SCO need only some carefully timed "extended license" revenues to come in from time to time to be able to continue to fight.
Consider this scenario, RedHat thinks they litigated SCO to death, believes they're out of money and tries to deliver the death blow by expending the remainder of their $80MM cash fund. SCO then promptly receives another $20MM from their buddies at MSFT for "additional licensing", and RedHat goes, "whoops..."
This is a beggar's market. You can only ask for what's out there, not what isn't.
The issue with 2M copies of the same CD could possibly be worked out with some sort of CDDB lookup of the CD's in the Snapster database, but there's ways of burning CD's that make it so that CDDB can't tell a burnt CD from the real one. Unfortunately, this points us back at a topic Slashdotters cringe about -- DRM.
It's a case of distribution vs. use. SCO can not hold end users liable for using a product, but if they think they have a case, they should be going after those that are [re-]distributing the kernel. It's like the article said, if someone reads a book that a rival publisher claims was plagiarized, the reader is not at fault, the publisher of that book is.
The GPL however should prevail given SCO's continued distribution of the kernel, so all in all, this whole argument is quickly becoming a moot point. To elaborate on the publisher idea, the "infringed upon publisher" is still saying that you can't read that because it's our work, in spite of the fact that they themselves are distributing it as well under the same terms.
It's like one McDonald's chain telling another than they can't sell Big Mac's to their customers because they sell them too. Ridiculous.
No, the issue isn't that they're convinced that they are losing money because of P2P, the real reason is that they're united in SAYING that they're losing money ONLY because of P2P.
I'm pretty sure they're well aware of the facts behind the matter which includes (a) the bearish economy over the past couple years, and (b) the recent and continuing drop in overall quality of their products, but they're using P2P as a convenient scapegoat to try to recoup their reduced revenues over this period of time.
Almost all other industries across the world have suffered due to the poor economy, but outside of the similar policy that SCO is using to gain money by threatening their peers with FUD and lawsuits, no other big company or group is following this path towards increasing revenues. And the worse part for both the RIAA and SCO is that they're effectively alienating the very customer base that they rely on, and with respect to the RIAA, this has much bigger consequences in the form of truly decreased revenues from consumers like myself who used to regularly buy CD's from their labels and are now boycotting their members' labels and seeking out quality music from independent labels.
If the RIAA's member companies would just realize that their venerable business model is broken and embrace the Internet as a new distribution medium, I'm sure they could continue to make sales, but the days of huge markups on CD's and having to pay each of the needy hands of the recording industries are coming to an end and no amount of litigation is going to stop that trend. IBM had to undergo the same kind of "right-sizing" in the 80's when their business model faded due to the PC revolution, but they survived and are now one of the most profitable companies in the world. The RIAA companies would do good to pickup a history book and learn some lessons the easy way.
"And our top news headline tonight, SnowNet, the ubiquitous free Wireless ISP found throughout the greater Seattle area, has been sued into oblivion by the RIAA after failing to be able to identify specific users on their network found to be file sharing...."
New from Redmond! It's MS Intern! He listens to speakers! He takes notes! He asks them your questions! He does all this while you go to the pub! Get yours today!
[Taxes, title, registration, licensing, support fees, food, water, shelter, companionship not included. Some parts sold separately. Batteries not included.]
IANAL -- but here's my thought. Encourage everyone to buy exactly one share of stock from SCO (Nasdaq symbol: SCOX). Hold on to it indefinitely, which means at worst, you could lose the value of the share (at today's close, $13.50) plus the broker fee for trading. In other words, no big loss.
When it ultimately tanks, file a class-action lawsuit against the SCO executives and the Canopy Group. Request an investigation into the Canopy Group's modus operandi which seems to be to fraudulently pump up the stock of one of their member companies by having that company make public statements and/or file lawsuits against other companies or entities, regardless of their merit, in an effort to raise capital towards the purchase of the next company. When the stock has reached critical mass, dump that company's stock, causing widespread deflation in value and a tremendous loss to the general public.
What they're doing is almost racketeering, but at the very least, it certainly will bring their practices out into the public forum, and hopefully deter like-minded firms from trying the same strategy again anytime soon.
Whoa....just noticed something here....did SCO just inadvertently disclose the earliest date at which the purported Unix code got inserted? The statement makes note of the "offering" for Linux based on the 2.4 kernel. Extrapolating this means that commercial use of pre-2.4 kernel code is not subject to SCO's "requirements".
Since the 2.4 kernel was originally released on January 4, 2001, a search on code submissions since that date can be executed to build a relevant subset of submitters to the kernel. Can someone assist with doing this?
"In other news today, Steven Spielberg countersued the rock band Metallica, for unlawful use of the E-F chord progression as used in the soundtrack to the 1975 movie Jaws...."
Yes, on $28 billion in revenue, equating to approximately an 11% tax rate. Of my salary, which is approximately 6 orders of magnitude less than MSFT, I must give back approximately 35%.
Nah, no disparity here....
Parent not a Troll
on
SARS Contained
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Think about it. In 5-6 months from now, who will be surprised when news comes out that SARS is on the loose again, and then a similar announcement 11-12 months from now from the WHO that it is contained (once again).
While I was picking on/. for their recent bad habit of republishing old stories, my comment is somewhat relevant -- not at all a troll, but a comment on my lack of confidence in the WHO to make such a statement, and one that has been made before...
There may be a very important point made in the parent's post. As I understand it, copyright law is worded to the effect that you may not distribute copyrighted material without the consent of the copyrighted material's owner, but I'm not sure this applies to the receipient of copyrighted material.
Also, how does this apply to used media, like used CD's and used books? For example, if I, as a consumer, go to a used book dealer and buy a used book, I have received copyrighted material, but neither I or the used book dealer are in violation of copyright since the book's original buyer took care of that agreement when he/she bought the book.
Two questions arise:
Q1: Is there a legal distinction between the act of receiving a copy of a given piece of music, art, or literature for free vs. having paid someone for the copy?
Q2: Are MP3's downloaded from the file sharing networks analogous to "used media"?
Slashdot Mirror
SCO need only some carefully timed "extended license" revenues to come in from time to time to be able to continue to fight.
Consider this scenario, RedHat thinks they litigated SCO to death, believes they're out of money and tries to deliver the death blow by expending the remainder of their $80MM cash fund. SCO then promptly receives another $20MM from their buddies at MSFT for "additional licensing", and RedHat goes, "whoops..."
In SOVIET Russia, the playlist normali....
...aaaah, screw it....
Given McBride's background as a professional lawyer and not a techie, I'd be highly surprised if he understood this joke at first sight....
It's a case of distribution vs. use. SCO can not hold end users liable for using a product, but if they think they have a case, they should be going after those that are [re-]distributing the kernel. It's like the article said, if someone reads a book that a rival publisher claims was plagiarized, the reader is not at fault, the publisher of that book is.
The GPL however should prevail given SCO's continued distribution of the kernel, so all in all, this whole argument is quickly becoming a moot point. To elaborate on the publisher idea, the "infringed upon publisher" is still saying that you can't read that because it's our work, in spite of the fact that they themselves are distributing it as well under the same terms.
It's like one McDonald's chain telling another than they can't sell Big Mac's to their customers because they sell them too. Ridiculous.
No, the issue isn't that they're convinced that they are losing money because of P2P, the real reason is that they're united in SAYING that they're losing money ONLY because of P2P.
I'm pretty sure they're well aware of the facts behind the matter which includes (a) the bearish economy over the past couple years, and (b) the recent and continuing drop in overall quality of their products, but they're using P2P as a convenient scapegoat to try to recoup their reduced revenues over this period of time.
Almost all other industries across the world have suffered due to the poor economy, but outside of the similar policy that SCO is using to gain money by threatening their peers with FUD and lawsuits, no other big company or group is following this path towards increasing revenues. And the worse part for both the RIAA and SCO is that they're effectively alienating the very customer base that they rely on, and with respect to the RIAA, this has much bigger consequences in the form of truly decreased revenues from consumers like myself who used to regularly buy CD's from their labels and are now boycotting their members' labels and seeking out quality music from independent labels.
If the RIAA's member companies would just realize that their venerable business model is broken and embrace the Internet as a new distribution medium, I'm sure they could continue to make sales, but the days of huge markups on CD's and having to pay each of the needy hands of the recording industries are coming to an end and no amount of litigation is going to stop that trend. IBM had to undergo the same kind of "right-sizing" in the 80's when their business model faded due to the PC revolution, but they survived and are now one of the most profitable companies in the world. The RIAA companies would do good to pickup a history book and learn some lessons the easy way.
"And our top news headline tonight, SnowNet, the ubiquitous free Wireless ISP found throughout the greater Seattle area, has been sued into oblivion by the RIAA after failing to be able to identify specific users on their network found to be file sharing...."
But I'm blind, you insensitive clod!
Hmmm...I don't think we need MS Defibrillator to come out now, do we?...
New from Redmond! It's MS Intern! He listens to speakers! He takes notes! He asks them your questions! He does all this while you go to the pub! Get yours today!
[Taxes, title, registration, licensing, support fees, food, water, shelter, companionship not included. Some parts sold separately. Batteries not included.]
Hmm...kind of like Microsoft did (and still does) to PC manufacturers?
Sorry, there I go being all logical and stuff...
Given the songs they're scanning for, then I'm all for their current methodology. The fewer people that listen to that garbage, the better.
As long as you say you hated every song on the "New York" CD except for "Dirty Blvd", them I'm with ya. Otherwise, just an awful piece of tripe.
Go check it out at EFF's Action website and tell your Congress-critter to do something before Zippy the Clown gets elected President.
IANAL -- but here's my thought. Encourage everyone to buy exactly one share of stock from SCO (Nasdaq symbol: SCOX). Hold on to it indefinitely, which means at worst, you could lose the value of the share (at today's close, $13.50) plus the broker fee for trading. In other words, no big loss.
When it ultimately tanks, file a class-action lawsuit against the SCO executives and the Canopy Group. Request an investigation into the Canopy Group's modus operandi which seems to be to fraudulently pump up the stock of one of their member companies by having that company make public statements and/or file lawsuits against other companies or entities, regardless of their merit, in an effort to raise capital towards the purchase of the next company. When the stock has reached critical mass, dump that company's stock, causing widespread deflation in value and a tremendous loss to the general public.
What they're doing is almost racketeering, but at the very least, it certainly will bring their practices out into the public forum, and hopefully deter like-minded firms from trying the same strategy again anytime soon.
Whoa....just noticed something here....did SCO just inadvertently disclose the earliest date at which the purported Unix code got inserted? The statement makes note of the "offering" for Linux based on the 2.4 kernel. Extrapolating this means that commercial use of pre-2.4 kernel code is not subject to SCO's "requirements".
Since the 2.4 kernel was originally released on January 4, 2001, a search on code submissions since that date can be executed to build a relevant subset of submitters to the kernel. Can someone assist with doing this?
I wonder how long it will be before we have a washing machine buffer overflow...
Apartment dwellers below the afflicted system should take precautions now....
Seeing as how I read the end of the summary as "...crimes such as fraud and Philadelphia..."
"In other news today, Steven Spielberg countersued the rock band Metallica, for unlawful use of the E-F chord progression as used in the soundtrack to the 1975 movie Jaws...."
Yes, on $28 billion in revenue, equating to approximately an 11% tax rate. Of my salary, which is approximately 6 orders of magnitude less than MSFT, I must give back approximately 35%.
Nah, no disparity here....
Think about it. In 5-6 months from now, who will be surprised when news comes out that SARS is on the loose again, and then a similar announcement 11-12 months from now from the WHO that it is contained (once again).
/. for their recent bad habit of republishing old stories, my comment is somewhat relevant -- not at all a troll, but a comment on my lack of confidence in the WHO to make such a statement, and one that has been made before...
While I was picking on
This sounds like one of those repeated Slashdot stories. Are we sure that the WHO isn't being run by Taco and CowboyNeal?
Anti-hero != villain, and similarly anti-patriot != enemy.
Besides, I don't think that the average Joe American would have been so passive about this if the bill had been called the Big Brother Act...
At the point that the lawsuit costs more than SCO's buyout price, IBM will buy them.
There may be a very important point made in the parent's post. As I understand it, copyright law is worded to the effect that you may not distribute copyrighted material without the consent of the copyrighted material's owner, but I'm not sure this applies to the receipient of copyrighted material.
Also, how does this apply to used media, like used CD's and used books? For example, if I, as a consumer, go to a used book dealer and buy a used book, I have received copyrighted material, but neither I or the used book dealer are in violation of copyright since the book's original buyer took care of that agreement when he/she bought the book.
Two questions arise:
Q1: Is there a legal distinction between the act of receiving a copy of a given piece of music, art, or literature for free vs. having paid someone for the copy?
Q2: Are MP3's downloaded from the file sharing networks analogous to "used media"?