[Free|Open|Net]BSD - free, legally clear due to BSD/USL settlement -----
No, SCO is going after *BSD next, according to some of the things they've said (look at some of the recent articles here and on Groklaw.net)
Granted, I don't seriously think, in my personal oppinion, that they have any sort of case whatsoever concerning that. But they do probably intend to go after *BSD simply because all of "their" code that's in Linux is BSD-derived, as far as we can see. Thus, if they can find some way to convince a court they own it, they might have something resembling a case.
That said, I'm reasonably sure that SCO is full of crap, as usual, but that doesn't mean they won't try some of these stupid lawyer tricks in court...
SCO is too weak to face IBM, but they can use FUD to remain a thorn in their side if IBM does not destroy them.
Thus, SCO has already made it such that the only sensible option for IBM is to flatten SCO... This will provide them with something useful, at least. For one, they've garnered quite a bit of goodwill from those of us who want to see SCO and their absurd claims silenced, for another, they will have grounds to rightfully intimidate any party bringing action against them. That is, unless you're *SURE* of your case, don't file suit against IBM... and even then...
Honestly, I've been reading all of these legal documents and I've been quite impressed with IBM's lawyers and their work. They are particularly good at explaining why they are right in very clear language while at the same time pointing out every deficiency of SCO's in a matter-of-fact tone.
SCO would pretty well have to bribe the judge, in my oppinion, in order to prevail on much of *anything* in this case...
Copyright law is already international enough. It's just that it's too easy to copy things faster than the authorities can catch up with those who have it and effectively delete it. The UN won't fix this.
Moreover, I do NOT believe that "hacking information" should be kept secret. AT ALL. To research security, we NEED these. There is no substitute. Just try reading some of the CERT advisories and see if you could even test yourself for some of the vulnerabilities they describe. You cannot. They're incredibly vague/old and the "bad guys" already have this stuff! So you only deny me the means to protect myself or even understand how vulnerable I am.
We gave up keeping that information secret ages ago; all for the better.
Also, child pornography is hard. Granted, I have that visceral reaction to want to lynch anyone with it, but we do already have the means to go after international pedophiles.
In other words, the UN can, at most, expedite removing a few items above (mostly copyrighted info and child pornography). They can't do that much. Just like in most other things, it would seem... But I would expect it to be hard to get a consensus among that many. Hence the connundrum...
Basically, if you don't like these movies you are not intellectual enough. This was the same defense offered by many Matrix "fans" to people who didn't like Reloaded. By the way, Reloaded was a dreadful movie, just because somebody doesn't like it doesn't mean their dumb or unsophisticated. -----
It doesn't wrap everything up at the end in a neat package. Half of the complaints on here from people complain about that very issue.
Whereas, most of the time, when talking about anime, etc., we hear that it might help people to be a bit more open-minded about endings of that sort and not expect this rosy, neat ending answering all our questions...
That fallacy is called the "prior investment" fallacy. E.G. when the gambler has wasted *almost* all of his money and blows the rest, since he'd already blown everything but that.
It's why they often wind up broke: they don't know enough to quit before they wind up with nothing.
In the mean time, as I've said before: you can't expect answers from the Matrix. You never could. That was the point. You missed it.
It's funny; when we're talking about Anime, there are so many who lament about how we westerners always need everything wrapped up neatly in a nice little package at the end... and yet, most of the complains about Matrix: Revolutions say that it did not answer all our questions.
It was never meant to; I never expected it to. Thus, I enjoyed it thoroughly while you sat wondering why they didn't leave you with everything in a nicely wrapped package.
Neo doesn't die, as far as I'm concerned. Didn't you listen to the Oracle?
Moreover, since Smith showed us how people can be reprogrammed, and given where they were, I wouldn't doubt that either or both Trinity & Neo could be "reborn" simply by copying their minds into new host bodies (and there have to be plenty of those in the Matrix...) I mean, the Oracle did that, more or less.
Frankly, I enjoyed it. I think you expected the philosophy in the Matrix to give you all the answers, when that is not the point of it. It gives you all the questions, instead.
One last interesting tidbit: this story has also been picked up at LawMeme here which makes sense since it's on Reuters, as you can see from the Google News page over here.
You have to give people some notice of a lawsuit, even if it's right when you serve them with it. There's nothing wrong with settling out of court, either, so this is almost certainly legal in that regard, unless they find some way to accuse them of barratry (disclaimer: IANAL).
There are some interesting bits in this regard in the article (yeah, I know, no one reads those, so here are the best bits:)
-- "Our objective here is not to win lawsuits; it is to foster a business environment where legal online music services and bricks-and-mortar retail stores can flourish."
[... ]
The RIAA's letter warns that "ignorance of the law is not a defense. What that means is that it does not matter whether you knew it was illegal. Whether or not you intended to infringe does not matter. If you violate the record companies' copyrights, you will be held liable for damage as a result."
The letter also warns the recipient that deleting infringed songs would be considered destruction of evidence "now that you are aware that a lawsuit may be filed against you." --
That last bit is particularly interesting. What if they've misidentified people (yet again...) and there AREN'T any files to destroy in the first place? Would they take the non-existance of the infringing files to mean that the person had destroyed them?
Isn't this EXACTLY what that other fellow sued (successfully?) for in a previous story?
I wonder how many lawsuits against them people could file citing the other case as precident? At least those in the jurisdiction where the case is controlling precident could make them sweat a little... *hmm*
You must not have been reading the recent slashdot interview with the folks in the government who are now assigned to prosecute those charged under the DMCA and such.
The asked about the clause that's listed under pentalty of perjury and the people (who were actual lawyers) replied that that clause only asserts that they actually represent the copyright holder in question. E.G. if it were over content alleged to be an illegal copy of PacMan, the person sending it would be asserting that they actually have the rights to PacMan (rather than having to assert that you actually possesed infringing materials).
If you want to fight these silly DMCA claims, learn to file "Counternotice and Put-Back" claims under the DMCA. I think I've seen some information on doing that online, though I certainly wish there were more and better templates for writing them. The problem with the counternotices, however, is that ISPs may well assert their right to terminate your service for any reason whatsoever (it's a pretty standard clause in the TOSs I've read) without giving you much of a chance to fight the DMCA claim.
Common law contains something called "trespass to chattels" (chattels are property in general, not just slaves, BTW) which is NOT good for us.
You can see what the EFF has to say about it here: http://www.eff.org/Cases/Intel_v_Hamidi/200 11218_e ff_trespasstc_analysis.html
In fact, to some degree, this is what they're agonizing over here--when are you "really" authorized to do something? I'd tend to say that if it's open, but you cause some kind of HARM by [ab]using it, it's bad, but that's probably not quite specific enough a suggestion:]
Slashdot Mirror
Err, if you miss them in linux, why don't you use mozilla + optimoz (it's available on mozdev.org)?
I've been using gestures for ages now...
Worse than that, Microsoft has had backdoors in their software that remained for a LONG time.
Or don't you remember "seineewerasreenigneepacsten"? (read that backwards)
[Free|Open|Net]BSD - free, legally clear due to BSD/USL settlement
-----
No, SCO is going after *BSD next, according to some of the things they've said (look at some of the recent articles here and on Groklaw.net)
Granted, I don't seriously think, in my personal oppinion, that they have any sort of case whatsoever concerning that. But they do probably intend to go after *BSD simply because all of "their" code that's in Linux is BSD-derived, as far as we can see. Thus, if they can find some way to convince a court they own it, they might have something resembling a case.
That said, I'm reasonably sure that SCO is full of crap, as usual, but that doesn't mean they won't try some of these stupid lawyer tricks in court...
You're going to be sending spam after your demise? What are you, the zombie of Spamford Wallace!? :]
SCO is too weak to face IBM, but they can use FUD to remain a thorn in their side if IBM does not destroy them.
Thus, SCO has already made it such that the only sensible option for IBM is to flatten SCO... This will provide them with something useful, at least. For one, they've garnered quite a bit of goodwill from those of us who want to see SCO and their absurd claims silenced, for another, they will have grounds to rightfully intimidate any party bringing action against them. That is, unless you're *SURE* of your case, don't file suit against IBM... and even then...
Honestly, I've been reading all of these legal documents and I've been quite impressed with IBM's lawyers and their work. They are particularly good at explaining why they are right in very clear language while at the same time pointing out every deficiency of SCO's in a matter-of-fact tone.
SCO would pretty well have to bribe the judge, in my oppinion, in order to prevail on much of *anything* in this case...
Blame Stallman, then. As I recall, he refuses to be interviewed by anyone unless they promise to use that terminology in their article...
Groklaw says that Linus hasn't gotten a subpoena yet, either... at least, for the time being.
True, true. They surely don't trust us just yet.
However, I'm glad that they've at least heard our complaints, even if they don't agree with them.
Maybe not as encouraging as it could be, but...
Don't be so harsh; that was a joke... a pun on Zeno's paradox of motion which you might've heard in physics class :]
My nickname is Xeno. :P
I have always been known as Xeno.
I had this name long before I ever saw you.
I did not name it after you
See Xeno's law
:/
They always come up with something new/worse
Copyright law is already international enough. It's just that it's too easy to copy things faster than the authorities can catch up with those who have it and effectively delete it. The UN won't fix this.
Moreover, I do NOT believe that "hacking information" should be kept secret. AT ALL. To research security, we NEED these. There is no substitute. Just try reading some of the CERT advisories and see if you could even test yourself for some of the vulnerabilities they describe. You cannot. They're incredibly vague/old and the "bad guys" already have this stuff! So you only deny me the means to protect myself or even understand how vulnerable I am.
We gave up keeping that information secret ages ago; all for the better.
Also, child pornography is hard. Granted, I have that visceral reaction to want to lynch anyone with it, but we do already have the means to go after international pedophiles.
In other words, the UN can, at most, expedite removing a few items above (mostly copyrighted info and child pornography). They can't do that much. Just like in most other things, it would seem... But I would expect it to be hard to get a consensus among that many. Hence the connundrum...
Don't worry.
They'll think of something else that's worse, more intrusive, etc. every eighteen months or so.
I hereby dub this law to be known as "Xeno's law"
The first corollary is that the average IQ of marketers is thought to be a monotone decreasing function which tends to zero.
True, but he might not be old enough to run. Is he 35 yet? (You have to be a native-born US citizen and 35 to run for Presiden.)
Basically, if you don't like these movies you are not intellectual enough. This was the same defense offered by many Matrix "fans" to people who didn't like Reloaded. By the way, Reloaded was a dreadful movie, just because somebody doesn't like it doesn't mean their dumb or unsophisticated.
-----
It doesn't wrap everything up at the end in a neat package. Half of the complaints on here from people complain about that very issue.
Whereas, most of the time, when talking about anime, etc., we hear that it might help people to be a bit more open-minded about endings of that sort and not expect this rosy, neat ending answering all our questions...
I'll let you resolve that, yourself, if you can.
That fallacy is called the "prior investment" fallacy. E.G. when the gambler has wasted *almost* all of his money and blows the rest, since he'd already blown everything but that.
It's why they often wind up broke: they don't know enough to quit before they wind up with nothing.
In the mean time, as I've said before: you can't expect answers from the Matrix. You never could. That was the point. You missed it.
It's funny; when we're talking about Anime, there are so many who lament about how we westerners always need everything wrapped up neatly in a nice little package at the end... and yet, most of the complains about Matrix: Revolutions say that it did not answer all our questions.
It was never meant to; I never expected it to. Thus, I enjoyed it thoroughly while you sat wondering why they didn't leave you with everything in a nicely wrapped package.
Lamentable, isn't it?
Neo doesn't die, as far as I'm concerned. Didn't you listen to the Oracle?
Moreover, since Smith showed us how people can be reprogrammed, and given where they were, I wouldn't doubt that either or both Trinity & Neo could be "reborn" simply by copying their minds into new host bodies (and there have to be plenty of those in the Matrix...) I mean, the Oracle did that, more or less.
Frankly, I enjoyed it. I think you expected the philosophy in the Matrix to give you all the answers, when that is not the point of it. It gives you all the questions, instead.
One last interesting tidbit: this story has also been picked up at LawMeme here which makes sense since it's on Reuters, as you can see from the Google News page over here.
You have to give people some notice of a lawsuit, even if it's right when you serve them with it. There's nothing wrong with settling out of court, either, so this is almost certainly legal in that regard, unless they find some way to accuse them of barratry (disclaimer: IANAL).
... ]
There are some interesting bits in this regard in the article (yeah, I know, no one reads those, so here are the best bits:)
--
"Our objective here is not to win lawsuits; it is to foster a business environment where legal online music services and bricks-and-mortar retail stores can flourish."
[
The RIAA's letter warns that "ignorance of the law is not a defense. What that means is that it does not matter whether you knew it was illegal. Whether or not you intended to infringe does not matter. If you violate the record companies' copyrights, you will be held liable for damage as a result."
The letter also warns the recipient that deleting infringed songs would be considered destruction of evidence "now that you are aware that a lawsuit may be filed against you."
--
That last bit is particularly interesting. What if they've misidentified people (yet again...) and there AREN'T any files to destroy in the first place? Would they take the non-existance of the infringing files to mean that the person had destroyed them?
Isn't this EXACTLY what that other fellow sued (successfully?) for in a previous story?
I wonder how many lawsuits against them people could file citing the other case as precident? At least those in the jurisdiction where the case is controlling precident could make them sweat a little... *hmm*
You must not have been reading the recent slashdot interview with the folks in the government who are now assigned to prosecute those charged under the DMCA and such.
The asked about the clause that's listed under pentalty of perjury and the people (who were actual lawyers) replied that that clause only asserts that they actually represent the copyright holder in question. E.G. if it were over content alleged to be an illegal copy of PacMan, the person sending it would be asserting that they actually have the rights to PacMan (rather than having to assert that you actually possesed infringing materials).
If you want to fight these silly DMCA claims, learn to file "Counternotice and Put-Back" claims under the DMCA. I think I've seen some information on doing that online, though I certainly wish there were more and better templates for writing them. The problem with the counternotices, however, is that ISPs may well assert their right to terminate your service for any reason whatsoever (it's a pretty standard clause in the TOSs I've read) without giving you much of a chance to fight the DMCA claim.
I don't know if it's a virus, or just really clever marketing...
Common law contains something called "trespass to chattels" (chattels are property in general, not just slaves, BTW) which is NOT good for us.
0 11218_e ff_trespasstc_analysis.html
:]
You can see what the EFF has to say about it here:
http://www.eff.org/Cases/Intel_v_Hamidi/20
In fact, to some degree, this is what they're agonizing over here--when are you "really" authorized to do something? I'd tend to say that if it's open, but you cause some kind of HARM by [ab]using it, it's bad, but that's probably not quite specific enough a suggestion
Thus inventing the first rave... ;]