I cannot legally sell something I do not own. SCO's contention is that IBM did not have the right to sell licences because it did not fully own them.
No, actually, SCO's contetion is that IBM will not have the right to sell licenses after Friday, June 13, 2003 because SCO is refusing to extend the contract.
It would be like an attorney, who has gotten half way through your case, quitting and telling you that you can't use the evidence he/she has gathered for your case because he/she isn't involved anymore
Actually, I think it would be more like a band named after it's lead guitar player and drummer, when the lead singer quits and sues the band because they won't change the name.
Hmm, David Lee Roth isn't on the board of directors at SCO, is he?:o)
While I think that anything that can stop spam would be good, I don't think this will actually stop spam.
"Secret investigation" powers aside, the commisioners quoted don't seem to get it - spammers shouldn't need to be forced to "honour remove requests" - spammers need to be forced to shut down completely.
If I didn't ask to be added, I shouldn't have to ask to be removed.
The people saying "just use Linux/FreeBSD/OtherOSS" are missing the point..
The problem isn't that Windows doesn't come with a programming language, but that there is no "learning system" in place..
I grew up in the 80's, and I learned to program first with my Vic-20, then with the C64..
I learned by typing in programs found in Compute! magazine and Compute!'s Gazette..
Such an environment simply doesn't exist today - even with Linux or FreeBSD (or how about Java if you don't want to learn a new OS?) the internet makes it harder to get into.. Instead of spending time typing the code in, you just download it.. sure, you can read it if you want, but reading about something is not the same as doing it - you don't get the same experience out of it.
Physically, programming is typing stuff, but with the internet, there's no incentive to actually do it - and like most other animals, people are (by nature) lazy.. so even if they have the drive to learn, they might not have the drive to actually do the work.
I tried using Robocode to teach my nephew how to code, but it's just not the same thing - he wanted to learn to program (still does, actually) but he gave up after just playing with it for awhile.. typing into a computer to get it to do something was just too foreign to him.
if the RIAA can make congress table a law forbidding non-secured computer peripherals, why not a law forbidding non-secured codecs?
That's part III of the plan (and not just the RIAA)
Part I stops you from figuring out how "encrypted" stuff works (this is the DMCA.)
Part II (in progress) forces all component manufacturers to put DRM into thier products (this is the CBDTPA, "Super" DMCA, etc.)
Part III will forbid disabling DRM hardware/software. The reasoning behind this will be simple: Since DRM is pervasive in all equipment, no sane "content provider" would distribute content without DRM. Since all the "content distributors" distribute everything with DRM, the only reason someone would need non-DRM is if they're using "pirated" content.
Once part III is complete, the media companies will have complete control of everything you see and hear - they will have effectively legislated the independant artist out of existance.
We've started down a slippery slope, the fact that the fight against part II is so strong (relative to the fight against the DMCA) gives me hope that the plan may yet be stopped.
Usually garbage companies make it a matter of company policy that going through people's garbage is a strict no-no. Garbage collectors aren't supposed to take ANYTHING home (though you know they gotta run across something they can't resist once in a while!)
It's been said here before - if SCO tell us which bits are "stolen", those bits would be replaced very fast by the kernel developers.
Yes, and it's true - however your conclusion has no merit.
This would not be optimum for SCO
Wrong. This would indeed be optimum for SCO.
If the alleged material has any value at all to SCO, SCO would want to stop people from distributing it as soon as possible, so that they can claim damages.
By failing to disclose the alleged code, all they're doing is proving to any judge involved that the code is worthless, and therefore should not be considered when assessing damages to SCO.
If they can get a judge to confirm the theft without disclosing to the public where the stolen code is, then they'll have a legal leg to stand on when holding the entire Unix world to ranso
Bullshit. All a judge would do is order people to stop distributing the "stolen code" - and a judge can't do that without telling people what the hell it is that they should stop doing.
So that's a binary state. Is that close enough?:o)
Seriously, though, the coverage of the DMCA probably has nothing to do with circumvention, but rather with the fact that the patterns are being sold on the internet.
Besides the provisions covering circumvention, the DMCA also describes processes under which a copyright holder can request removal of material from websites. (ISP 'safe harbour' statutes - if the ISP removes the allegedly offending material, the DMCA grants them immunity from prosecution.)
Then where are the countersuits if #2 is the case?
Patience, Grasshopper..
SCO is still distributing the code, but they haven't attempted to force their hand yet.
Until they attempt to enforce this (instead of their current scare tactics) nobody can do anything. And again, it depends on the terms of the Novell/SCO contracts.
SCO claimed at first they owned... Then, when put in their place by Novell they changed it to we own the rights... It's entirely possible they own (via licensing) exclusive rights to something that is actually owned by another entity.
Hmm, that's interesting.. and certainly sheds some light on other things said by SCO..
Assume for a moment that there really is code copied from SystemV Unix into Linux. Doesn't matter who did it, just that it's there. This code is owned by Novell.
We'll also assume that the distribution license between SCO and Novell says that SCO has exclusive rights for the whole planet, and that it applies to the code in whole or in part.
Now, look at your previous statement - SCO is the only "legal" distributor of said code. This explains how they believe that they're not bound by the GPL
I think SCO's motives here are pretty sneaky - they think they have found a way to "own" Linux.. and on the surface they appear right.. Since the code wasn't GPL'ed by the copyright owner (and legally, can't be - because only SCO is allowed to distribute it,) SCO believes thay can now prevent anyone else from distributing the kernel.
Redhat, for example, wants to distribute Linux - but they don't hold the distribution rights to the Novell code.. the code isn't covered under the GPL, because it wasn't included with permission of the copyright holder.
On the surface, it appears to be quite a pickle.
Now, there are two possible outcomes:
1. The SCO/Novell contract allows SCO to grant license to other parties to distribute the code. If this is true, it could be argued that since SCO is distributing the code in a GPL'ed product, that they are doing so under the terms of the GPL, and thus the code is now covered by the GPL. If the contract says that the sub-license can't be compatible with the GPL, then Novell needs to sue SCO for breach of contract.
2. The SCO/Novell contract doesn't allow SCO to grant distribution sub-rights to others. In which case everybody else sues SCO for violating the GPL.
It all comes down to the fact that if you're watchign their signals, they're not getting paid for it, and that causes a loss of profits.
As others have pointed out, this is bullshit. There is no loss.
I'm sure some of the signals are copyrighted,
Not in this case. Since DirecTV doesn't have the legal right to broadcast in Canada, their signals fall into the public domain.
The DMCA basically says that "if a company wants your money, they have a right to it
Perhaps you weren't aware, but the DMCA is not an international law. There is an effort by the big media companies to draft DMCA-like legislation in Canada, but it's not here yet (I've been to the public hearings on this, and the Canadian Copyright Board seems very clued-in on the topic. The legislation is coming, but I don't think it will be as overly-broad as the DMCA.)
SCO could, quite plausibly, claim ignorance of their code being in Linux before this mess started. (emphasis mine)
This is true. However, they've been whistling this tune for a month now, and they're still distributing it.
by distributing Linux, they agreed to the terms of the GPL, this agreement did not apply to code that was not legally covered by the GPL in the first place
Again true, but there are three things we must ask:
Is SCO aware that the kernel is under the GPL? Is SCO aware that "their" IP in in the kernel? Is SCO still distributing the kernel?
I think you'll find that the answers to these questions is "yes". And since it's "yes", I can't understand why there is any question about whether or not they're bound by the GPL or not.
If there is any SCO IP in the kernel, it's under the GPL now.
I tell the publisher, "Hey, let's not do any more printing runs on my book." [...] I have no right to do this?
No, that's not what he's saying (at least that's not how I interpreted his post.) What he's saying is exactly what you said in your next paragraph:
I could do nothing about the copies of the book that were already in existence
So you agree with him. "Perfet" DRM would give copyright holders the ability to remove existing copies (actually, it would tie copies to one machine, or one person - as soon as that person or machine dies, the copy dies with them.)
The intent of copyright is to protect the right of a content creator to determine how and when something is copied.
Yes, but the thing that you miss here is that copyrights expire (at least legally,) and that the reason you get the copyright is so that when it expires, your work enters the public domain - so that everybody can enjoy your work. Once the copyright expires, you no longer have control. Are you suggesting that on your deathbed, you should have the ability to destroy all copies of everything you make, everywhere?
this is the crime against humanity the DRM represents - after being granted the gift of copyright, you steal the benefit away from the public that gave you that right.
Please stop saying that SCO gave their IP away simply by releasing a Linux distro.
Why? Does the truth hurt?
If they distributed their IP in GPL'd code without their knowledge, the GPL does not apply to that code,
True enough, but the fact is that once they found out about it, they continued distributing the code, and still distribute it - as in right now. (Try the link - really.)
Whether they stopped their distribution soon enough after discovery of the violation is a matter for the courts to rule on.
RIGHT NOW they are distributing it. RIGHT NOW they are aware of any of "their" IP in the kernel. This is months after they "discovered" the alleged infringement. That means that RIGHT NOW, they are giving license to everybody to their code under the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
I cannot legally sell something I do not own. SCO's contention is that IBM did not have the right to sell licences because it did not fully own them.
No, actually, SCO's contetion is that IBM will not have the right to sell licenses after Friday, June 13, 2003 because SCO is refusing to extend the contract.
It would be like an attorney, who has gotten half way through your case, quitting and telling you that you can't use the evidence he/she has gathered for your case because he/she isn't involved anymore
:o)
Actually, I think it would be more like a band named after it's lead guitar player and drummer, when the lead singer quits and sues the band because they won't change the name.
Hmm, David Lee Roth isn't on the board of directors at SCO, is he?
While I think that anything that can stop spam would be good, I don't think this will actually stop spam.
"Secret investigation" powers aside, the commisioners quoted don't seem to get it - spammers shouldn't need to be forced to "honour remove requests" - spammers need to be forced to shut down completely.
If I didn't ask to be added, I shouldn't have to ask to be removed.
This is a bad thing.
The people saying "just use Linux/FreeBSD/OtherOSS" are missing the point..
The problem isn't that Windows doesn't come with a programming language, but that there is no "learning system" in place..
I grew up in the 80's, and I learned to program first with my Vic-20, then with the C64..
I learned by typing in programs found in Compute! magazine and Compute!'s Gazette..
Such an environment simply doesn't exist today - even with Linux or FreeBSD (or how about Java if you don't want to learn a new OS?) the internet makes it harder to get into.. Instead of spending time typing the code in, you just download it.. sure, you can read it if you want, but reading about something is not the same as doing it - you don't get the same experience out of it.
Physically, programming is typing stuff, but with the internet, there's no incentive to actually do it - and like most other animals, people are (by nature) lazy.. so even if they have the drive to learn, they might not have the drive to actually do the work.
I tried using Robocode to teach my nephew how to code, but it's just not the same thing - he wanted to learn to program (still does, actually) but he gave up after just playing with it for awhile.. typing into a computer to get it to do something was just too foreign to him.
I don't remember if "radical" was the hip lingo at the time, though.)
<simpsonscharacter voice="millhouse">
"Hey! That kid said 'radical!' I say 'radical' - it's that thing that I say!"
</simpsonscharacter>
if the RIAA can make congress table a law forbidding non-secured computer peripherals, why not a law forbidding non-secured codecs?
That's part III of the plan (and not just the RIAA)
Part I stops you from figuring out how "encrypted" stuff works (this is the DMCA.)
Part II (in progress) forces all component manufacturers to put DRM into thier products (this is the CBDTPA, "Super" DMCA, etc.)
Part III will forbid disabling DRM hardware/software. The reasoning behind this will be simple: Since DRM is pervasive in all equipment, no sane "content provider" would distribute content without DRM. Since all the "content distributors" distribute everything with DRM, the only reason someone would need non-DRM is if they're using "pirated" content.
Once part III is complete, the media companies will have complete control of everything you see and hear - they will have effectively legislated the independant artist out of existance.
We've started down a slippery slope, the fact that the fight against part II is so strong (relative to the fight against the DMCA) gives me hope that the plan may yet be stopped.
"By continuing to reading my post, you agree with everything I'm saying."
Every software box I've seen includes a warning that the software is licensed and you must agree to it.
I realize you're a troll, but so what?
It's part of the original sales contract.
No, it's not.
Can you read the "contract" before you purchase it? Does the sales clerk make you aware of it?
No and no.
So how can you possibly agree to something you haven't read, and in fact can't read?
Now an example: the author of the parent post is a moron, and he must now prefix every conversaion he has with anyone he meets that he is a moron.
And since he's reading this, he agreed with my statement at the beginning of my post, I guess he is now doomed to tell people that he's a moron.
But it's so hard to read on a non-backlit screen (paper) when the power is out... :-)
Try opening the window shade - you'll be amazed to find that there's a big glowing daystar outside, which generates enough light to read by.
Usually garbage companies make it a matter of company policy that going through people's garbage is a strict no-no. Garbage collectors aren't supposed to take ANYTHING home (though you know they gotta run across something they can't resist once in a while!)
That explains the "Mr. Sparkle" episode..
"Here's a perfectly good basketball half!"
he reckons the trip back and forth would take about 500 days in total which would give the crew a window of about 10 (!) days to explore the planet.
Jesus, and I thought that it was a waste to spend 16 hours on a plane to visit Germany for two weeks!
It's been said here before - if SCO tell us which bits are "stolen", those bits would be replaced very fast by the kernel developers.
Yes, and it's true - however your conclusion has no merit.
This would not be optimum for SCO
Wrong. This would indeed be optimum for SCO.
If the alleged material has any value at all to SCO, SCO would want to stop people from distributing it as soon as possible, so that they can claim damages.
By failing to disclose the alleged code, all they're doing is proving to any judge involved that the code is worthless, and therefore should not be considered when assessing damages to SCO.
If they can get a judge to confirm the theft without disclosing to the public where the stolen code is, then they'll have a legal leg to stand on when holding the entire Unix world to ranso
Bullshit. All a judge would do is order people to stop distributing the "stolen code" - and a judge can't do that without telling people what the hell it is that they should stop doing.
Anything else would be extortion.
Laura DiDio, senior analyst of Yankee Group Application Infrastructure and Software Platforms.
Fancy title. Can mean pretty much anything.
Not really - what it means is "not smart enough to be a consultant"
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't do or teach, consult.
opening the lid is digital, how ?
:o)
Well, either the lid is open, or it's closed.
So that's a binary state. Is that close enough?
Seriously, though, the coverage of the DMCA probably has nothing to do with circumvention, but rather with the fact that the patterns are being sold on the internet.
Besides the provisions covering circumvention, the DMCA also describes processes under which a copyright holder can request removal of material from websites. (ISP 'safe harbour' statutes - if the ISP removes the allegedly offending material, the DMCA grants them immunity from prosecution.)
You know what that means. 5 episodes and you'll never see it again.
Only if it's any good.
If it sucks, it'll be on forever.
The GPL contains no "internal use" exception.
Really? The FSF seems to disagree with you
Are you a lawyer, and if so, why is the FSF's lawyers wrong and you right?
Then where are the countersuits if #2 is the case?
Patience, Grasshopper..
SCO is still distributing the code, but they haven't attempted to force their hand yet.
Until they attempt to enforce this (instead of their current scare tactics) nobody can do anything. And again, it depends on the terms of the Novell/SCO contracts.
SCO claimed at first they owned... Then, when put in their place by Novell they changed it to we own the rights... It's entirely possible they own (via licensing) exclusive rights to something that is actually owned by another entity.
Hmm, that's interesting.. and certainly sheds some light on other things said by SCO..
Assume for a moment that there really is code copied from SystemV Unix into Linux. Doesn't matter who did it, just that it's there. This code is owned by Novell.
We'll also assume that the distribution license between SCO and Novell says that SCO has exclusive rights for the whole planet, and that it applies to the code in whole or in part.
Now, look at your previous statement - SCO is the only "legal" distributor of said code. This explains how they believe that they're not bound by the GPL
I think SCO's motives here are pretty sneaky - they think they have found a way to "own" Linux.. and on the surface they appear right.. Since the code wasn't GPL'ed by the copyright owner (and legally, can't be - because only SCO is allowed to distribute it,) SCO believes thay can now prevent anyone else from distributing the kernel.
Redhat, for example, wants to distribute Linux - but they don't hold the distribution rights to the Novell code.. the code isn't covered under the GPL, because it wasn't included with permission of the copyright holder.
On the surface, it appears to be quite a pickle.
Now, there are two possible outcomes:
1. The SCO/Novell contract allows SCO to grant license to other parties to distribute the code. If this is true, it could be argued that since SCO is distributing the code in a GPL'ed product, that they are doing so under the terms of the GPL, and thus the code is now covered by the GPL. If the contract says that the sub-license can't be compatible with the GPL, then Novell needs to sue SCO for breach of contract.
2. The SCO/Novell contract doesn't allow SCO to grant distribution sub-rights to others. In which case everybody else sues SCO for violating the GPL.
LUFS has done this for more than a year, and not just through ssh
LUFS only works with OpenSSH. When using commercial SSH, it fails miserably.
It all comes down to the fact that if you're watchign their signals, they're not getting paid for it, and that causes a loss of profits.
As others have pointed out, this is bullshit. There is no loss.
I'm sure some of the signals are copyrighted,
Not in this case. Since DirecTV doesn't have the legal right to broadcast in Canada, their signals fall into the public domain.
The DMCA basically says that "if a company wants your money, they have a right to it
Perhaps you weren't aware, but the DMCA is not an international law. There is an effort by the big media companies to draft DMCA-like legislation in Canada, but it's not here yet (I've been to the public hearings on this, and the Canadian Copyright Board seems very clued-in on the topic. The legislation is coming, but I don't think it will be as overly-broad as the DMCA.)
SCO could, quite plausibly, claim ignorance of their code being in Linux before this mess started. (emphasis mine)
This is true. However, they've been whistling this tune for a month now, and they're still distributing it.
by distributing Linux, they agreed to the terms of the GPL, this agreement did not apply to code that was not legally covered by the GPL in the first place
Again true, but there are three things we must ask:
Is SCO aware that the kernel is under the GPL?
Is SCO aware that "their" IP in in the kernel?
Is SCO still distributing the kernel?
I think you'll find that the answers to these questions is "yes". And since it's "yes", I can't understand why there is any question about whether or not they're bound by the GPL or not.
If there is any SCO IP in the kernel, it's under the GPL now.
ALTQ controls only outgoing traffic.
Can you explain how this Linux patch is different?
I always though it was impossible to do throttling on inbound packets, as it's impossible to control the rate at which someone sends stuff to you..
"Schranken verwiesen"
:o)
Isn't that what happens to your naughty bits when you go swimming in a cold lake?
I tell the publisher, "Hey, let's not do any more printing runs on my book." [...] I have no right to do this?
No, that's not what he's saying (at least that's not how I interpreted his post.) What he's saying is exactly what you said in your next paragraph:
I could do nothing about the copies of the book that were already in existence
So you agree with him. "Perfet" DRM would give copyright holders the ability to remove existing copies (actually, it would tie copies to one machine, or one person - as soon as that person or machine dies, the copy dies with them.)
The intent of copyright is to protect the right of a content creator to determine how and when something is copied.
Yes, but the thing that you miss here is that copyrights expire (at least legally,) and that
the reason you get the copyright is so that when it expires, your work enters the public domain - so that everybody can enjoy your work. Once the copyright expires, you no longer have control. Are you suggesting that on your deathbed, you should have the ability to destroy all copies of everything you make, everywhere?
this is the crime against humanity the DRM represents - after being granted the gift of copyright, you steal the benefit away from the public that gave you that right.
It is cool having a president who is a nuclear scientist :-)
<simpsonsvoice character="homer">
Nucular, honey. It's pronounced nucular.
</simpsonsvoice>
Please stop saying that SCO gave their IP away simply by releasing a Linux distro.
Why? Does the truth hurt?
If they distributed their IP in GPL'd code without their knowledge, the GPL does not apply to that code,
True enough, but the fact is that once they found out about it, they continued distributing the code, and still distribute it - as in right now. (Try the link - really.)
Whether they stopped their distribution soon enough after discovery of the violation is a matter for the courts to rule on.
RIGHT NOW they are distributing it. RIGHT NOW they are aware of any of "their" IP in the kernel. This is months after they "discovered" the alleged infringement. That means that RIGHT NOW , they are giving license to everybody to their code under the GPL.