Notice that a meeting of everybody involved in this other than the students have declared that the only one who possiby could be liable are the students?
Maybe because they are the ones breaking the law? As much as I do not agree with the state of copyright laws as they stand now, it only makes sense to hold the people who are actually breaking them liable. Who would you prefer be liable? And why?
As a counter question, why should Universities act as legal council and protection for their students when their students do illegal things? My University is not going to bail me out if I kill someone or steal a car, so i don't expect them to protect me if I violate someone else's copyright.
This report makes perfect sense, what doesn't is the fact that it took so many high paid people so many hours to do it.
At worst, the sender could claim copyright over the message text, so arguably I wouldn't be able to post the exact message to my web site.
Actually they don't even have to claim copyright.
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."
All we are technically talking about here is copyright. Any email I write is technically has been copyrighted by me, and I can tell you that you cannot republish this (or claim it as your own). However trying to say things like "any review by persons other than the intended recipient is prohibited" is silly. Think of it like a book, since a book is copywritten by the publisher, I cannot copy it, or claim it as my own work. However they cannot stop my from showing it to someone else or even making use of my "fair use" rights regarding it.
All that said, I do not know of any cases where someone got burned by forwarding a "confidential" email based only on this disclaimer. Maybe if by forwarding they violated an NDA or contract of some kind, but not on the basis of a silly legal sounding disclaimer alone.
And of course, IANAL, and I could very well be completly wrong.
While that does make sense, remember that the company itself (Microsoft or not) likely requested that SCO not publicise who they are. They may just be dumb enough to buy the license, but smart enough to know the rest of the computing world will hate them for doing so:)
Wow, that is a pretty damn good idea. Imagine if ATMs could pull double duty as voting booths on election day. (it would suck tryng to get any money on this day, but still, a good use of existing infrastructure)
Wow, all that uninformed opinion with a sample size of one. I hope a minority never wrongs you, I can just imagine the racist opinions you will develop based off of that single experience.
I have to agree, Honda Civics rock. But only "stock" ones. The second you put a potato shooter muffler or erector set looking spoiler on it, it becomes total crap:)
Code was in SysV first. Now its in Linux. Noone in the linux community can prove where or who it came from, it just sort of miraculously appeared and noone took credit for it.
So we just look through the well documented changelogs for code which has no author right? Oops, there is non, all code came from a known source. You sir, are lacking any form of a clue.
While that is true, windows packages come with their own set of annoyances. DLL hell being just one example. The difference is most people are accoustomed to those issues and live with them.
Rpm with apt is just as good as deb with apt. Everyone seems to be very confused about this issue, and tries to compare apt against rpm as if that somehow makes any sense. It doesn't. Apt works with both rpm and deb, and works very well with them. If you are using redhat and like it there is no reason to switch to something else just to get a dependancy checking package manager, just hit freshrpms.net and get apt.
Except that NOBODY needs diablo II weapons and armor to survive. All he did was make a profit by selling to morons. Nothing wrong with that, nobody made them buy his stuff, they obviously wanted it enough to pay for it. That is how economics works.
I'm kinda assuming you wrote that post as a joke, but in case you didn't....
SCO can't really do anything to ANYONE's customers except their own. I didn't see anyone in trouble for running AIX or sued yet for running Linux without a SCO license.
Sure, but how many people can "own" a CD? Can my friend and I eatch pitch in and buy a CD, then both own it? Are we both entitled to fair use rights of this CD then?
No, there is not a license. Yes, there is copyright law.
Two completly different things.
Software has a license (think EULA), which can take away fair use rights, and impose all kinds of other stupid restrictions. I have yet to open a CD with the same.
*sigh* I suspected as much. Wouldn't be the same company that discontinued support for DCE/DFS and screwed over a bunch of Universities and businesses that rely on it now would it be?
I'll be impressed when they actually release the source code to DCE 1.22 under the LGPL like they have been saying they are going to do for about a year now. Until then it is just a well written paper by Bruce Perens. The Open Group so far has a horrible track record grasping the concept of "open"
Absolutly not, the company would have to grant you that right. Just because you own a tiny fraction of a company doesn't give you access to company assets. You get dividends, that's it. Unless the company chooses to give you something more.
I don't know, I was picturing them all as busy executives, taking time out from brokering power and making important decisions to set up a pointless gathering. But I would be wrong.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Obviosuly you know nothing about coldfusion as the newer versions rival asp/.net in speed of delivery.
:P
Meaning it still sucks. Thanks for the update
Finkployd
Notice that a meeting of everybody involved in this other than the students have declared that the only one who possiby could be liable are the students?
Maybe because they are the ones breaking the law? As much as I do not agree with the state of copyright laws as they stand now, it only makes sense to hold the people who are actually breaking them liable. Who would you prefer be liable? And why?
Finkployd
As a counter question, why should Universities act as legal council and protection for their students when their students do illegal things? My University is not going to bail me out if I kill someone or steal a car, so i don't expect them to protect me if I violate someone else's copyright.
This report makes perfect sense, what doesn't is the fact that it took so many high paid people so many hours to do it.
Finkployd
At worst, the sender could claim copyright over the message text, so arguably I wouldn't be able to post the exact message to my web site.
Actually they don't even have to claim copyright.
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
Finkployd
All we are technically talking about here is copyright. Any email I write is technically has been copyrighted by me, and I can tell you that you cannot republish this (or claim it as your own). However trying to say things like "any review by persons other than the intended recipient is prohibited" is silly.
Think of it like a book, since a book is copywritten by the publisher, I cannot copy it, or claim it as my own work. However they cannot stop my from showing it to someone else or even making use of my "fair use" rights regarding it.
All that said, I do not know of any cases where someone got burned by forwarding a "confidential" email based only on this disclaimer. Maybe if by forwarding they violated an NDA or contract of some kind, but not on the basis of a silly legal sounding disclaimer alone.
And of course, IANAL, and I could very well be completly wrong.
Finkployd
While that does make sense, remember that the company itself (Microsoft or not) likely requested that SCO not publicise who they are. They may just be dumb enough to buy the license, but smart enough to know the rest of the computing world will hate them for doing so :)
Finkployd
Wow, that is a pretty damn good idea. Imagine if ATMs could pull double duty as voting booths on election day. (it would suck tryng to get any money on this day, but still, a good use of existing infrastructure)
Finkployd
Wow, all that uninformed opinion with a sample size of one. I hope a minority never wrongs you, I can just imagine the racist opinions you will develop based off of that single experience.
Finkployd
I have to agree, Honda Civics rock. But only "stock" ones. The second you put a potato shooter muffler or erector set looking spoiler on it, it becomes total crap :)
Finkployd
The irony is they probably used software to come to that conclusion. I'll bet that number itself it a software error :)
Finkployd
Code was in SysV first. Now its in Linux. Noone in the linux community can prove where or who it came from, it just sort of miraculously appeared and noone took credit for it.
So we just look through the well documented changelogs for code which has no author right? Oops, there is non, all code came from a known source. You sir, are lacking any form of a clue.
Finkployd
While that is true, windows packages come with their own set of annoyances. DLL hell being just one example. The difference is most people are accoustomed to those issues and live with them.
Finkployd
Rpm with apt is just as good as deb with apt. Everyone seems to be very confused about this issue, and tries to compare apt against rpm as if that somehow makes any sense. It doesn't. Apt works with both rpm and deb, and works very well with them. If you are using redhat and like it there is no reason to switch to something else just to get a dependancy checking package manager, just hit freshrpms.net and get apt.
Finkployd
Except that NOBODY needs diablo II weapons and armor to survive. All he did was make a profit by selling to morons. Nothing wrong with that, nobody made them buy his stuff, they obviously wanted it enough to pay for it. That is how economics works.
I'm kinda assuming you wrote that post as a joke, but in case you didn't....
Finkployd
SCO can't really do anything to ANYONE's customers except their own. I didn't see anyone in trouble for running AIX or sued yet for running Linux without a SCO license.
Finkployd
Sure, but how many people can "own" a CD? Can my friend and I eatch pitch in and buy a CD, then both own it? Are we both entitled to fair use rights of this CD then?
Finkployd
Absolutly not, but you do have to make it available upon request.
Finkployd
I fail to see how you do not have a license to the music when you buy it. (otherwise why not just copy a friend's CD).
Because that violates US copyright law.
Finkployd
No, there is not a license. Yes, there is copyright law.
Two completly different things.
Software has a license (think EULA), which can take away fair use rights, and impose all kinds of other stupid restrictions. I have yet to open a CD with the same.
Finkployd
What license? I agree to no license when I open a CD. I can't even find a license.
Finkployd
*sigh* I suspected as much. Wouldn't be the same company that discontinued support for DCE/DFS and screwed over a bunch of Universities and businesses that rely on it now would it be?
Finkployd
I'll be impressed when they actually release the source code to DCE 1.22 under the LGPL like they have been saying they are going to do for about a year now. Until then it is just a well written paper by Bruce Perens. The Open Group so far has a horrible track record grasping the concept of "open"
Finkployd
I would assume (IANAL) that once you sell your CD you lose the fair use rights that go with it, and could no longer legally have mp3s from it.
Finkployd
Absolutly not, the company would have to grant you that right. Just because you own a tiny fraction of a company doesn't give you access to company assets. You get dividends, that's it. Unless the company chooses to give you something more.
Finkployd
I don't know, I was picturing them all as busy executives, taking time out from brokering power and making important decisions to set up a pointless gathering. But I would be wrong. :)
Finkployd