Everybody knows SCO's bussiness plan
on
SCO's Plan Examined
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
1.) Sue everybody ( including Granny McBride. Anybody else wonder if she's proud of her son? ) 2.)... 3.) Profit!
Serious, as much fun as SCO is, is anybody else feeling their faith in humanity drain away, little by little, day by day, because of morals like these?
But did anybody else read the "Press Release" this way?
#
's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks. Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux as many Open Source leaders have done, is acknowledging that issues exist and is attempting to be responsive to its customers' request for relief. 's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free.
We are gratified that, alone among the major Linux vendors, has taken a strong stand to protect their customers by indemnifying them against possible legal difficulties stemming from their use of Linux. We believe that this action signals that recognizes their Linux users could, in fact, face litigation because of copyright violations and intellectual property problems within Linux. As a company that strongly supports its customers, has done something about this.
Now that has stepped up for its customers, SCO once again encourages Red Hat, IBM and other major Linux vendors to do the same. We think their customers will demand it.
Hi folks, just in case. Do me a favor and lay off the mod points for this one.
The recording industry has withdrawn a lawsuit against a Newbury woman because it falsely accused her of illegally sharing music -- possibly the first case of mistaken identity in the battle against Internet file-traders. ADVERTISEMENT
Privacy advocates said the suit against Sarah Seabury Ward, a sculptor who said she has never downloaded or digitally shared a song, revealed flaws in the Recording Industry Association of America's legal strategy. Ward was caught up in a flood of 261 lawsuits filed two weeks ago that targeted people who, through software programs like Kazaa, make copyrighted songs available for others to download over the Internet.
"When the RIAA announced they were going on this litigation crusade, we knew there was going to be someone like Sarah Ward," said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet privacy group in San Francisco that has advised Ward and others sued by the music industry. "And we think were will be more."
The lawsuit claimed that Ward had illegally shared more than 2,000 songs through Kazaa and threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song. The plaintiffs were Sony Music, BMG, Virgin, Interscope, Atlantic, Warner Brothers, and Arista.
Among the songs she was accused of sharing: "I'm a Thug," by the rapper Trick Daddy.
But Ward, 66, is a "computer neophyte" who never installed file-sharing software, let alone downloaded hard-core rap about baggy jeans and gold teeth, according to letters sent to the recording industry's agents by her lawyer, Jeffrey Beeler.
Other defendants have blamed their children for using file-sharing software, but Ward has no children living with her, Beeler said.
Moreover, Ward uses a Macintosh computer at home. Kazaa runs only on Windows-based personal computers.
Beeler complained to the RIAA, demanding an apology and "dismissal with prejudice" of the lawsuit, which would prohibit future lawsuits against her. Foley Hoag, the Boston firm representing the record labels, on Friday dropped the case, but without prejudice.
"Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," Colin J. Zick, the Foley Hoag lawyer, wrote to Beeler.
The trade group released Zick's letter late yesterday and said it would have no other comment.
It is unclear where the apparent mistake originated.
According to the lawsuit, recording industry investigators tracked the file-sharing activities of a Kazaa user with the moniker Heath7 and found the unique numeric identifier, known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address, that was assigned to the user by the Internet service provider at the time.
The recording industry then issued a subpoena to Comcast, the user's Internet service provider, demanding the name, address, and e-mail address of the person behind the IP address.
Evan Cox, a partner with Covington & Burling in San Francisco who is not involved with the case, said the error most likely happened in one of two ways: Either Comcast matched the wrong customer with the IP address, or the recording industry requested information about the wrong IP address, which is usually more than nine digits.
"If any of those [IP address] numbers are wrong or transposed, you're going to get the wrong person," Cohn said.
Whatever the source of the apparent error, it illustrates how difficult it can be to definitively match a person to an online screen name.
A Comcast spokeswoman, Sarah Eder, would not comment, citing customer privacy concerns. Comcast always notifies its customers after a subpoena compels the company to release information about them, she said.
Mistakes are likely, given the number of cases the recording industry has filed, Cox said. The industry's reputation could hang on how m
and I will tell you why: This is one of the few fields where quality matters over quantity. The average user, when searching google, wants decent results, not corporate sponsored bullshit.
You will note the fall of yahoo as an material example.
Want an example? Go type "linux" into the msn search engine. I'll wait. Now, compare those results with those garnered from google.
Well, neither patents or copyright are properties of the Internet. How are you going to acomplish this? By using a disclaimer/eula? "By connecting to this network you agree to give up the rights of copyright/patents of anything that you post here". Or maybe disallowing patented or copyrighted works on the new net?
Perhaps a EULA barring any legal action being taken based on information viewed, or even better, it being a private network run by those that connect to it, based in some small carribean island where laws are things that happen to other countries.
Note that I call dibs on the network admin job on this, admittingly theoretical, dream island.
it's amazing anybody is able to accomplish anything.
Anybody else feel like you just want to start over, with only good people involved, and remake the internet? None of this patent crap, none of this copyright bullshit, just pure standards that are actual standards. Uncompromised and pure. No restrictions on data, short of the physical line speeds.
The dentist's offices, to my knowledge, have decent benefits, but you are right, the non profits don't offer any.
Beggers, however, can not be choosers.
I am not a self-selling, self-advertising, self-promoting, that's the kicker. I do my job well, I am moderately sociable ( I can thow a joke as well as the next guy, but I usually don't go to lunch/dinner with people, preferring to read my books ), but I don't hype myself. My clients do that for me, that's where I get all my phone calls.
On top of that, while you can move to find the jobs, I wouldn't suggest that to anybody unless it's the absolute last alternative. With enough experience in one field, you can translate that to many other fields. Given my experience in a professional enviroment, I could just as easiely take any office position. It doesn't HAVE to be in the computer field, I would just prefer it.
At the end of the day, as long as I can support those I love and myself, that's the important thing. I am just lucky enough to be able to do it doing something I love to do.
I am full time, with great benifits, and I support 3 kids of my own, thank you very much.
The fact is, there are jobs out there, period. If you can't find them, or are not willing to adapt to the changing market, then I am sorry, but that's not my fault, is it?
Perhaps you can do the rest of us a favor and let us know where these mythical jobs you speak of are located?
Central Valley, California.
I am currently a network admin in a win32/unix enviroment in the medical field ( techically, I am a systems analyst, but that's a bullshit title ). I know there are several non-profits in the area who need tech help and have reasonable budget ( in comparison to the work you'd be doing ). Further, I know of at least two dentists offices that have an immediate need for compentent computer people ( don't bother messaging me, I already recommened a few people ).
It's all about your presence. I have never been turned down for a job after I have interviewed. I treat people with respect and keep them informed as to what I am doing. My current boss is great, he always wants to know what I am doing and how.:)
I am a high school graduate with no certs or college to speak of, and I have to turn down job offers.
I am something of a jack of all trades, capable of programming, web development and networking ( to name a few ). Further, my experience only spans a few years ( 4 ).
Just because it's intangible doesn't make that any less true.
Note for trolls and other knuckle draggers: I hate, with a passion I normally reserve for SCO, the RIAA. I think p2p is a great technology, and I feel that song sharing is the future of the music industry. However, at this time, they do not want their product taken without compensation. Given that it is THEIR product, that is their choice, not ours. A choice I feel will put them and their bussiness partners in the grave faster, but it's their choice none the less.
It is not property, it is intellectual property, two COMPLETELY different things. Be that as it may, the owner OWNS the product, he/she sets the terms of use. If I don't agree to the terms, I am welcome not to use their product. If I choose to use the product without their permission, it's at least illegal, and I would guess stealing.
If I violate the copyright law and download an RIAA represented song, I should be liable for NO MORE then the retial value of that song as a potential loss, figuring I can buy legal songs online for $1, their actual loss should never exceed $1. How they figure up to $150K or 150K times the retail value is insane. Imagine sueing someone in civil court for that $500 1986 Regal for $75M. This is a seperate argument altogether, and one which you and I see eye to eye. You will get no arguments from me on the dirty methods the RIAA use in their hunt for their profits ( hint: The organization they should be blaming is a four letter acronym, starts with R, ends with A ).
If you want to claim stealing is stealing and stealing a song is no different then stealing a car, then why do you suddenly change your story or ignore the part when the potential differences in money amount and fines is so much different between them? Because, towards my point and argument, it is irrelevant what the fines are. The act is all that is required to steal something, not the potential consquences of the act.
You are getting caught up in the physical side of it. The fact is, music is a product ( I don't necessarily agree to this, but that's beside the point ). If you download without owning it, it is no different legally then walking into a store and lifting the CD.
Go back to school you stupid Americans. You are an embarrassment to your country! An ironic statement, if I ever read one.
Slashdot Mirror
1.) Sue everybody ( including Granny McBride. Anybody else wonder if she's proud of her son? ) ...
2.)
3.) Profit!
Serious, as much fun as SCO is, is anybody else feeling their faith in humanity drain away, little by little, day by day, because of morals like these?
I was laughing for a while, now I am just sitting here in silence trying hard to convince myself that was a joke.
But did anybody else read the "Press Release" this way?
#
's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks. Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux as many Open Source leaders have done, is acknowledging that issues exist and is attempting to be responsive to its customers' request for relief. 's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free.
We are gratified that, alone among the major Linux vendors, has taken a strong stand to protect their customers by indemnifying them against possible legal difficulties stemming from their use of Linux. We believe that this action signals that recognizes their Linux users could, in fact, face litigation because of copyright violations and intellectual property problems within Linux. As a company that strongly supports its customers, has done something about this.
Now that has stepped up for its customers, SCO once again encourages Red Hat, IBM and other major Linux vendors to do the same. We think their customers will demand it.
#
Hi folks, just in case. Do me a favor and lay off the mod points for this one.
The recording industry has withdrawn a lawsuit against a Newbury woman because it falsely accused her of illegally sharing music -- possibly the first case of mistaken identity in the battle against Internet file-traders.
ADVERTISEMENT
Privacy advocates said the suit against Sarah Seabury Ward, a sculptor who said she has never downloaded or digitally shared a song, revealed flaws in the Recording Industry Association of America's legal strategy. Ward was caught up in a flood of 261 lawsuits filed two weeks ago that targeted people who, through software programs like Kazaa, make copyrighted songs available for others to download over the Internet.
"When the RIAA announced they were going on this litigation crusade, we knew there was going to be someone like Sarah Ward," said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet privacy group in San Francisco that has advised Ward and others sued by the music industry. "And we think were will be more."
The lawsuit claimed that Ward had illegally shared more than 2,000 songs through Kazaa and threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song. The plaintiffs were Sony Music, BMG, Virgin, Interscope, Atlantic, Warner Brothers, and Arista.
Among the songs she was accused of sharing: "I'm a Thug," by the rapper Trick Daddy.
But Ward, 66, is a "computer neophyte" who never installed file-sharing software, let alone downloaded hard-core rap about baggy jeans and gold teeth, according to letters sent to the recording industry's agents by her lawyer, Jeffrey Beeler.
Other defendants have blamed their children for using file-sharing software, but Ward has no children living with her, Beeler said.
Moreover, Ward uses a Macintosh computer at home. Kazaa runs only on Windows-based personal computers.
Beeler complained to the RIAA, demanding an apology and "dismissal with prejudice" of the lawsuit, which would prohibit future lawsuits against her. Foley Hoag, the Boston firm representing the record labels, on Friday dropped the case, but without prejudice.
"Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," Colin J. Zick, the Foley Hoag lawyer, wrote to Beeler.
The trade group released Zick's letter late yesterday and said it would have no other comment.
It is unclear where the apparent mistake originated.
According to the lawsuit, recording industry investigators tracked the file-sharing activities of a Kazaa user with the moniker Heath7 and found the unique numeric identifier, known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address, that was assigned to the user by the Internet service provider at the time.
The recording industry then issued a subpoena to Comcast, the user's Internet service provider, demanding the name, address, and e-mail address of the person behind the IP address.
Evan Cox, a partner with Covington & Burling in San Francisco who is not involved with the case, said the error most likely happened in one of two ways: Either Comcast matched the wrong customer with the IP address, or the recording industry requested information about the wrong IP address, which is usually more than nine digits.
"If any of those [IP address] numbers are wrong or transposed, you're going to get the wrong person," Cohn said.
Whatever the source of the apparent error, it illustrates how difficult it can be to definitively match a person to an online screen name.
A Comcast spokeswoman, Sarah Eder, would not comment, citing customer privacy concerns. Comcast always notifies its customers after a subpoena compels the company to release information about them, she said.
Mistakes are likely, given the number of cases the recording industry has filed, Cox said. The industry's reputation could hang on how m
and I will tell you why: This is one of the few fields where quality matters over quantity. The average user, when searching google, wants decent results, not corporate sponsored bullshit.
You will note the fall of yahoo as an material example.
Want an example? Go type "linux" into the msn search engine. I'll wait. Now, compare those results with those garnered from google.
All your cash are belong to us?
On a side note, haven't these banks been watching the news?
You must test, test and retest.
You've had a week to test. A week. It takes me a day, maybe two, to test the new patches, and I have to test it against 10 different computer configs.
Switching from Microsoft won't solve this problem either....OpenSSH anyone?
I love the smell of FUD in the morning.
Which would you rather have, a DoS condition, or root exploit?
Now had you mentioned sendmail, you might have had us. But then those of us who are smart would come back with, "We run qmail".
So either way, lay off the fud.
Why should we waste money keeping these people in prison when they're not a physical threat to anybody
I don't think you quite understand the motives behind this law.
It's not to prevent them to cause any harm to others, it's to prevent others from causing harm to them.
That's when the politicians will get my votes.
Cats my ass, it's going to be the dogs that come out on top.
For referrence, I haven't read Ayn Rand, so I don't have a clue as to what you are speaking of
Well, neither patents or copyright are properties of the Internet. How are you going to acomplish this? By using a disclaimer/eula? "By connecting to this network you agree to give up the rights of copyright/patents of anything that you post here". Or maybe disallowing patented or copyrighted works on the new net?
Perhaps a EULA barring any legal action being taken based on information viewed, or even better, it being a private network run by those that connect to it, based in some small carribean island where laws are things that happen to other countries.
Note that I call dibs on the network admin job on this, admittingly theoretical, dream island.
it's amazing anybody is able to accomplish anything.
Anybody else feel like you just want to start over, with only good people involved, and remake the internet? None of this patent crap, none of this copyright bullshit, just pure standards that are actual standards. Uncompromised and pure. No restrictions on data, short of the physical line speeds.
Yeah yeah, I know..."when you wish, upon a star"
wow, 3 out of the first 4 posts mention qmail. interesting.
That should tell you something
qmail?
Look, someone had to say it, it might as well have been me.
I can also tell you, thanks to my equally well-honed powers of clairvoyance, that this post will soon be modded up as funny
Don't flatter yourself.
...does anybody else think this sounds familar?
I must have read an article earlier about this same thing, probably by this same guy. Can anybody confirm that?
The dentist's offices, to my knowledge, have decent benefits, but you are right, the non profits don't offer any.
Beggers, however, can not be choosers.
I am not a self-selling, self-advertising, self-promoting, that's the kicker. I do my job well, I am moderately sociable ( I can thow a joke as well as the next guy, but I usually don't go to lunch/dinner with people, preferring to read my books ), but I don't hype myself. My clients do that for me, that's where I get all my phone calls.
On top of that, while you can move to find the jobs, I wouldn't suggest that to anybody unless it's the absolute last alternative. With enough experience in one field, you can translate that to many other fields. Given my experience in a professional enviroment, I could just as easiely take any office position. It doesn't HAVE to be in the computer field, I would just prefer it.
At the end of the day, as long as I can support those I love and myself, that's the important thing. I am just lucky enough to be able to do it doing something I love to do.
Who said I was part time?
I am full time, with great benifits, and I support 3 kids of my own, thank you very much.
The fact is, there are jobs out there, period. If you can't find them, or are not willing to adapt to the changing market, then I am sorry, but that's not my fault, is it?
Perhaps you can do the rest of us a favor and let us know where these mythical jobs you speak of are located?
:)
Central Valley, California.
I am currently a network admin in a win32/unix enviroment in the medical field ( techically, I am a systems analyst, but that's a bullshit title ). I know there are several non-profits in the area who need tech help and have reasonable budget ( in comparison to the work you'd be doing ). Further, I know of at least two dentists offices that have an immediate need for compentent computer people ( don't bother messaging me, I already recommened a few people ).
It's all about your presence. I have never been turned down for a job after I have interviewed. I treat people with respect and keep them informed as to what I am doing. My current boss is great, he always wants to know what I am doing and how.
Seriously.
I am a high school graduate with no certs or college to speak of, and I have to turn down job offers.
I am something of a jack of all trades, capable of programming, web development and networking ( to name a few ). Further, my experience only spans a few years ( 4 ).
Laws are made to be bent. Laws that take away fundamental rights, such as the right to express oneself musically, are made to be broken.
That's just silly. If someone makes something I want, but they impose restrictions on how I can have it that I will not abide by, I live without it.
It's really that simple.
You steal, you get fined or put in jail.
Just because it's intangible doesn't make that any less true.
Note for trolls and other knuckle draggers: I hate, with a passion I normally reserve for SCO, the RIAA. I think p2p is a great technology, and I feel that song sharing is the future of the music industry. However, at this time, they do not want their product taken without compensation. Given that it is THEIR product, that is their choice, not ours. A choice I feel will put them and their bussiness partners in the grave faster, but it's their choice none the less.
It is not property, it is intellectual property, two COMPLETELY different things.
Be that as it may, the owner OWNS the product, he/she sets the terms of use. If I don't agree to the terms, I am welcome not to use their product. If I choose to use the product without their permission, it's at least illegal, and I would guess stealing.
If I violate the copyright law and download an RIAA represented song, I should be liable for NO MORE then the retial value of that song as a potential loss, figuring I can buy legal songs online for $1, their actual loss should never exceed $1. How they figure up to $150K or 150K times the retail value is insane. Imagine sueing someone in civil court for that $500 1986 Regal for $75M.
This is a seperate argument altogether, and one which you and I see eye to eye. You will get no arguments from me on the dirty methods the RIAA use in their hunt for their profits ( hint: The organization they should be blaming is a four letter acronym, starts with R, ends with A ).
If you want to claim stealing is stealing and stealing a song is no different then stealing a car, then why do you suddenly change your story or ignore the part when the potential differences in money amount and fines is so much different between them?
Because, towards my point and argument, it is irrelevant what the fines are. The act is all that is required to steal something, not the potential consquences of the act.
hahaha, you are more than welcome to.
I don't watch tv, there is nothing but flashy and stylish piles of shit + reality TV on. On the same token, I own very few movies ( DVD ).
And my entire vorbis collection is ripped from my own CDs.
You are getting caught up in the physical side of it. The fact is, music is a product ( I don't necessarily agree to this, but that's beside the point ). If you download without owning it, it is no different legally then walking into a store and lifting the CD.
Go back to school you stupid Americans. You are an embarrassment to your country!
An ironic statement, if I ever read one.