I currently subscribe to both AudioGalaxy's Rhapsody service and to the emusic.com service.
I don't use p2p at all.
The nice thing about emusic.com is that for a fixed price per month (approximately $15 based on a 3 month contract), I can download and burn all the CDs I want. My music tastes are quite varied (classical, jazz, country, new age, easy listening, folk, gospel, rock, and some that aren't so easy to categorize) and so I get my money's worth from that service.
Actually, I don't usually burn the CD as an audio CD. Instead, I write the mp3's to a CD and play it in a DVD/CD player. That way, I get about 8 or 9 albums on one CD.
Rhapsody is nice for the more in depth selections in many of those categories. They do have a CD burning option, but I've never used it. I think it is something like 79 cents a track.
As far as the question you are asking, how much I'd be willing to pay would really depend on the music and how much I wanted it.
If I really wanted it, even $1.50 per track wouldn't be bad. But part of that is due to the fact that the nearest record store with a decent selection is about 100 miles away and I only make it there once every year or two. If there was a record store nearby, the downloaded music would probably have to be about $7 to $10 for the entire album to tempt me.
But I'm probably not at all your typical purchaser.
Except that for sound recordings, the right to copy is exclusively the right of the copyright holder according to Title 17.
What personal backups of sound recordings have been upheld by the court under the "fair use" doctrine? I certainly haven't heard of any.
Remember that the right to backup software is expressly permitted by Title 17. There is no express permission granted to backup sound recordings in Title 17.
Therefore, my question is: do consumers have a legal right to make backup copies of their own software?
That's easy. The answer is Yes for the simple reason that Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117:
Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2)
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
When you buy the album, you're buying a right to copy that copy for personal backup.
That's what a lot of people believe. You can do it for software (Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117, paragraph (a)(2)), but that doesn't cover music albums.
So far, I have yet to find anything in the sound recordings portion of Title 17 that makes me think we can legally make copies of music CDs.
It does seem rather unlikely that you are going to get busted for making a backup copy of your CDs.
I suspect that in many cases, they never even listen to it.
At least, there are numerous reports of individuals downloading 30 gigabytes or more of music each month.
Let's assume you download about 30 gigabytes of music a month, or about 1 gigabyte per day.
Assume that each song is about 3 minutes long and about 3 megabytes long.
Then you'd have 333 new songs each day to listen to and it would take about 1,000 minutes (999, actually) to listen to them all. That's about 16 and 2/3 hours per day.
It makes me wonder why they'd burn it on a disk. They don't have time to listen to the disk afterwards.
I suspect most ISPs delete their logs after a relatively short period of time. I know that most of our ISP's logs are deleted after a few days unless there is a compelling reason to save them for longer.
When an ISP receives a subpoena to identify a user at a particular IP address at a particular time, what problems could an ISP have if they no longer have the logs?
Should the ISP maybe keep the logs longer when there is no real need for them?
My guess is that there is no problem. Just say, "We delete those logs after 5 days." or something like that.
What would happen if an ISP shortened the time it kept the logs to reduce the chances it would have to identify a customer? Assume, of course, that the logs were deleted prior to the request, not after.
Would there be any problems with the ISP giving the customer an immediate heads-up that so and so was asking for information about them and providing the information to the requesting entity on the last day of the time to respond?
What if an ISP just quits logging all that information entirely?
Why is there such a huge disparity between copyright and patents?
In the case of copyright, it seems that most of the income from the subject matter is going to be in the first year or two after it is released.
In a few cases, it may be longer, but over time the amount of money it brings in will usually dwindle to nearly zero or even to zero.
On the other hand, most of the money from patents is going to be in the mid to long term. It seems like many patents expire shortly before or about the time they are starting to become commercially viable.
Yet, patents have a relatively short lifetime and copyrights have a very long lifetime. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I think that courts are generally not going to be very impressed by behavior designed to maximize damages rather than to minimize damages.
If SCO were to identify the code immediately in order to give everyone a chance to analyze it for possible infringements and remove that which is infringing, a judge might be more likely to grant them damages.
It's kind of like if your next door neighbor threw a rock through your bedroom window. The proper thing to do is to repair or replace the window immediately. If you wait two years for the trial, you may have suffered from quite a bit of water damage, but it is extremely unlikely that your neighbor is going to have to pay for those damages since they were from your own failure to mitigate damages and not from his willful misconduct.
Now you're left with two distinct types of users, both much more prevalent than the previous examples. First, you have people running Linux on production machines or machines that otherwise need to remain stable. Not only does updating the kernel mean downtime for a reboot (if you're only allowed ~15 minutes of downtime a year, a reboot can cut into a huge chunk of that budget), but this is new code. Adequate stress testing would need to be performed, pushing deployment back several weeks (assuming that no issues crop up to delay the deployment). The remaining type of user encompasses everything from the greenest newbie to non-zealot power users. They're the people that either don't know (newbies) or don't care (people that want to get work done, rather than spending all of their time compiling and deploying kernels). The latter can be mitigated somewhat with the auto-update tools available now, but those still require user intervention.
However, presumably anyone running such code is probably using an older version without the so-called offending code in it. Anything they have with the latest code would likely be in testing and not running production equipment.
I am distressed that most of the anti-SCO argument seems to be based on the fact that SCO continued to publish Linux after claiming infringement.
Actually, that's just a minor aside to the argument.
The real qeustion is "Could Linux developers or users have any liability to SCO?"
So far, the answer is clearly "NO". There is no possibility of any Linux developer (apart from IBM) or users having any liabilities based on everything we have seen.
The so-called SCO code in Linux has, so far, been the intellectual property of IBM, not SCO. SCO's argument is that because IBM used it in AIX, that IBM is somehow not allowed to apply their intellectual property to any other use outside of AIX.
While it is possible that SCO might prevail, they would have to prevail against IBM primarily for using their code in violation of their contract. If it was a violation of the contract, and I seriously doubt it, than IBM would be the only ones on the hook because of their contract violation.
The rest of us do not have contracts with SCO and have done nothing to violate any contracts with SCO. In other words, we have no duty to SCO for using any code contributed to Linux by another party when that party owns the code in question.
By the way, has anyone called IBM's sales line number (888-746-7426 if I remember correctly) but with an 800 instead of an 888? It's a sex line! That really threw me for a loop when ordering a motherboard to replace one done in by lightning.
Maybe SCO lifted the code from Linux but figured that using all of it was suspicious.
So one upper level manager who didn't know anything about code might have told a mid level manager to remove 2 of every 3 lines of code in what they were copying.
Of course, it wouldn't have worked so they would have had to go back and write their own version of the code they removed. (Maybe they forgot to make a copy of it before removing the code.)
As for Central Module, that sounds like something they might have seen in the movie Tron.
Notice how he is trying to gloss over the fact that the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) from the 90s was a completely different company than the SCO (formerly Caldera) of today?
I wonder if his next item on the agenda is to change the name of SCO to Edsel and sue Ford for ruining his automobile business.
What is omitted from this discussion, and what Eben certainly must already know, is that if SCO redistributes in good faith Free products that it receives from the community, then the illegal inclusion by a third party of material copyrighted by SCO does not in any way lessen SCO's claim to that copyright.
Assume that is true (I don't know that it is since it is reasonable that they should perform some due diligence). SCO would still have to take immediate steps upon learning of the problem to protect their trade secrets. That they continue to distribute Linux should indicate that they are not making any attempt to protect their trade secrets. Assuming they continue to distribute Linux with the GPL included, it seems likely that they are are in fact agreeing with the GPL.
Or did they claim they had evidence of infringements but refuse to provide any details of the infringements?
Given the behavior that we've seen from SCO, it seems probable that SCO probably just made a bunch of demands without providing any justification for those demands.
I wasn't aware of the timing, but according to the article, SCO's McBride said:
When IBM walked away from Project Monterey it put a dagger into the heart of SCO. Santa Cruz Operation lost its heart at that point and sold its business to Caldera. Caldera tried to run it as a commercial business. That didn't work and it was nearly flat-lined when we took over last year.
Let's see. He's saying that IBM quit working on Project Monterey before Caldera bought Santa Cruz Operation's UNIX rights. That Santa Cruz Operation sold the rights precisely because they weren't as worth much at that point.
But part of SCO's lawsuit against IBM is SCO's claim that because IBM quit working on Project Monterey, IBM is conducting anti-competitive behavior.
Since SCO knew about this at the time they bought it, then surely, the price SCO paid for those rights was already discounted because IBM was no longer pursuing Project Monterey.
It's kind of like buying a junked car that had been damaged in a collision and then suing the driver of the other vehicle for wrecking your car. It was already wrecked when you bought the car! At best, the seller might have had a claim against the other driver, but not the seller.
If SCO wins, maybe we should buy the salvage rights to a World War II navy vessel sunk in a World War II battle. Then we can sue Japan for the full cost of the ship plus interest and penalties because they sunk our boat.
Copying songs from a CD you own to another medium such as your computer or onto another CD for your personal use only is still a violation of the copyright law.
Many people confuse that somehow with making a backup copy. There is no fair use exemption involved.
It is very unlikely you would be caught.
There are, of course, some limited exceptions.
For example, if the CD contains a non-dramatic literary work, some organizations are allowed to make copies for distribution to the blind to be used solely by the blind.
Libraries and archives have a greater deal of latitude as well.
SCO clearly doesn't want to identify the allegedly infringing code. I guess they'd prefer to have everyone pay them royalties.
I'd bet that it hurts their case. They have a duty, I think, to ameliorate damages. They are doing nothing to ameliorate damages and everything to propagate damages.
So one argument in the ulikely event that SCO should file suit against somene and prevail is that SCO could have limited the damages and since they have made every attempt to not limit the damages, they are entitle to none at all.
As someone pointed out a few days ago, the judge who was appointed to hear the case did just that on another case. Then, one writer wrote a book and sent a copy to another writer along with a note asking him to look through it and let him know if he had any problems with the similarities to his book.
After the writer went on to write another couple of books, the other writer filed suit against him for copyright infringement.
The judge ruled that the second writer had plenty of opportunity to object. Since the second writer didn't take that opportunity to object, the judge either dismissed the case (with prejudice, I assume) or found for the defendant (I don't remember which).
I think that SCO is going for broke. They have taken no action at all that would indicate that they want the infringements to stop.
They are either going to win big or lose big, most probably the latter.
For what it's worth, I don't see any need to remove the said code, at least in that which has already been reported. The code is clearly the property of IBM, not SCO and it is clearly not a derivative work of System V. SCO has no sayso over what IBM does with the code just because they added it to a derivative work of System V first.
In the very unlikely event that SCO should win, it would likely be based on a contract breach finding that IBM did not have the right to distribute their code solely because of the contract. That is, the problem with the code distribution would be strictly between IBM and SCO. Noone else is involved. It's not stolen property in any form or fasion and there should be no requirement whatsoever for those of us using the code IBM distributed to pay any royalties to SCO.
It would only be problematical if IBM improperly distributed code actually owned by SCO.
Linus certainly recognizes this based on his reported comments in the press:
As far as I can tell, SCO doesn't have any IP claims. Their lawsuit isn't about IP claims; it's about some contract dispute with IBM. The only IP issues they have brought up in a verifiable way has been the RCU [Read Copy Update, a way to access data structures that may be changing on multiple CPUs with less locking than normal] work that IBM did, and that SCO doesn't have any IP rights to that I can see: the patents are all IBM, and the code was written by (and thus copyrighted by) IBM too. Well, it was Sequent at the time, but they're all IBM now.
SCO is now saying they have no intention of suing Linux distributors!
From http://www.computerwire.info/brnews/6FF3308412856B 4D80256D4E005D45FA
(Last time I pasted in a URL, it inserted a space. So if you can't connect, look for spaces)
Linux distributors are safe from legal action by The SCO Group Inc, because the company does not want to destroy Linux, according to SCO's SVP and general manager of the SCOsource intellectual property enforcement division, Chris Sontag....
"One of the reasons we haven't launched a suit against a Linux distributor is because of the GPL [open source General Public License]," Sontag told ComputerWire. "It would blow up the GPL and destroy Linux and we do not want to do that."
However, they still appear to want "licensing fees"
One solution may be a new kind of licensing mechanism for the SCO Unix code, he said, although there remain issues with the GPL that complicate how such a mechanism might be implemented. Sontag said SCO's effort was focused on identifying Linux intellectual property issues and possible mechanisms through which future problems could be prevented.
Also, notice here that they are now saying the "infringing code" is from AIX and Dynix:
"There is derivative code from AIX and Sequent Dynix [in Linux], there has also been contribution of derivative code from other licensees, and there has also been Unix System V code directly copied into Linux line by line," said Sontag.
In other words, SCO now seems to be saying that the so-called infringements are from AIX and Dynix instead of System V.
What they still aren't saying is those so-called infringements are of code written by Sequent and IBM, owned by Sequent and IBM, copyrighted by Sequent and IBM, and is theirs to do with as they wish.
While AIX and Sequent Dynix are derivative works of System V, they have a long way to convince me that the IBM/Sequent modifications are derivative works of System V.
It's a contract dispute with IBM based on definitions that have extremely interpreted to SCO's benefit and in ways that I suspect have rarely, if ever, been interpreted before.
Also in the article:
Asked if this meant that SCO was considering lawsuits against other Unix vendors Sontag was more reserved. "Potentially," he said.
This brings up the obvious questions:
1) Are they talking about other flavors of UNIX that have IBM/Sequent code? For that matter, are there other flavors of Linux have the IBM/Sequent code?
or
2) Have they found other so-called infringements apart from the IBM/Sequent code? Are they claiming, as it sometimes seems, that if System V and another UNIX has a few identical lines of code, there is necessarily an infringement regardless of the actual source of the code?
I wasn't arguing that they would be considered derivative works under copyright law. I was merely using the most appropriate and definitive definition of the phrase that I have found.
Bear in mind that the licensing agreements do not define "derivative work", but they use that phrase a lot.
SCO is interpreting the phrase "derivative work" in such a way as to give them complete control over any software developed by any of their licensees if the software was packaged with System V or its derivatives.
Note that SCO's original complaint was rather vague about the issues. It just claimed that there were significant levels of infringement by IBM without providing any indicaiton.
Then, a week before the day of reckoning (June 13), they started "showing" the code to people. But they maintained complete control over what they showed and the NDA was restrictive over what those who saw the code could say. Sure enough, the early reports from analysts were on the order of "SCO appears to have a strong case".
Between that, the 1500 letters, the refusal to identify the code, and all their blustering, and the only logical conclusion is that SCO is, at best, just running a big bluff in hopes that IBM would hurry up and settle before they could realize how weak SCO's case is.
At this point, it should look real bleak for SCO. IBM didn't settle and the details of the claimed infringements are being discovered and publicly discussed.
Copyright issues are nonexistent since SCO doesn't own the copyrights on the code -- IBM does. SCO doesn't own the code -- IBM does. The only thing that SCO has is a contract that requires IBM to keep confidential any derivative works of System V Unix. To succeed in this matter, they have no choice but to argue that IBM/Sequent's own code that was added to System V is itself a derivative work of System V.
Admittedly, there are other causes of action in the lawsuit. This alleged breach of their agreement is only the first cause of action.
The second cause of action is that IBM is failing to abide by SCO's termination of the agreement. But at best, SCO cannot terminate the agreement without strong reason. I think that the second cause of action requires success in the first cause of action to be successful.
The third cause of action is the breach of SCO's agreement with Sequent. That goes straight back to the definition of "derivative work" again. If SCO can't redefine the phrase as they wish, the cause of action fails.
The fourth cause of action is that of unfair competition. They are arguing that IBM is doing their best to destroy UNIX. A large part of the argument is based once again on the alleged breach of contract by publically releasing a protected derivative work. There's also the sour grapes over their joint work on Project Monterey that IBM is no longer pursuing.
The fifth cause of action is particularly interesting. In it, SCO is arguing that IBm has
IBM, directly and through its Linux distribution partners, has intentionally and without justification induced SCO's customers and licensees to breach their corporate licensing agreements, including but not limited to, inducing the customers to reverse engineer, decompile, translate, create derivative works, modify or otherwise use the UNIX software in ways in violation of the license agreements. These customers include Sherwin Williams, Papa John's Pizza, and Auto Zone, among others.
My guess is that means that those companies wrote some software to run on System V UNIX and IBM convinced them to modify it to run on Linux.
The sixth cause of action is over the misappropriation of trade secrets. If you read Exhibit C of SCO's lawsuit, you'll see that IBM is specifically allowed to use what they learned from System V as long as they do not directly copy code from System V and as long as they do reference certain proprietary documentation while doing the development work.
So for the most pa
Re:stop this SCO spam on slashdot
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
Spam is unsolicited, bulk e-mail.
1) How are you reading this by e-mail? 2) When were you added to the list without your authorization?
Slashdot Mirror
I have very few albums that have any filler at all.
But then, I don't buy the album just to listen to the popular songs (i.e. the songs that the record companies are promoting).
I currently subscribe to both AudioGalaxy's Rhapsody service and to the emusic.com service.
I don't use p2p at all.
The nice thing about emusic.com is that for a fixed price per month (approximately $15 based on a 3 month contract), I can download and burn all the CDs I want. My music tastes are quite varied (classical, jazz, country, new age, easy listening, folk, gospel, rock, and some that aren't so easy to categorize) and so I get my money's worth from that service.
Actually, I don't usually burn the CD as an audio CD. Instead, I write the mp3's to a CD and play it in a DVD/CD player. That way, I get about 8 or 9 albums on one CD.
Rhapsody is nice for the more in depth selections in many of those categories. They do have a CD burning option, but I've never used it. I think it is something like 79 cents a track.
As far as the question you are asking, how much I'd be willing to pay would really depend on the music and how much I wanted it.
If I really wanted it, even $1.50 per track wouldn't be bad. But part of that is due to the fact that the nearest record store with a decent selection is about 100 miles away and I only make it there once every year or two. If there was a record store nearby, the downloaded music would probably have to be about $7 to $10 for the entire album to tempt me.
But I'm probably not at all your typical purchaser.
Except that for sound recordings, the right to copy is exclusively the right of the copyright holder according to Title 17.
What personal backups of sound recordings have been upheld by the court under the "fair use" doctrine? I certainly haven't heard of any.
Remember that the right to backup software is expressly permitted by Title 17. There is no express permission granted to backup sound recordings in Title 17.
Check out Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 114.
That's easy. The answer is Yes for the simple reason that Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117:
That's what a lot of people believe. You can do it for software (Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117, paragraph (a)(2)), but that doesn't cover music albums.
So far, I have yet to find anything in the sound recordings portion of Title 17 that makes me think we can legally make copies of music CDs.
It does seem rather unlikely that you are going to get busted for making a backup copy of your CDs.
I suspect that in many cases, they never even listen to it.
At least, there are numerous reports of individuals downloading 30 gigabytes or more of music each month.
Let's assume you download about 30 gigabytes of music a month, or about 1 gigabyte per day.
Assume that each song is about 3 minutes long and about 3 megabytes long.
Then you'd have 333 new songs each day to listen to and it would take about 1,000 minutes (999, actually) to listen to them all. That's about 16 and 2/3 hours per day.
It makes me wonder why they'd burn it on a disk. They don't have time to listen to the disk afterwards.
I suspect most ISPs delete their logs after a relatively short period of time. I know that most of our ISP's logs are deleted after a few days unless there is a compelling reason to save them for longer.
When an ISP receives a subpoena to identify a user at a particular IP address at a particular time, what problems could an ISP have if they no longer have the logs?
Should the ISP maybe keep the logs longer when there is no real need for them?
My guess is that there is no problem. Just say, "We delete those logs after 5 days." or something like that.
What would happen if an ISP shortened the time it kept the logs to reduce the chances it would have to identify a customer? Assume, of course, that the logs were deleted prior to the request, not after.
Would there be any problems with the ISP giving the customer an immediate heads-up that so and so was asking for information about them and providing the information to the requesting entity on the last day of the time to respond?
What if an ISP just quits logging all that information entirely?
Why is there such a huge disparity between copyright and patents?
In the case of copyright, it seems that most of the income from the subject matter is going to be in the first year or two after it is released.
In a few cases, it may be longer, but over time the amount of money it brings in will usually dwindle to nearly zero or even to zero.
On the other hand, most of the money from patents is going to be in the mid to long term. It seems like many patents expire shortly before or about the time they are starting to become commercially viable.
Yet, patents have a relatively short lifetime and copyrights have a very long lifetime. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Which Linux distribution are you running?
I've run various versions of Red Hat Linux from 5.2 to 9.0 and never had any speed problems at all.
On the other hand, I've also run SuSE Linux and it was painfully slow.
I'd say that on a 233 MHz computer, Red Hat Linux is quite acceptable and SuSE Linux is not.
You can't?
There's one in the ports tree. But I never tried to build it.
I don't even bother to install X Windows on most of my OpenBSD machines.
I think that courts are generally not going to be very impressed by behavior designed to maximize damages rather than to minimize damages.
If SCO were to identify the code immediately in order to give everyone a chance to analyze it for possible infringements and remove that which is infringing, a judge might be more likely to grant them damages.
It's kind of like if your next door neighbor threw a rock through your bedroom window. The proper thing to do is to repair or replace the window immediately. If you wait two years for the trial, you may have suffered from quite a bit of water damage, but it is extremely unlikely that your neighbor is going to have to pay for those damages since they were from your own failure to mitigate damages and not from his willful misconduct.
However, presumably anyone running such code is probably using an older version without the so-called offending code in it. Anything they have with the latest code would likely be in testing and not running production equipment.
The real qeustion is "Could Linux developers or users have any liability to SCO?"
So far, the answer is clearly "NO". There is no possibility of any Linux developer (apart from IBM) or users having any liabilities based on everything we have seen.
The so-called SCO code in Linux has, so far, been the intellectual property of IBM, not SCO. SCO's argument is that because IBM used it in AIX, that IBM is somehow not allowed to apply their intellectual property to any other use outside of AIX.
While it is possible that SCO might prevail, they would have to prevail against IBM primarily for using their code in violation of their contract. If it was a violation of the contract, and I seriously doubt it, than IBM would be the only ones on the hook because of their contract violation.
The rest of us do not have contracts with SCO and have done nothing to violate any contracts with SCO. In other words, we have no duty to SCO for using any code contributed to Linux by another party when that party owns the code in question.
By the way, has anyone called IBM's sales line number (888-746-7426 if I remember correctly) but with an 800 instead of an 888? It's a sex line! That really threw me for a loop when ordering a motherboard to replace one done in by lightning.
Maybe SCO lifted the code from Linux but figured that using all of it was suspicious.
So one upper level manager who didn't know anything about code might have told a mid level manager to remove 2 of every 3 lines of code in what they were copying.
Of course, it wouldn't have worked so they would have had to go back and write their own version of the code they removed. (Maybe they forgot to make a copy of it before removing the code.)
As for Central Module, that sounds like something they might have seen in the movie Tron.
Notice how he is trying to gloss over the fact that the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) from the 90s was a completely different company than the SCO (formerly Caldera) of today?
I wonder if his next item on the agenda is to change the name of SCO to Edsel and sue Ford for ruining his automobile business.
Assume that is true (I don't know that it is since it is reasonable that they should perform some due diligence). SCO would still have to take immediate steps upon learning of the problem to protect their trade secrets. That they continue to distribute Linux should indicate that they are not making any attempt to protect their trade secrets. Assuming they continue to distribute Linux with the GPL included, it seems likely that they are are in fact agreeing with the GPL.
Did SCO attempt to resolve the differences?
Or did they claim they had evidence of infringements but refuse to provide any details of the infringements?
Given the behavior that we've seen from SCO, it seems probable that SCO probably just made a bunch of demands without providing any justification for those demands.
I wasn't aware of the timing, but according to the article, SCO's McBride said:
Let's see. He's saying that IBM quit working on Project Monterey before Caldera bought Santa Cruz Operation's UNIX rights. That Santa Cruz Operation sold the rights precisely because they weren't as worth much at that point.
But part of SCO's lawsuit against IBM is SCO's claim that because IBM quit working on Project Monterey, IBM is conducting anti-competitive behavior.
Since SCO knew about this at the time they bought it, then surely, the price SCO paid for those rights was already discounted because IBM was no longer pursuing Project Monterey.
It's kind of like buying a junked car that had been damaged in a collision and then suing the driver of the other vehicle for wrecking your car. It was already wrecked when you bought the car! At best, the seller might have had a claim against the other driver, but not the seller.
If SCO wins, maybe we should buy the salvage rights to a World War II navy vessel sunk in a World War II battle. Then we can sue Japan for the full cost of the ship plus interest and penalties because they sunk our boat.
Copying songs from a CD you own to another medium such as your computer or onto another CD for your personal use only is still a violation of the copyright law.
Many people confuse that somehow with making a backup copy. There is no fair use exemption involved.
It is very unlikely you would be caught.
There are, of course, some limited exceptions.
For example, if the CD contains a non-dramatic literary work, some organizations are allowed to make copies for distribution to the blind to be used solely by the blind.
Libraries and archives have a greater deal of latitude as well.
I hope not.
That would immediately convert it from a civil violation to a criminal violation with possible time in a federal prison.
SCO clearly doesn't want to identify the allegedly infringing code. I guess they'd prefer to have everyone pay them royalties.
I'd bet that it hurts their case. They have a duty, I think, to ameliorate damages. They are doing nothing to ameliorate damages and everything to propagate damages.
So one argument in the ulikely event that SCO should file suit against somene and prevail is that SCO could have limited the damages and since they have made every attempt to not limit the damages, they are entitle to none at all.
As someone pointed out a few days ago, the judge who was appointed to hear the case did just that on another case. Then, one writer wrote a book and sent a copy to another writer along with a note asking him to look through it and let him know if he had any problems with the similarities to his book.
After the writer went on to write another couple of books, the other writer filed suit against him for copyright infringement.
The judge ruled that the second writer had plenty of opportunity to object. Since the second writer didn't take that opportunity to object, the judge either dismissed the case (with prejudice, I assume) or found for the defendant (I don't remember which).
I think that SCO is going for broke. They have taken no action at all that would indicate that they want the infringements to stop.
They are either going to win big or lose big, most probably the latter.
For what it's worth, I don't see any need to remove the said code, at least in that which has already been reported. The code is clearly the property of IBM, not SCO and it is clearly not a derivative work of System V. SCO has no sayso over what IBM does with the code just because they added it to a derivative work of System V first.
In the very unlikely event that SCO should win, it would likely be based on a contract breach finding that IBM did not have the right to distribute their code solely because of the contract. That is, the problem with the code distribution would be strictly between IBM and SCO. Noone else is involved. It's not stolen property in any form or fasion and there should be no requirement whatsoever for those of us using the code IBM distributed to pay any royalties to SCO.
It would only be problematical if IBM improperly distributed code actually owned by SCO.
Linus certainly recognizes this based on his reported comments in the press:
SCO is now saying they have no intention of suing Linux distributors!
From http://www.computerwire.info/brnews/6FF3308412856B 4D80256D4E005D45FA
(Last time I pasted in a URL, it inserted a space. So if you can't connect, look for spaces)
However, they still appear to want "licensing fees"
Also, notice here that they are now saying the "infringing code" is from AIX and Dynix:
In other words, SCO now seems to be saying that the so-called infringements are from AIX and Dynix instead of System V.
What they still aren't saying is those so-called infringements are of code written by Sequent and IBM, owned by Sequent and IBM, copyrighted by Sequent and IBM, and is theirs to do with as they wish.
While AIX and Sequent Dynix are derivative works of System V, they have a long way to convince me that the IBM/Sequent modifications are derivative works of System V.
It's a contract dispute with IBM based on definitions that have extremely interpreted to SCO's benefit and in ways that I suspect have rarely, if ever, been interpreted before.
Also in the article:
This brings up the obvious questions:
1) Are they talking about other flavors of UNIX that have IBM/Sequent code? For that matter, are there other flavors of Linux have the IBM/Sequent code?
or
2) Have they found other so-called infringements apart from the IBM/Sequent code? Are they claiming, as it sometimes seems, that if System V and another UNIX has a few identical lines of code, there is necessarily an infringement regardless of the actual source of the code?
I wasn't arguing that they would be considered derivative works under copyright law. I was merely using the most appropriate and definitive definition of the phrase that I have found.
Bear in mind that the licensing agreements do not define "derivative work", but they use that phrase a lot.
SCO is interpreting the phrase "derivative work" in such a way as to give them complete control over any software developed by any of their licensees if the software was packaged with System V or its derivatives. Note that SCO's original complaint was rather vague about the issues. It just claimed that there were significant levels of infringement by IBM without providing any indicaiton.
Then, a week before the day of reckoning (June 13), they started "showing" the code to people. But they maintained complete control over what they showed and the NDA was restrictive over what those who saw the code could say. Sure enough, the early reports from analysts were on the order of "SCO appears to have a strong case".
Between that, the 1500 letters, the refusal to identify the code, and all their blustering, and the only logical conclusion is that SCO is, at best, just running a big bluff in hopes that IBM would hurry up and settle before they could realize how weak SCO's case is.
At this point, it should look real bleak for SCO. IBM didn't settle and the details of the claimed infringements are being discovered and publicly discussed.
Copyright issues are nonexistent since SCO doesn't own the copyrights on the code -- IBM does. SCO doesn't own the code -- IBM does. The only thing that SCO has is a contract that requires IBM to keep confidential any derivative works of System V Unix. To succeed in this matter, they have no choice but to argue that IBM/Sequent's own code that was added to System V is itself a derivative work of System V.
Admittedly, there are other causes of action in the lawsuit. This alleged breach of their agreement is only the first cause of action.
The second cause of action is that IBM is failing to abide by SCO's termination of the agreement. But at best, SCO cannot terminate the agreement without strong reason. I think that the second cause of action requires success in the first cause of action to be successful.
The third cause of action is the breach of SCO's agreement with Sequent. That goes straight back to the definition of "derivative work" again. If SCO can't redefine the phrase as they wish, the cause of action fails.
The fourth cause of action is that of unfair competition. They are arguing that IBM is doing their best to destroy UNIX. A large part of the argument is based once again on the alleged breach of contract by publically releasing a protected derivative work. There's also the sour grapes over their joint work on Project Monterey that IBM is no longer pursuing.
The fifth cause of action is particularly interesting. In it, SCO is arguing that IBm has
My guess is that means that those companies wrote some software to run on System V UNIX and IBM convinced them to modify it to run on Linux.
The sixth cause of action is over the misappropriation of trade secrets. If you read Exhibit C of SCO's lawsuit, you'll see that IBM is specifically allowed to use what they learned from System V as long as they do not directly copy code from System V and as long as they do reference certain proprietary documentation while doing the development work.
So for the most pa
Spam is unsolicited, bulk e-mail.
1) How are you reading this by e-mail?
2) When were you added to the list without your authorization?