Fox wanted to make sure that Futurama couldn't have any real impact on ratings, good or bad, so several episodes from the fourth production season and one from the third were held back and aired sparingly over an additional season.
Removing the infringing the code would actually give them leverage. SCO can't collect damages unless it makes an effort to halt infringement. Even their licensing scam won't work unless they say what people are licensing.
The only reason the code is under an NDA is so SCO can use it for extortion.
The first amendment mentions none of those things. If you had bothered to read the constitution, you would know that.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where in that text are obscenity, libel, and slander mentioned? Nowhere.
There is an interesting question: If SCO didn't know that there was infringing code when they first published a distribution containing the claimed infringing code, is that code covered under the GPL?
That depends. SCO has waited so long to cease distribution after finding its code in Linux that their inaction could be seen as approval of the code's presence in the operating system.
That doesn't change anything. Copyrights are the same regardless of the medium.
The pure idiocy of that is astounding, especially after you try to defend it. There are so many holes paralleling the two that to try to apply it to this context, you would simply turn into a babbling idiot with no hope of making a valid argument.
In other words, the analogy is completely beyond your comprehension.
Take your own advice about babbling idiots and shut up.
Copyright Law as it exists now came into being in 1976. It has been extended twice, once in the US and once as part of the WIPO treaty. Why? Because other countries chose copyright durations that were longer than the US's, and you can't *shorten* copyrights; that's unfair to artists and authors. So the US had to lengthen their copyrights.
The US didn't have to lengthen their copyrights. They could even shorten them at any time, regardless of wheter it would be "fair".
So while you certainly can argue the copyright is broken, you aren't going to fool anybody by doing so. Just display your own ignorance.
No, it also displays your stupidity. Copyright law is unquestionably broken, and has been rendered nearly meaningless in the process. The only way to fix it is to shorten copyrights and put checks in place to ensure that they can never be extended again.
Thanks to Microsoft, those things have to be ignored. Apple lost the suit where they accused Microsoft of stealing the look and feel of the Macintosh operating system. SCO must prove that its code is in Linux and that it was contributed without proper consent. Simply being a Unix clone is not proof that SCO's IP is in Linux. That would be like saying that Goodyear couldn't sell tires because they infringe on Firestone's IP for tires.
Ownership of the operating systems you listed is probably SCO's ultimate goal. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO tried to convince a judge that the only way to remedy the situation without jeopardizing SCO's trade secrets is to give SCO ownership of Linux.
Yes, they do need to provide proof. Linux is a Unix clone, but SCO still has to prove that their IP is actually in Linux. Making something that is functionally similar to another party's product is not a violation of their IP.
They aren't being appropriated either. Your entire analogy falls back on the notion that music is a physical good. Taking something implies that the original is no longer there, which is never true of intangible goods like IP.
Duplicating someone else's IP does not deprive them of money they would have made- it sometimes reduces the possibility of making money. There is no guarantee that the person who duplicated the IP would have bought it legally, so any money that might have been gained from it can't be considered lost. And, yes, people do have the right to the content of a CD/DVD/whaterver even if they didn't buy it- the entire point of copyright is that IP is considered to belong to society.
Copyright infringement is not stealing by any definition because ideas aren't physical goods.
The He-Man remake has been better than the original in every conveivable way.
Transformers Armada is atrocious. Half the time Armada's writers can't bother to get the characters' names right, the animation gives new meaning to the word cheap, and the writers spend so much time hinting at "epic" storylines that the series effectively goes nowhere. As far as remakes or sequels to the original Transformers go, this one is at the bottom of the barrel. Expecting another G1 or Beast Wars is probably asking for too much, but at this point I'll take Beast Machines or Robots in Disguise over the Armada cartoon.
The new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon is mostly based on the original Mirage comic, which is why it seems darker than the original cartoon.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't suggest doing that with the license. Orphanage-grade toilet paper is of higher quality.
SCO isn't programming in greek. That was a weak attempt at obfuscating their code by using a font with Greek characters substituted for english ones.
I always thought it was more like blernsball.
He did, but he thought it was a cookbook.
Fox wanted to make sure that Futurama couldn't have any real impact on ratings, good or bad, so several episodes from the fourth production season and one from the third were held back and aired sparingly over an additional season.
The only reason the code is under an NDA is so SCO can use it for extortion.
Where in that text are obscenity, libel, and slander mentioned? Nowhere.
Actually, the Matrix is a big basketball with silver handles and a glowing blue crystal in the center.
That depends. SCO has waited so long to cease distribution after finding its code in Linux that their inaction could be seen as approval of the code's presence in the operating system.
That doesn't change anything. Copyrights are the same regardless of the medium.
The pure idiocy of that is astounding, especially after you try to defend it. There are so many holes paralleling the two that to try to apply it to this context, you would simply turn into a babbling idiot with no hope of making a valid argument.
In other words, the analogy is completely beyond your comprehension.
Take your own advice about babbling idiots and shut up.
Apparantly, neither have you.
The US didn't have to lengthen their copyrights. They could even shorten them at any time, regardless of wheter it would be "fair".
So while you certainly can argue the copyright is broken, you aren't going to fool anybody by doing so. Just display your own ignorance.
No, it also displays your stupidity. Copyright law is unquestionably broken, and has been rendered nearly meaningless in the process. The only way to fix it is to shorten copyrights and put checks in place to ensure that they can never be extended again.
Square wheel?
Well, I'll just go build my own internet... with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the internet.
Thanks to Microsoft, those things have to be ignored. Apple lost the suit where they accused Microsoft of stealing the look and feel of the Macintosh operating system. SCO must prove that its code is in Linux and that it was contributed without proper consent. Simply being a Unix clone is not proof that SCO's IP is in Linux. That would be like saying that Goodyear couldn't sell tires because they infringe on Firestone's IP for tires.
Ownership of the operating systems you listed is probably SCO's ultimate goal. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO tried to convince a judge that the only way to remedy the situation without jeopardizing SCO's trade secrets is to give SCO ownership of Linux.
Yes, they do need to provide proof. Linux is a Unix clone, but SCO still has to prove that their IP is actually in Linux. Making something that is functionally similar to another party's product is not a violation of their IP.
They prefer the term "extortion." The "ex" makes it sound cool.
I see they finally sold the Brooklyn Bridge and that Florida swampland.
If that's the case, victory needs a shower.
Personally, I'm more scared of a merger between the two unholy beasts.
They aren't being appropriated either. Your entire analogy falls back on the notion that music is a physical good. Taking something implies that the original is no longer there, which is never true of intangible goods like IP.
Copyright infringement is not stealing by any definition because ideas aren't physical goods.
Transformers Armada is atrocious. Half the time Armada's writers can't bother to get the characters' names right, the animation gives new meaning to the word cheap, and the writers spend so much time hinting at "epic" storylines that the series effectively goes nowhere. As far as remakes or sequels to the original Transformers go, this one is at the bottom of the barrel. Expecting another G1 or Beast Wars is probably asking for too much, but at this point I'll take Beast Machines or Robots in Disguise over the Armada cartoon.
The new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon is mostly based on the original Mirage comic, which is why it seems darker than the original cartoon.
Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?