"its not that the labels promote their clients its that they prevent radio stations from playing who they want via massive and illegal bribes"
Why do you use the term bribe? Is there a law that says a program manager can't play songs based on what people are willing to pay the station? That sounds like free market at its finest.
Calling a record label a leech is like calling a venture capitalist a leech. If anything, the retailer seems to be the biggest leech, since he takes little to no risk, and gets a large share of the revenue, all for setting up a large web server.
indie is NOT "I hope I can make it without any help". indie is using a smaller label (which may be a part of the RIAA). Unsigned is "I hope I can make it without any help".
Only Sun has rights to derivative Unix products
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
from a cnet article:"So why can't they just reuse their own products?
They can't, because SCO controls the rights over further licensing of derivative products. (Only Sun Microsystems, which has paid around $100 million to the various Unix stewards over the past decade for derivative rights, fully controls the legal destiny of its products.) It's an inconvenient legalism--and one not always discussed in the lab--but it exists."
So based on what the poster was told by SCO, they have a strong case, particularly given AIX programmers were involved in writing Linux code.
There's not much value in a legitimate business distributing through p2p. Paying customers want a high bandwidth source. Therefore, you spend some money on web servers. The main reason p2p exists is because you can share illegal content anonymously with little chance of getting caught. If you put the same illegal material on a web server, it is much easier for it to be found and shut down.
I'm just pointing out that GPL expires with copyright. After the copyright expires, you can ignore the GPL and do what you want with the source, including modifying it and selling it without releasing the modified source.
Re:You guys are in a dream world
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
How does a roadmap of failed OS attempts and finally choosing BSD refute my point.
Re:You guys are in a dream world
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
How is it cheap when Apple insures you run it on an expensive piece of hardware? I can come up with a Win2K system that beats Mac in performance and price. You can mod me down all you want, but it doesn't change that fact.
"but I cant help getting the feeling that Linux side is relying way to much on the Fair principle and forgetting that it is quite difference from Justice in the legal systems."
What's fair about stealing source code and breaking contracts? It sounds like your definition of fair is something that doesn't affect you adversely. If SCO's accusations are correct, they should win, since it would be both fair and just.
Re:What SCO is really afraid of.
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Even if stolen code could be rewritten overnight, that doesn't excuse companies from paying SCO damages for revenue already lost, so they'd still have a case. SCO isn't going to show you the code because they never show anyone their code, unless they absolutely need to under "draconian" NDA. Why make an exception now to change public opinion, if it further compromises their IP?
Re:Why I'm Not Really Worried...
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You've never worked with IBM apparently. They aren't immune to screw-ups. I've seen their screw ups 1st hand. It wouldn't surprise me if their legal dept. had no clue that AIX coders were writing Linux code, in the process borrowing AIX ideas. At IBM, there is a HUGE emphasis on creating IP, writing patents, and publishing papers. That doesn't necessarily mean they protect themselves against violating other people's IP.
Re:Quick! Someone wake up Bill!
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. Although SCO claims both scenario 1 and 2 are true, they're only currently prosecuting scenario 2 and are still analyzing scenario 1 to see how much of a case if any they have there.
It never ceases to amaze me how people are so convinced IBM is innocent without knowing any realfacts about the case. Every time a read something new, IBM looks more like their guilty, and this article is no exception, despite the author's bias. However, I'll reserve my judgement until I see the facts. I hope you people don't apply this irrational decision making process in your jobs. At least this gives me a new perspective on the middle east conflict. I can just hear the same arguements. "Of course Israel or Palestine) is wrong. They're not us."
SCO's case looks pretty strong
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
This is the first time I've seen someone specifically say that the same programmers working on AIX are working on Linux. This can be very damaging for IBM depending on how their contracts with SCO are worded. Everything these coders write for Linux is tainted, since they have seen the AIX source, which is derived from Unix Sys V. SCO can now claim that any similar code originated based on ideas taken from Unix, and is therefore an illegal derivative based on agreements between SCO and IBM. If any code has patents, the case becomes stronger for the side holding the patents. Aside from outright copying of code, the strength of SCOs case will come down to the details in the agreements between SCO and IBM, as well as who owns which patents. Of course, any code copied outright is a copyright violation, and is a clear cut winner for SCO if it's significant and if they actually own the copyright.
So under Hatch's system, the computer destroyer sends him a warning. He then registers the software and puts up the link (he doesn't actually owe the company any money if he has non-profit status), thereby avoiding having his computer destroyed. He then thinks, "Great, the system works." Maybe if some bug in the sw didn't notice he was now in compliance and destroyed his computer anyway, hee'd think twice about his policy.
Selling pre-edited movies should be a copyright violation unless the copyright holder approves. No one wants his work altered without his approval and sold with his name on it, even if it is labeled as such. The alterations may destroy the concept of the work in the eyes of the creator if done improperly. However, if the end viewer wants to edit a movie himself, that should be ok, as long as he isn't reselling it. It's sort of like ripping the pages out of a book you find offensive.
I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with money. Hollywood gets the same amount of money whether or not you edit a movie or hire someone else to edit a movie. DIRECTORS are angry because they've created a work of art, and they don't want anyone tampering with their creation. It's like someone putting pants on the statue of David.
On a related note, I believe Mercedes calls it radar-based cruise control rather than radar-based collision avoidance to avoid lawsuits in case the system fails.
So the govt. want to buy software and then fine the company if it's not in compliance with some open standard? Does anybody else see how destructive to free market that is? Basically, the buyer is demanding money from the seller in compensation for not liking the product. If I was the seller, I'd tell them I wouldn't sell to them at any price if they adopt such a policy. Principles are more important than money at times. What would really be funny is if they started fining OSS for non-compliance to standards. Who's going to pay?
Great idea. I think I start selling boxes to steal cable and satellite tv. What the hell. It'll help the electronics industry sell more tvs. The cable and satellite companies are too greedy anyway. Someone needs to take them down a peg. After that I'll go after the prescription drug industry. I'll make knock-off drugs as soon as they come out. That industry's so greedy that Canada, etc. has to make laws regulating prices. So, what the hell. Who cares if they can't make any money to fund new development. It'll be good for people in the dort term, being able to get cheap drugs. After that I'll find some other targets. their all just greedy capitalists exploiting the proletariat anyway.
They did nothing but criticize the govt. A sandstorm slows down the troops, and the media is saying the war will take over six months is just one instance. Yes the press showed what the White House and Pentagon were saying, but they told you when they were using those source, not claiming them as facts. They also regularly showed the Iraqi information minister and stuff from al Jazeera.
Slashdot Mirror
"its not that the labels promote their clients its that they prevent radio stations from playing who they want via massive and illegal bribes"
Why do you use the term bribe? Is there a law that says a program manager can't play songs based on what people are willing to pay the station? That sounds like free market at its finest.
Calling a record label a leech is like calling a venture capitalist a leech. If anything, the retailer seems to be the biggest leech, since he takes little to no risk, and gets a large share of the revenue, all for setting up a large web server.
indie is NOT "I hope I can make it without any help". indie is using a smaller label (which may be a part of the RIAA). Unsigned is "I hope I can make it without any help".
from a cnet article:"So why can't they just reuse their own products? They can't, because SCO controls the rights over further licensing of derivative products. (Only Sun Microsystems, which has paid around $100 million to the various Unix stewards over the past decade for derivative rights, fully controls the legal destiny of its products.) It's an inconvenient legalism--and one not always discussed in the lab--but it exists."
So based on what the poster was told by SCO, they have a strong case, particularly given AIX programmers were involved in writing Linux code.
There's not much value in a legitimate business distributing through p2p. Paying customers want a high bandwidth source. Therefore, you spend some money on web servers. The main reason p2p exists is because you can share illegal content anonymously with little chance of getting caught. If you put the same illegal material on a web server, it is much easier for it to be found and shut down.
"not to mentin that it is almost pure profit becuase with Pay-per-view you don't have NEARLY the overhead is with a movie theater."
Don't movies cost millions of dollars to create?
I'm just pointing out that GPL expires with copyright. After the copyright expires, you can ignore the GPL and do what you want with the source, including modifying it and selling it without releasing the modified source.
How does a roadmap of failed OS attempts and finally choosing BSD refute my point.
How is it cheap when Apple insures you run it on an expensive piece of hardware? I can come up with a Win2K system that beats Mac in performance and price. You can mod me down all you want, but it doesn't change that fact.
CD sales increased when the economy was bad in the early nineties. In fact, the economy was worse then than it is now. How do you explain that?
"The first candidate for House or Senate who proposes rolling back copyrights to 14 years has my vote"
So when does the copyright on linux source expire then, around 2010 for the older kernels?
"but I cant help getting the feeling that Linux side is relying way to much on the Fair principle and forgetting that it is quite difference from Justice in the legal systems."
What's fair about stealing source code and breaking contracts? It sounds like your definition of fair is something that doesn't affect you adversely. If SCO's accusations are correct, they should win, since it would be both fair and just.
Even if stolen code could be rewritten overnight, that doesn't excuse companies from paying SCO damages for revenue already lost, so they'd still have a case. SCO isn't going to show you the code because they never show anyone their code, unless they absolutely need to under "draconian" NDA. Why make an exception now to change public opinion, if it further compromises their IP?
You've never worked with IBM apparently. They aren't immune to screw-ups. I've seen their screw ups 1st hand. It wouldn't surprise me if their legal dept. had no clue that AIX coders were writing Linux code, in the process borrowing AIX ideas. At IBM, there is a HUGE emphasis on creating IP, writing patents, and publishing papers. That doesn't necessarily mean they protect themselves against violating other people's IP.
MS bought a license to avoid such trouble.
Exactly. Although SCO claims both scenario 1 and 2 are true, they're only currently prosecuting scenario 2 and are still analyzing scenario 1 to see how much of a case if any they have there.
It never ceases to amaze me how people are so convinced IBM is innocent without knowing any realfacts about the case. Every time a read something new, IBM looks more like their guilty, and this article is no exception, despite the author's bias. However, I'll reserve my judgement until I see the facts. I hope you people don't apply this irrational decision making process in your jobs. At least this gives me a new perspective on the middle east conflict. I can just hear the same arguements. "Of course Israel or Palestine) is wrong. They're not us."
This is the first time I've seen someone specifically say that the same programmers working on AIX are working on Linux. This can be very damaging for IBM depending on how their contracts with SCO are worded. Everything these coders write for Linux is tainted, since they have seen the AIX source, which is derived from Unix Sys V. SCO can now claim that any similar code originated based on ideas taken from Unix, and is therefore an illegal derivative based on agreements between SCO and IBM. If any code has patents, the case becomes stronger for the side holding the patents. Aside from outright copying of code, the strength of SCOs case will come down to the details in the agreements between SCO and IBM, as well as who owns which patents. Of course, any code copied outright is a copyright violation, and is a clear cut winner for SCO if it's significant and if they actually own the copyright.
So under Hatch's system, the computer destroyer sends him a warning. He then registers the software and puts up the link (he doesn't actually owe the company any money if he has non-profit status), thereby avoiding having his computer destroyed. He then thinks, "Great, the system works." Maybe if some bug in the sw didn't notice he was now in compliance and destroyed his computer anyway, hee'd think twice about his policy.
Selling pre-edited movies should be a copyright violation unless the copyright holder approves. No one wants his work altered without his approval and sold with his name on it, even if it is labeled as such. The alterations may destroy the concept of the work in the eyes of the creator if done improperly. However, if the end viewer wants to edit a movie himself, that should be ok, as long as he isn't reselling it. It's sort of like ripping the pages out of a book you find offensive.
I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with money. Hollywood gets the same amount of money whether or not you edit a movie or hire someone else to edit a movie. DIRECTORS are angry because they've created a work of art, and they don't want anyone tampering with their creation. It's like someone putting pants on the statue of David.
On a related note, I believe Mercedes calls it radar-based cruise control rather than radar-based collision avoidance to avoid lawsuits in case the system fails.
So the govt. want to buy software and then fine the company if it's not in compliance with some open standard? Does anybody else see how destructive to free market that is? Basically, the buyer is demanding money from the seller in compensation for not liking the product. If I was the seller, I'd tell them I wouldn't sell to them at any price if they adopt such a policy. Principles are more important than money at times. What would really be funny is if they started fining OSS for non-compliance to standards. Who's going to pay?
Great idea. I think I start selling boxes to steal cable and satellite tv. What the hell. It'll help the electronics industry sell more tvs. The cable and satellite companies are too greedy anyway. Someone needs to take them down a peg. After that I'll go after the prescription drug industry. I'll make knock-off drugs as soon as they come out. That industry's so greedy that Canada, etc. has to make laws regulating prices. So, what the hell. Who cares if they can't make any money to fund new development. It'll be good for people in the dort term, being able to get cheap drugs. After that I'll find some other targets. their all just greedy capitalists exploiting the proletariat anyway.
They did nothing but criticize the govt. A sandstorm slows down the troops, and the media is saying the war will take over six months is just one instance. Yes the press showed what the White House and Pentagon were saying, but they told you when they were using those source, not claiming them as facts. They also regularly showed the Iraqi information minister and stuff from al Jazeera.