Of course the real "best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems" is for SCO to demonstrate their claims publicly so that users will either be willing to pay for the use of SCO IP, or switch to another OS (like a Linux that has had any SCO code removed.)
But of course, SCO is not interested in Linux being SCO-code free. They are interested in keeping SCO code (if there is any) in Linux and using FUD to shakedown fearful slobs who don't understand the law.
If your boss won't go for Linux, don't cave in (if you can help it) and get M$ XP server. Use another Free OS. Resist SCO *and* M$ benefitting from this fiasco.
I particularly thought this statement was ludicrous:
"every new washing machine, for instance, could have its own IP address, allowing it to alert a service person electronically of a needed repair before it stopped working in the middle of a cycle."
This is utter nonsense. Devices such as these don't need fixed IP addresses. They could be allocated on damand, or hang off a single IP, whenever needed, as is already being done all over the place. The guy acknowledges this, and his redactor exampled is a friggen washing machine??? How remarkably stupid.
Moreover, while IP address are limited to 32 bits, the concept of ports multiplies this by 65536! (Granted some ports are reserved.) This amounts to more than 280 trillion unique socket addresses. A given device (like a washer, or your toaster) doesn't need all the ports to a single fixed IP, even if it had a fixed IP which it doesn't need in the first place.
Another non-problem to not worry about.
From what I heard in the cnet interview McBride essentially declared the GPL is not enforceable since SCO did not "sign" rights away according to copyright law.
McBride disputed the GPL issue. He claims that the copyright law requires a "signing away" of rights, and thus GPL is not enforcable. I guess we shall we about that.
Before any code can be used as evidence in a lawsuit, the code must be registered with the US Copyright Office as a matter of course. Basically, the courts say "don't waste our time unless you at least have a registered copyright." Of course, merely having a copyright proves little.
You are mistaken. Piracy (unauthorized duplication of copyrighted materials) is a felony in certain cases where the value exceeds certain amounts. The sites that do a lot of music "sharing" are typically way over the limits. Hence the recent prosecution of several offenders.
What this new bill proposes to do is make it a felony to pirate music at *any* level.
For those worried about it, just stop illegally "sharing" the copyrighted works of others, and you have nothing to worry about.
If I write a song, you don't own it.I do.
Again, pure bullshit. You own NOTHING. The song is not a piece of property to be bought and sold...
Fortunately, the law disagrees with you. If you don't like the law, lobby to have it changed. But at least know what the law is, and why is exists. I'm thankful that the founders of United States recognized the right of creators of art to control their creations.
Firstly, copyright law is a federal matter, and local police have no juridiction. Secondly, pirating music is a federal felony according to 17 U.S.C. 506 and 18 U.S.C. 2319 if the quanity of pirated music is 10 or more copies with a value of $2500 within a 180 day period. Most downloaders of music probably don't fall into the category, however, many illegal online distributors do.
The first definition of stealing in the Webster's American Dictionary is: to take the property of another wihout permission or right, esp. secretly or by force.
No mention of "physical" there. At any rate, the law is the law. Intellectual and creative works are treated as personal property under federal law. And for good reason.
Now you just say it's theft, without specifying theft of what. I presume you're now ready to weasel into saying something like "theft of potential income." That's still not stealing.
It's not depriving of mere *potential* income if the thief actually *uses* the intellectual or creative property he's stealing.
If somebody wants to give their songs or productions of songs away for free, that's their business. The RIAA specifically exists to protect the rights of a certain class of music creators, producers, and owners thereof. They are protecting what is ethically and legally theirs. If they decide to give it away for free, that's their decision to make. It is not your decision. If someone takes what doesn't belong to him without permission, it is theft, ethically and legally.
Most of those "60 million people" didn't produce the music. They have no legal or ethical right to the creative works of others without their permission. If I write a song, you don't own it. I do. And I can sell the rights if I choose to anyone I wish. It's my choice, not yours. The copyright laws exist to protect my property. RIAA exists to protect the legal and ethical rights of the music business, of those who ethically and lawfully own the music. If you want to own music, then create it, or buy it. Don't steal it. Would you like someone to steal your property?
Copyright violation, particularly this kind of intentional *piracy*, is theft, legally and ethically. The RIAA would not have to resort to the lawsuits and other extreme tactics if the thieves would simply stop stealing.
Sure, everyone is tired of the RIAA ranting, raving, and suing. The only sure way to stop the RIAA from all of this is for people to stop stealing music. (Duh.) RIAA is doing what they are suppose to do: protect the owners of the music.
If SCO Group actually distributed Linux with the code they alledge to have been improperly copied into the Linux kernel, then SCO Group has put itself in a double bind because they have been loudly protesting in effect that "our IP is in the Linux kernel because there is no intellectual property screening for the Linux kernel", etc.
The question is: did SCO Group themselves inspect the Linux source code before they themselves distributed it, looking for IP violations? If so,
why didn't they find the breach and halt distributions of their Linux, thereby keeping the GPL from kicking in against the alledged IP? If they did no IP inspections, then they are materially guilty of the *very same* practice that they accuse the rest of the Linux developers of: no inspections of the code for IP violations before distibution. Hence the the double bind. When you distibute something that you have the source code for, and could inspect freely, you have given your tacit approval.
If there is SCO Group IP in the Linux kernel, SCO Group GPL'd when they distributed the Linux kernel. However, they answer this, they lose, and Linux wins.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the real "best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems" is for SCO to demonstrate their claims publicly so that users will either be willing to pay for the use of SCO IP, or switch to another OS (like a Linux that has had any SCO code removed.) But of course, SCO is not interested in Linux being SCO-code free. They are interested in keeping SCO code (if there is any) in Linux and using FUD to shakedown fearful slobs who don't understand the law.
If your boss won't go for Linux, don't cave in (if you can help it) and get M$ XP server. Use another Free OS. Resist SCO *and* M$ benefitting from this fiasco.
Rage against the Machine
And the FUD hits the fan. And M$ will be there to comform the mourners.
I particularly thought this statement was ludicrous: "every new washing machine, for instance, could have its own IP address, allowing it to alert a service person electronically of a needed repair before it stopped working in the middle of a cycle." This is utter nonsense. Devices such as these don't need fixed IP addresses. They could be allocated on damand, or hang off a single IP, whenever needed, as is already being done all over the place. The guy acknowledges this, and his redactor exampled is a friggen washing machine??? How remarkably stupid. Moreover, while IP address are limited to 32 bits, the concept of ports multiplies this by 65536! (Granted some ports are reserved.) This amounts to more than 280 trillion unique socket addresses. A given device (like a washer, or your toaster) doesn't need all the ports to a single fixed IP, even if it had a fixed IP which it doesn't need in the first place. Another non-problem to not worry about.
From what I heard in the cnet interview McBride essentially declared the GPL is not enforceable since SCO did not "sign" rights away according to copyright law.
Piss on their graves is more like it.
McBride disputed the GPL issue. He claims that the copyright law requires a "signing away" of rights, and thus GPL is not enforcable. I guess we shall we about that.
And when they do become public, you might not be able to find what you're looking for if the copyright holder is a trustee of some sort.
Before any code can be used as evidence in a lawsuit, the code must be registered with the US Copyright Office as a matter of course. Basically, the courts say "don't waste our time unless you at least have a registered copyright." Of course, merely having a copyright proves little.
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahah !!! (ad nauseam) This is the funniest thing I've heard all month.
You are mistaken. Piracy (unauthorized duplication of copyrighted materials) is a felony in certain cases where the value exceeds certain amounts. The sites that do a lot of music "sharing" are typically way over the limits. Hence the recent prosecution of several offenders. What this new bill proposes to do is make it a felony to pirate music at *any* level. For those worried about it, just stop illegally "sharing" the copyrighted works of others, and you have nothing to worry about.
Sharing is good, when it's your own property that you're sharing.
Just how much is a "fuckload", specially?
The "proper" thing to do is probably doing what your boss tells you to do.
I'm installing a jacuzzi and a fish tank.
If I write a song, you don't own it.I do. Again, pure bullshit. You own NOTHING. The song is not a piece of property to be bought and sold...
Fortunately, the law disagrees with you. If you don't like the law, lobby to have it changed. But at least know what the law is, and why is exists. I'm thankful that the founders of United States recognized the right of creators of art to control their creations.
Firstly, copyright law is a federal matter, and local police have no juridiction. Secondly, pirating music is a federal felony according to 17 U.S.C. 506 and 18 U.S.C. 2319 if the quanity of pirated music is 10 or more copies with a value of $2500 within a 180 day period. Most downloaders of music probably don't fall into the category, however, many illegal online distributors do.
The first definition of stealing in the Webster's American Dictionary is: to take the property of another wihout permission or right, esp. secretly or by force.
No mention of "physical" there. At any rate, the law is the law. Intellectual and creative works are treated as personal property under federal law. And for good reason.
Now you just say it's theft, without specifying theft of what. I presume you're now ready to weasel into saying something like "theft of potential income." That's still not stealing.
It's not depriving of mere *potential* income if the thief actually *uses* the intellectual or creative property he's stealing.
If somebody wants to give their songs or productions of songs away for free, that's their business. The RIAA specifically exists to protect the rights of a certain class of music creators, producers, and owners thereof. They are protecting what is ethically and legally theirs. If they decide to give it away for free, that's their decision to make. It is not your decision. If someone takes what doesn't belong to him without permission, it is theft, ethically and legally.
Most of those "60 million people" didn't produce the music. They have no legal or ethical right to the creative works of others without their permission. If I write a song, you don't own it. I do. And I can sell the rights if I choose to anyone I wish. It's my choice, not yours. The copyright laws exist to protect my property. RIAA exists to protect the legal and ethical rights of the music business, of those who ethically and lawfully own the music. If you want to own music, then create it, or buy it. Don't steal it. Would you like someone to steal your property?
Copyright violation, particularly this kind of intentional *piracy*, is theft, legally and ethically. The RIAA would not have to resort to the lawsuits and other extreme tactics if the thieves would simply stop stealing.
Sure, everyone is tired of the RIAA ranting, raving, and suing. The only sure way to stop the RIAA from all of this is for people to stop stealing music. (Duh.) RIAA is doing what they are suppose to do: protect the owners of the music.
If SCO Group actually distributed Linux with the code they alledge to have been improperly copied into the Linux kernel, then SCO Group has put itself in a double bind because they have been loudly protesting in effect that "our IP is in the Linux kernel because there is no intellectual property screening for the Linux kernel", etc. The question is: did SCO Group themselves inspect the Linux source code before they themselves distributed it, looking for IP violations? If so, why didn't they find the breach and halt distributions of their Linux, thereby keeping the GPL from kicking in against the alledged IP? If they did no IP inspections, then they are materially guilty of the *very same* practice that they accuse the rest of the Linux developers of: no inspections of the code for IP violations before distibution. Hence the the double bind. When you distibute something that you have the source code for, and could inspect freely, you have given your tacit approval. If there is SCO Group IP in the Linux kernel, SCO Group GPL'd when they distributed the Linux kernel. However, they answer this, they lose, and Linux wins.
Windows, 3.1 and prior, was originally developed in 16-bit 8088 assembly, as was the MS-DOS it rode upon.