"If I steal as few as eight songs, how much should I be sued for? Let's assume a situation where there are eight songs from three artists, and four of the songs are on the same album (people like to download from similar artists). Hence, we have four albums sales we 'stole' from the RIAA. At 15$ a CD, that's 60$ in damages."
They are going after those who make files available for download. If you make 8 files available for download, hundreds of copies could be made, so the damages will probably be a lot greater than $60.
"Copyright law allows the copyright holder to steal my natural rights to free speech and to do as I will with my property (my right to duplicate any bits I have in any storage medium) and to engage in willful exchanges with others (my right to let someone else duplicate those bits into their storage medium)."
So do I have a natural right to take my gun and shoot you with it? It is my property and I have a natural right "to do as I will with my property". You don't have a right that infringes on another person's right. No right is natural, but granted by a govt. A govt. should base rights on reason. A reasonable govt. has decided that a person creating an original work has some protection in order to profit from that work. I don't see how you think copying someone elses work is your "natural right". What did you do to earn the fruit of his labor? Do you also think going into stores and stealing items is your natural right? In both cases you have lowered the value of the owners property.
"Those who are unable to adapt to technological change still have massive enough warchests to lease our legal system with an option to buy"
Our legal system has protected the rights of people for hundreds of years to do what they want with copyrighted material. If they want to use a system of distribution that you consider obsolete, that is their right under the constitution. Your comment shows lack of understanding of free market. Free market does not mean the seller is obligated to sell at a price of the buyer chosing, or else the buyer takes it for free. That's closer to anarchy. The seller has no obligation to give you a product in the form you want. The govts. job is to protect this right of the seller. The EFF is way out of line claiming the RIAA has no right to protect their business model. They have every right, since copyright is guaranteed under the constitution. That's the one real purpose of govt., to protect the freedom of individuals, including copyright holders.
" Guess we should stop teaching our kids that sharing is good...."
RMS made this same blunder in the documentary RevolutionOS. He talked about how his school teachers used to encourage him to share things, but then discourage sharing software. What he (and you) fail to realize is that when you share a piece of candy, you are giving away something that you own. When you give a copy of something to someone you're not sharing something, you're copying it. If you really want to share software, you need to 1st uninstall it, and then give the original install disk to someone. Otherwise, it's not sharing.
It doesn't matter which is more secure. The point is, neither is secure. And it is impossible to know which is more secure. You only know about the vulnerabilities that have been found,. Not the ones that haven't.
" What does this have to do with how many people is running it? Joe Blow won't be looking for security holes, now will he? Please think before you post - your argument has been blown to tiny little pieces a thousand times already."
Did you consider that having more users makes you a bigger target? There is more incentive to hack Windows because you can compromise more machines. So more hacks are inevitable for Windows than Linux. However, this is besides the point. The point is, no OS is secure. Even if Linux is more secure than Windows, it's still not secure. Where do you think the term root kit comes from. Windows doesn't even use the term root. More secure doesn't cut it.
"If I buy stolen property in good faith, I cannot be held liable for the crime. The most I can be made to do is to return the stolen property."
IP isn't the same as physcal property. Returning the property might be equivalent to paying for past use and uninstalling the sw, if the court feels that that is appropriate to compensate SCO for harm done to them. You need to look at your agreement with your Linux distributor to see how much liability you've taken on by using the code. They may have tried to waive all responsibility themselves.
Bad analogy. You need to look at your agreement with your Linux distributor, to find out who is responsible. If RedHat says they're not responsible for code that is in violation of patents or copyright, and if you've agreed to that, then SCO may need to go after you instead of RedHat.
"Linux users are not party to the contract between IBM and SCO, so nothing in that contract can compell Linux users to do anything."
If Linux uses code that IBM had no right to give them, and if Linux distributors waived all their responsibility for Linux code onto the user, then users may be held responsible for damages if code they are running is actually owned by SCO. Saying that SCO can't touch users is naive.
I was thinking far enough ahead to already anticipate this response. The fact that more people use MS makes it a bigger target for hackers. There's more incentive if you can compromise more machines. we're talking about known hacks, not total hacks. Therefore, the fact that a bigger target ended up with reported security problems at the very least casts doubt on Linux security superiority. I'm not on an anti-Linux campaign, I'm just sick of people bashing MS security when Linux isn't any more reliable.
So criticizing MS security gets mod point, but pointing out how flawed the criticizing is by showing Linux security is flawed amounts to trolling. Nice objectivity. What else are you going to censor because it isn't slashdot politically correct?
"t's like saying Honda's Cars are safer because American made cars had 300 accidents and Hondas 100. While it is true there are hundreds of thousands more Amierican made cars on the road the Hondas."
Ahh, a hell of a lot more people run MS software than Linux, so you're just adding ammunition to the arguement that MS is more secure. Maybe you should consider that you're the one who's stupid before posting a comment like "Are you stupid?".
"This doesn't mean that Linux is 100% secure, of course. Only that your facts are questionable."
My point is, Linux security is questionable. The parent should take the log out of his own eye before pointing out the thorn in his neighbor's eye. This Linux superiority BS is really annoying, and someone should give people a reality check.
What do you propose, using Linux? Linux security is worse than MS security. See here. The fact that your fact-devoid rant got modded up just shows how clueless the/. community is when it comes to these types of issues.
"I guess the news here is that parts of the world outside the tightly wound tech community are starting to realize how over priced Microsoft software is."
The Suse price was more than even the initial MS price, and Suse didn't even need to pay anyone to write most of their software. Sounds like Suse is overcharging as well.
When Linus says a contract dispute between IBM and SCO has no bearing on Linux, I think he's being a bit naive. If the code IBM submitted to Linux was a violation of that contract, in addition to damages IBM must pay, a court may place an injunction on shipping Linux, or force Linux users to pay damages as well, depending on the wording of the licensing agreements in the distros being used. Of course this may be pessimistic thinking, but it's not an impossible scenario. Also, if IBM is found in violation of their contract, thats ammunition to pursue further lawsuits against other Linux companies and end-users.
So Munich pays a German sw company more for software support instead of paying an American company less. Sounds like nationalism had some role in this. Certainly the US govt. support of MS has something to do with them being a US company.
Slashdot Mirror
"If I steal as few as eight songs, how much should I be sued for? Let's assume a situation where there are eight songs from three artists, and four of the songs are on the same album (people like to download from similar artists). Hence, we have four albums sales we 'stole' from the RIAA. At 15$ a CD, that's 60$ in damages."
They are going after those who make files available for download. If you make 8 files available for download, hundreds of copies could be made, so the damages will probably be a lot greater than $60.
"Copyright law allows the copyright holder to steal my natural rights to free speech and to do as I will with my property (my right to duplicate any bits I have in any storage medium) and to engage in willful exchanges with others (my right to let someone else duplicate those bits into their storage medium)."
So do I have a natural right to take my gun and shoot you with it? It is my property and I have a natural right "to do as I will with my property". You don't have a right that infringes on another person's right. No right is natural, but granted by a govt. A govt. should base rights on reason. A reasonable govt. has decided that a person creating an original work has some protection in order to profit from that work. I don't see how you think copying someone elses work is your "natural right". What did you do to earn the fruit of his labor? Do you also think going into stores and stealing items is your natural right? In both cases you have lowered the value of the owners property.
"Those who are unable to adapt to technological change still have massive enough warchests to lease our legal system with an option to buy"
Our legal system has protected the rights of people for hundreds of years to do what they want with copyrighted material. If they want to use a system of distribution that you consider obsolete, that is their right under the constitution. Your comment shows lack of understanding of free market. Free market does not mean the seller is obligated to sell at a price of the buyer chosing, or else the buyer takes it for free. That's closer to anarchy. The seller has no obligation to give you a product in the form you want. The govts. job is to protect this right of the seller. The EFF is way out of line claiming the RIAA has no right to protect their business model. They have every right, since copyright is guaranteed under the constitution. That's the one real purpose of govt., to protect the freedom of individuals, including copyright holders.
" Guess we should stop teaching our kids that sharing is good...."
RMS made this same blunder in the documentary RevolutionOS. He talked about how his school teachers used to encourage him to share things, but then discourage sharing software. What he (and you) fail to realize is that when you share a piece of candy, you are giving away something that you own. When you give a copy of something to someone you're not sharing something, you're copying it. If you really want to share software, you need to 1st uninstall it, and then give the original install disk to someone. Otherwise, it's not sharing.
I love how you just made up a bunch of sttistics.
It doesn't matter which is more secure. The point is, neither is secure. And it is impossible to know which is more secure. You only know about the vulnerabilities that have been found,. Not the ones that haven't.
So if I email you a random linux binary, you'll just run it on your machine?
" What does this have to do with how many people is running it? Joe Blow won't be looking for security holes, now will he? Please think before you post - your argument has been blown to tiny little pieces a thousand times already."
Did you consider that having more users makes you a bigger target? There is more incentive to hack Windows because you can compromise more machines. So more hacks are inevitable for Windows than Linux. However, this is besides the point. The point is, no OS is secure. Even if Linux is more secure than Windows, it's still not secure. Where do you think the term root kit comes from. Windows doesn't even use the term root. More secure doesn't cut it.
"If I buy stolen property in good faith, I cannot be held liable for the crime. The most I can be made to do is to return the stolen property."
IP isn't the same as physcal property. Returning the property might be equivalent to paying for past use and uninstalling the sw, if the court feels that that is appropriate to compensate SCO for harm done to them. You need to look at your agreement with your Linux distributor to see how much liability you've taken on by using the code. They may have tried to waive all responsibility themselves.
Bad analogy. You need to look at your agreement with your Linux distributor, to find out who is responsible. If RedHat says they're not responsible for code that is in violation of patents or copyright, and if you've agreed to that, then SCO may need to go after you instead of RedHat.
"Linux users are not party to the contract between IBM and SCO, so nothing in that contract can compell Linux users to do anything."
If Linux uses code that IBM had no right to give them, and if Linux distributors waived all their responsibility for Linux code onto the user, then users may be held responsible for damages if code they are running is actually owned by SCO. Saying that SCO can't touch users is naive.
"Think before you click the "submit" button. "
I was thinking far enough ahead to already anticipate this response. The fact that more people use MS makes it a bigger target for hackers. There's more incentive if you can compromise more machines. we're talking about known hacks, not total hacks. Therefore, the fact that a bigger target ended up with reported security problems at the very least casts doubt on Linux security superiority. I'm not on an anti-Linux campaign, I'm just sick of people bashing MS security when Linux isn't any more reliable.
So criticizing MS security gets mod point, but pointing out how flawed the criticizing is by showing Linux security is flawed amounts to trolling. Nice objectivity. What else are you going to censor because it isn't slashdot politically correct?
"t's like saying Honda's Cars are safer because American made cars had 300 accidents and Hondas 100. While it is true there are hundreds of thousands more Amierican made cars on the road the Hondas."
Ahh, a hell of a lot more people run MS software than Linux, so you're just adding ammunition to the arguement that MS is more secure. Maybe you should consider that you're the one who's stupid before posting a comment like "Are you stupid?".
"This doesn't mean that Linux is 100% secure, of course. Only that your facts are questionable."
My point is, Linux security is questionable. The parent should take the log out of his own eye before pointing out the thorn in his neighbor's eye. This Linux superiority BS is really annoying, and someone should give people a reality check.
"And if you are trolling, I see that it wouldn't be the first time, as I noticed from the last 24 comments you posted."
If having a dissenting opinion is trolling, guilty as charged. If you also noticed, I was modded up on several posts as well.
People joke about MS security being bad, but Linux is no better. I'm pointing out that the parent is a troll.
"microsoft and security - -- the oxymoron of the millenia.."
Linux security sucks too. Get a clue
Didn't Suse charge Munich over $35M for 14,000 seats? 140,000 seats for $100M sounds like a good deal in comparison.
At least they didn't choose Linux. Linux security is worse. Stop modding up MS trolls as funny or insightful.
What do you propose, using Linux? Linux security is worse than MS security. See here. The fact that your fact-devoid rant got modded up just shows how clueless the /. community is when it comes to these types of issues.
"I guess the news here is that parts of the world outside the tightly wound tech community are starting to realize how over priced Microsoft software is."
The Suse price was more than even the initial MS price, and Suse didn't even need to pay anyone to write most of their software. Sounds like Suse is overcharging as well.
When Linus says a contract dispute between IBM and SCO has no bearing on Linux, I think he's being a bit naive. If the code IBM submitted to Linux was a violation of that contract, in addition to damages IBM must pay, a court may place an injunction on shipping Linux, or force Linux users to pay damages as well, depending on the wording of the licensing agreements in the distros being used. Of course this may be pessimistic thinking, but it's not an impossible scenario. Also, if IBM is found in violation of their contract, thats ammunition to pursue further lawsuits against other Linux companies and end-users.
Clearly, free market is at work here. Apparently the DoJ case was BS, since MS has real competiton.
So Munich pays a German sw company more for software support instead of paying an American company less. Sounds like nationalism had some role in this. Certainly the US govt. support of MS has something to do with them being a US company.