Anyone who is stupid enough to sue me.
Come to think of it, don't know if a class action is really warrented, but I'm not sharing music, so the point is moot.
Later
cshark
That's one of the great things about this country. You can sue anyone you want for any reason, and the cards can fall where they will.
If the RIAA wants to sue me, they are more than welcome to try. Hear that RIAA flunkies, I'm saying you're free to sue me!
But there would be several major problems with it. First, I don't really listen to MP3's. I have a couple, but I can prove license and origin.
And the second, I don't think they would have the resources to find me even if I WAS sharing music files, which I'm not.
I do use Gnutella, but I only use it to distribute Microsoft patches and GNU Linux RPM type stuff. It's a very effective tool for that. I'm a big fan of the distributed bandwidth idea.
So like I said, they can try to sue me all they want. Last I checked this was a free country. But I certainly have the resources to stick up for myself if they tried. Let em. I would hit them with a counter suit and possibly a class action. I could tie up their lawyers for months, possibly years. It would be more expense than it was worth.
Especially when they would actually have to fabricate evidence in order to win.
As I understand it, there is already a virus out there doing that. It's not a worm though, more of an email thing. You've probably seen it in your inbox and deleted it.
I say, bring it the fuck on.
Let them sue people for the next two melinia. The funny thing about all of this is that they've lost more money on pointless litigation than they claim they've actually lost on file sharing. Am I the only one that finds that ironic?
That's asking for a lot.
First you have to fill out a form and send in your ID, which means you legally admit to file sharing in the first place. Makes it easy for them to know who you are, which they have had trouble with in the past. On top of that, they don't have root access into the systems. Seriously. They have to use customized tools to get the same data you and I can get. That means there is really no conclusive way of them actually knowing ANYTHING conclusively enough to really persue. So if you have a notorized document admitting to copyright infringement, wouldn't you think that makes you MORE likely to get sued by the RIAA? Bastards are slippery.
Notice the tone of the whole thing. Sounds to me like someone at the canopy group figured out that this is going to lose them lots of monkey. I'm glad. But they should have known better than to allow this to happen in the first place.
I think it's safe to say that Linux is inherently more secure out of the box. But then again, I've locked down windows boxes pretty tight in the past.
The thing to remember is that a bad configuration is a bad configuration, and as much as I hate to admit it, I've seen some seriously bad linux configurations before. There was one a couple of years ago that had everything running as root. I think it actually did manage to catch a virus by the way (yes there are a couple of them out there).
But what I love about Linux is that I don't have to treat a Nimda attack every time I install the thing. Windows usually ends up coming down with something serious in under 30 minutes on a default install. Assuming you're dumb enough to hook it up to the network.
So I was dealing with this problem for a couple of years and it occured to me that almost every virus uses tftp as it's transport method of choice. So I deleted tftp.exe, and I haven't had a virus with Windows since. Well, not a worm virus anyway.
But it only means it can no longer be protected under free speach if it's a trade secret. There's no way anyone can claim this is a trade secret anymore. And there are still high courts in other states that haven't weighed in on this yet. At some point, the court will make the right decision. But this usually takes a couple of dacades, historically.
Well, your message denouncing patents on conecpts violated my "METHOD FOR DENOUNCING PATENTS WHEN APPLIED TO CONCEPTS AND BUSINESS PROCESSES ON A PUBLIC FORUM OR MESSAGE BOARD" patent.
Even though slashdot is not actually a message board, it still applies because message board means "web site," and you should know that. Shame on you.
You can pay me now, or risk costly litigation which you could not possibly win, because my lawyers are bigger and sexier than your lawyers. So there:-P
I only wish everything they said could be translated into german and back. It actually makes them sound like pissed off japanese business people. And what good does that do, you ask? Japanese business people are so much funnier than the home grown variety.
Why are your co-workers using a consumer messaging client at work? Do you have any idea how dangerous that is?
Aside from the fact that you could be leaking propriatary information to the world (via microsoft product, who's have thunk?), it's NOT designed for that.
If you're concerned about asking people to change their client, they should probably change their client anyway. Microsoft logs everything on their consumer networks, and they make no promises to keep your information confidential.
Read their TOS.
For this purpose, you're much better off with the Novell instant messenger, I think lotus has one too, or something that was specifically designed for a work place situation. Unless you like the risks associated with running on a consumer oriented network.
This whole thing smacks of the time AOL sued Microsoft for "hacking" on to their network with the MSN messenger service. There was a big hulubaloo, and then it was over.
As far as Gaim goes, Linux programs have never had trouble impersonating microsoft ones. It seems logical to me that anything they do would be easy to overcome.
Besides, MSN messenger is bottom rung anyway. If you're really concerned about having a an instant messenger for Linux, why not use ICQ?
They're not claiming actual code. They're claiming derivative code. That could be anything.
Especially with the dubious origin or SystemV.
Honestly, I would like to see them prove direct infringement. They're more likely to be able to prove their case that way.
They're claiming a lot of code that they think sort of kind of looks like their stuff, and therefore (in their minds) require a license agreement. Mcbride is starting to sounds like a man in a paper hat.
But the thing that gets me is the non specific ness of it all. Any judge would tell them to point out the infringing code, and allow it to be removed. Isn't that what happened in the BSD case a few years ago? Simply not pointing the code out is not an option. At some point Linux developers are going to need to see the code and remove it. S(C)O's idea of showing code to non programmers under NDA is just silly.
Yes, but the funny part about what the said at the conference was how removing the lines of code won't solve the problem. I would like to see how they get that one past a judge. Chalk up another media fiasco point for our evil friends at Evil Inc, I mean SCO.
Call me paranoid (you're paranoid cshark), but this whole thing smacks of a terrorist attack. I know the media is making sure everyone does't freak out and go running for cover, but this is the kind of thing that was outlined in the Alkaita handbook we all heard about a couple of years ago.
Ah, but how do you know they're pointing to the right place? With Mcbride's attitude of late, I'm thinking maybe they are trying to send the community on a wild gouse chase. Then again, this whole game of smoke and mirrors isn't doing anything for their credibility either.
Mcbride has some serious evil villain points going for him. The funny (or maybe sad) thing about this article is that it's not really that far from the truth. Love the fake analysis. I'm sure any fake trade publication would be happy to have you.
Slashdot Mirror
heh heh, really. Oli oli oxen free and such.
Anyone who is stupid enough to sue me. Come to think of it, don't know if a class action is really warrented, but I'm not sharing music, so the point is moot. Later cshark
That's one of the great things about this country. You can sue anyone you want for any reason, and the cards can fall where they will.
If the RIAA wants to sue me, they are more than welcome to try. Hear that RIAA flunkies, I'm saying you're free to sue me!
But there would be several major problems with it. First, I don't really listen to MP3's. I have a couple, but I can prove license and origin.
And the second, I don't think they would have the resources to find me even if I WAS sharing music files, which I'm not.
I do use Gnutella, but I only use it to distribute Microsoft patches and GNU Linux RPM type stuff. It's a very effective tool for that. I'm a big fan of the distributed bandwidth idea.
So like I said, they can try to sue me all they want. Last I checked this was a free country. But I certainly have the resources to stick up for myself if they tried. Let em. I would hit them with a counter suit and possibly a class action. I could tie up their lawyers for months, possibly years. It would be more expense than it was worth.
Especially when they would actually have to fabricate evidence in order to win.
No need. If they want me, they can find me. Oops, no they can't. But they can try.
As I understand it, there is already a virus out there doing that. It's not a worm though, more of an email thing. You've probably seen it in your inbox and deleted it. I say, bring it the fuck on. Let them sue people for the next two melinia. The funny thing about all of this is that they've lost more money on pointless litigation than they claim they've actually lost on file sharing. Am I the only one that finds that ironic?
That's asking for a lot. First you have to fill out a form and send in your ID, which means you legally admit to file sharing in the first place. Makes it easy for them to know who you are, which they have had trouble with in the past. On top of that, they don't have root access into the systems. Seriously. They have to use customized tools to get the same data you and I can get. That means there is really no conclusive way of them actually knowing ANYTHING conclusively enough to really persue. So if you have a notorized document admitting to copyright infringement, wouldn't you think that makes you MORE likely to get sued by the RIAA? Bastards are slippery.
Notice the tone of the whole thing. Sounds to me like someone at the canopy group figured out that this is going to lose them lots of monkey. I'm glad. But they should have known better than to allow this to happen in the first place.
I think it's safe to say that Linux is inherently more secure out of the box. But then again, I've locked down windows boxes pretty tight in the past.
The thing to remember is that a bad configuration is a bad configuration, and as much as I hate to admit it, I've seen some seriously bad linux configurations before. There was one a couple of years ago that had everything running as root. I think it actually did manage to catch a virus by the way (yes there are a couple of them out there).
But what I love about Linux is that I don't have to treat a Nimda attack every time I install the thing. Windows usually ends up coming down with something serious in under 30 minutes on a default install. Assuming you're dumb enough to hook it up to the network.
So I was dealing with this problem for a couple of years and it occured to me that almost every virus uses tftp as it's transport method of choice. So I deleted tftp.exe, and I haven't had a virus with Windows since. Well, not a worm virus anyway.
But it only means it can no longer be protected under free speach if it's a trade secret. There's no way anyone can claim this is a trade secret anymore. And there are still high courts in other states that haven't weighed in on this yet. At some point, the court will make the right decision. But this usually takes a couple of dacades, historically.
Well, your message denouncing patents on conecpts violated my "METHOD FOR DENOUNCING PATENTS WHEN APPLIED TO CONCEPTS AND BUSINESS PROCESSES ON A PUBLIC FORUM OR MESSAGE BOARD" patent. Even though slashdot is not actually a message board, it still applies because message board means "web site," and you should know that. Shame on you. You can pay me now, or risk costly litigation which you could not possibly win, because my lawyers are bigger and sexier than your lawyers. So there :-P
I only wish everything they said could be translated into german and back. It actually makes them sound like pissed off japanese business people. And what good does that do, you ask? Japanese business people are so much funnier than the home grown variety.
I wasn't aware of that one.
Why are your co-workers using a consumer messaging client at work? Do you have any idea how dangerous that is?
Aside from the fact that you could be leaking propriatary information to the world (via microsoft product, who's have thunk?), it's NOT designed for that.
If you're concerned about asking people to change their client, they should probably change their client anyway. Microsoft logs everything on their consumer networks, and they make no promises to keep your information confidential.
Read their TOS.
For this purpose, you're much better off with the
Novell instant messenger, I think lotus has one too, or something that was specifically designed for a work place situation. Unless you like the risks associated with running on a consumer oriented network.
That line about SCO smoking crack in the Linus interview was a classic.
This whole thing smacks of the time AOL sued Microsoft for "hacking" on to their network with the MSN messenger service. There was a big hulubaloo, and then it was over.
As far as Gaim goes,
Linux programs have never had trouble impersonating microsoft ones. It seems logical to me that anything they do would be easy to overcome.
Besides,
MSN messenger is bottom rung anyway. If you're really concerned about having a an instant messenger for Linux, why not use ICQ?
The thing that worries me about all this is that if they start threatening litigation, companies will pay regardless of factual basis of their claims.
They're not claiming actual code. They're claiming derivative code. That could be anything.
Especially with the dubious origin or SystemV.
Honestly, I would like to see them prove direct infringement. They're more likely to be able to prove their case that way.
They're claiming a lot of code that they think sort of kind of looks like their stuff, and therefore (in their minds) require a license agreement. Mcbride is starting to sounds like a man in a paper hat.
But the thing that gets me is the non specific ness of it all. Any judge would tell them to point out the infringing code, and allow it to be removed. Isn't that what happened in the BSD case a few years ago? Simply not pointing the code out is not an option. At some point Linux developers are going to need to see the code and remove it. S(C)O's idea of showing code to non programmers under NDA is just silly.
Yes, but the funny part about what the said at the conference was how removing the lines of code won't solve the problem. I would like to see how they get that one past a judge. Chalk up another media fiasco point for our evil friends at Evil Inc, I mean SCO.
Call me paranoid (you're paranoid cshark), but this whole thing smacks of a terrorist attack. I know the media is making sure everyone does't freak out and go running for cover, but this is the kind of thing that was outlined in the Alkaita handbook we all heard about a couple of years ago.
Yes, but if their case is as strong and undisputable as they say it is, then why would they even need to attack the validity of the GPL?
They are barely into the discovery phase of the law suit and they're already gasping for air?
This doesn't bode well for the credibility of the company.
Nou nou nou, you bouth have it wrong
Ah, but how do you know they're pointing to the right place? With Mcbride's attitude of late, I'm thinking maybe they are trying to send the community on a wild gouse chase. Then again, this whole game of smoke and mirrors isn't doing anything for their credibility either.
Mcbride has some serious evil villain points going for him. The funny (or maybe sad) thing about this article is that it's not really that far from the truth. Love the fake analysis. I'm sure any fake trade publication would be happy to have you.
Well, that would explain .NET wouldn't it. Esoteric code for the esoteric hobbyist. Kind of has a ring to it.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it looks like M$ just can't win. You'd think that with their legal budget, that they would win one once in awhile.
The more of these stupid patents that are left standing, the worse it is for the open source community, and everyone else for that matter.