently as I perceive something that seems to represent freedom to be under assault from a bunch of greedy and self-serving corp-lawyers. Taking a step back, I've begun seeing this as a good thing because this is exactly the kind of threat that the GPL has been begging for over the years: a battle for legitimacy. Did you think that testing the GPL was going to be a small potatoes deal? The way it's playing out is perfect: a single-minded company wants to pull itself out of a GPL-induced (I'd say, given their Caldera competence) downturn, and an opponent who can well afford the time, money, and expertise to fight this without weaseling out into a settlement. Well, I hope for that last part, but you know what I mean.
Counterintuitively - and not a little bit idealistic about the legal system's ability to judge without outside influence - perhaps the thing to do is to root for SCO a little bit. Egg them on with false love! Give them a hand up the hubris ladder! Kneel down as they fawn over their petards! Make this the fight that covers many bases as possible so that these things we seem to share an attachment with are the stronger for it.
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about how goverment agency X attempts to enfoce the unenforcable with new and buggier technology, then proceeds to hange some poor guy or gal on the highest pole they can fine.
Consider it this way: Why would the government allow anything unpoliceable to live? In this sense we all have some kind of limited P2P and chat future ahead of us, because why? Because everybody uses them. Never doubt that it is always illegal to exist outside of the system, in some way. Look at how much P2P is going on, the RIAA/MPAA and the government (backing the 'AA's up) all want to make them pay, get some cheddar on the go, and here we have the FBI part of the recipe dropping into place. Gotta have a way to bust people for not paying their tolls, right? Apparently the way to do this is to put law enforcement in place before the tolls themselves.
Is the failure of conventional music sales reinforcement that the RIAA's business plan just doesn't work, or will it just provide them with more ammunition against the P2P crowd?"
The RIAA uses P2P as a scapegoat for the failed business models of the labels it represents and their inability (or unwillingness) to adapt their copyright stance in the face of new technology. In fact, the answer to your question is "both" in that as the reports of declining sales come out, the RIAA uses P2P to distract attention from the fact that labels have degenerated into top-heavy marketing machines.
The RIAA is not the record industry. When the RIAA says "we", they mean the big 5 record labels (Universal, Sony, EMI, Warner's, BMG). The RIAA is the recording industry's lobbying arm, charged with keeping the names of the labels out of the headlines as they seethe forward into the breach.
I'm wondering if accused P2P users can adopt a defense that they are non-profit broadcasters who got caught not paying their compulsories.
Here's an idea, SCO files suit against IBM, forcing IBM to take responsibility for Linux. This may not be about IP in the way the SCO is portraying, but if the IP in Linux can be legally tied to a corporate entity, then Microsoft, et al can compete against Linux again, since it'll just be an extension of their textbook strategies against any competitor. This could be the real fear, that Linux doesn't even have a body, really, and that's what corporate America (adopters and technological competitors) really fears. They don't know how to deal with it, and if SCO can tie IBM as the caretaker of Linux, then the GPL becomes secondary under US/International corporate financial, commercial, and governance laws.
It doesn't matter who's name is on the deed to your house, if you sell that house and the deed with it, the new owner now has all rights to it. ...conveniently overlooking the fact that if you don't have the deed in your name that you don't have the right to sell the house.
This just makes apparent something that has been bubbling under the surface for me over the past week: Darl McBride is trying to interview for his next job. Everything out of his mouth throughout this whole crapfest has been just another instance of proof that the guy can bullshit, lie, and exaggerate to the national news media and to the US Judicial system. Expect to find him in government or some large and periodically-hated company somewhere in two years.
Unfortunately, the recording industry does not have that same initial cash flow to cover the costs of development. Each live performance has the same costs as the last, so live performances only help exposure. Radio play costs as much as it pays. Their only means to recover money is through sales of CDs.
Much to the industry's dismay, as it is a big part of why the RIAA's backers will be left in the lurch by the internet, the costs of production have plummeted in the last 10 years. With albums being much cheaper to produce the only thing left for the labels to do is marketing and legal services. This is how they can add value to their offerings: trim their offerings to the functions that they're actually good at. The world is realizing that listening to music doesn't require a $10,000/hr studio, $100,000/hr "independent radio promoters", 18.98 CDs filled with fluff, or any of the other rackets that the music industry uses to keep its various troughs overflowing with corruption.
This would be an interesting form of legal martyrdom. To get access to the code and straight up posting it all over the place with your name on it and not even trying to be sly about it. P2P, FTP, WWW, IRC, it's time we put this internet thing through the proverbial wringer of the courts.
This just in (well, the other day...buried under the licensing story):
SCO brings Active Directory authentication to Unix
By Online Staff
May 20 2003
The SCO Group has announced that it is releasing SCO Authentication for Microsoft Active Directory in partnership with Center 7, a developer and provider of IT infrastructure management and authentication products.
The company said SCO Authentication enabled end users to use a single login in mixed Unix and Windows environments.
It said companies with business-critical Unix applications could benefit from "the enhanced security and reduced management costs" associated with existing Microsoft Active Directory environment.
"This is a great solution for organisations managing networks running Windows, Unix and other operating systems where authentication is typically insecure and difficult to manage," said Kieran O'Shaughnessy, SCO's regional general manager for Australia and New Zealand.
"SCO Authentication for Microsoft Active Directory allows IT teams to seamlessly integrate Unix-based system logins with the secure authentication technology they've already paid for in the form of Microsoft Active Directory."