|
|
| Judge Tells RIAA Attorney: "Stop Using Abusive Language, Like Calling File Sharing 'Piracy'" |
 |
|
Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:00 AM EST
|
Since Darl McBride compares SCO to the RIAA, perhaps he should take note of something that just happened in the current appeal of the Morpheus and Grokster case. One of the three judges told the RIAA attorney to stop using "abusive language", such as calling file-trading "piracy". Here's the exact language the judge used, which Copyfight transcribed and TechDirt brought to my attention (thank you Copyfight for the transcript. EFF has an mp3 of the arguments in court, by the way also. Say, I think Groklaw started something.): "Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."
The two sides are arguing the case now, because the RIAA didn't like the lower court's decision that non-centralized P2P software is not illegal: Judge Sidney R. Thomas, regarded as among the most technologically astute of the 9th Circuit judges, noted that users of the file-swapping networks could continue to trade files, even if Morpheus and Grokster were shut down immediately.
"If that's true, aren't we chasing the wind here?" asked Thomas.
Frackman countered that the Morpheus system would eventually degrade and file-swappers would lose interest. Meanwhile, Carey Ramos, a New York attorney representing songwriters, received a stern rebuke from Noonan to "curtail that use of abusive language," when he began to heatedly criticize the services as "trafficking in pirated goods."
The earlier Sony case came into the argument, because that case stands for the proposition that new technology is not to blame for illegal uses, so long as there are sufficient legal uses to which the technology can be put:One academic study found that 90 percent of the content exchanged on file-sharing networks is copyrighted, [RIAA lawyer] Frackman noted.
[Judge]Noonan pressed further, asking whether the authorized exchange of 10 percent of an estimated 750 million swapped files -- games, live recordings and public-domain works such as Shakespeare -- met the criteria the Supreme Court set forth in the Betamax case. "That sounds like a lot of non-infringing use to me."
Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, pointed out that the software is used to share not only Shakespeare but also licensed games and fans' live concert recordings, with the approval of bands like Phish and the Dave Matthews Band. I hope the SCOfolk pay attention. Their use of deliberately abusive language is very much the problem. They goad the community by such language on purpose because they want the community to react. Then if some overstressed and indignant kid does, they call up their press contacts and use it as Exhibit A. It's a lot like an analogy Groklaw reader Z sent me today. He compares it to dealing with a spoiled brat who torments and torments you and when you finally hit back, he squeals to his mommy and pretends he never did anything to provoke you, and *you* end up punished. If SCO wants to know why nobody likes them, here is the answer:
The reason Linux enthusiasts are so frustrated . . . about what people like McBride and Enderle are doing is because they commit acts of such unmitigated gall and get away with it, often turning the tables so that the Linux community looks guilty of being the attacker to the unwitting media.
It's much like being a a child riding to school with the neighbor and her brat of a kid. After he punches you in the knee a few times when she's not bothering to pay attention, she suddenly thinks you're a crazy juvenile delinquent when you begin throttling him.
Here is an example of the kind of reporting that makes the blood boil, from the BBC: But, in the case of the MyDoom computer worm, the motivation seems clearer. It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of emails sent from countless computers into which the worm had been insinuated, unbeknownst to the users.
There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system.
Little doubt? Come on, now. There seems every reason to doubt it. Linux geeks don't place keyloggers on your computers to grab your credit cards, or send out ibiblio spam, but professional spammers do, and Russian spammers have done exactly this before, including DDoS-ing companies, though in the past they targeted other companies, like Google, instead of SCO, who didn't put out a press release about it or get pushed off the internet or send a letter to Congress. The Moscow Times says MyDoom did come from Russia. They dealt with it like Microsoft has, with professional skill, without being knocked of the Internet, and
went on about their business. In fairness, the B version was apparently less effective.
The good thing about the media is they do sometimes print letters they receive in reaction to their stories. Evans was in the World Trade Center when it was hit on 9/11, by the way, so it's only natural he would feel strongly about any kind of illegal behavior to make a point. That likely influenced him to be inclined to believe the SCO FUD. I'm sure some friendly, fact-filled letters would be helpful in providing the BBC what they need to understand the story a bit better. And the BBC itself uses Linux. Groklaw reader Nick Bridge remembered the 1999 article in Linux Planet.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:15 AM EST |
The "put up or shutup" deadline that the Cyberknights laid down for
SCO's claim to Linux has expired. Anyone know what is happening?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SkArcher on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:17 AM EST |
I have offered to give them the "Linux Community"
viewpoint on the SCO case, the worm and so on. I doubt
they will take me up on the idea of *gasp* having an
balanced selection of representation, but on the off
chance they do so, I might well come asking for
contributive views, both here and on the IRC channel, if
that is okay?
tbh I feel that there needs to be some organised press
release department - otherwise this FUD will continue, and
will hurt us.
---
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:20 AM EST |
The link to the BBCs printed replies actually goes to the Guardian newspapers
printed replies column.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:23 AM EST |
I am hartened to see that there are in fact judges who will not take crap from
poeple who use FUD to drive their point.
I must admit I giggled when I read the article PJ, a slap in the face for the
type of FUD SCO generates is good to see. And it could not have happened to a
nicer bunch.:)
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Electric Dragon on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:28 AM EST |
| In addition to the feedback links mentioned, you can also suggest a
topic for open discussion on the BBC's Have Your Say section. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:21 AM EST |
Mitigating Evans's responsibility for the BBC article gives him more than his
due. If the events of 9/11 mean that he can't report objectively, and doesn't
feel the need to research his facts, then he needs to find another career. The
situation is analogous to a cop who has a bad experience, and starts to shoot
first and ask questions afterwards: he can't continue as a cop.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: deList on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:25 AM EST |
a cartoon, like a picture, is sometimes worth a thousand words...
Non Sequitur 02/05/2004
---
"The problem with SCO is not them
misunderstanding. It is daring anyone to call them on their misinterpretation."
- Anon, 1/13/2004 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:28 AM EST |
| SCO
blaming Linux for bad weather (www.userfriendly.org) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maxhrk on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:43 AM EST |
IBM's New linux's ads
Trivialize business decision
There's a very real and good
story to tell, and they should tell it. The story can still be boiled down for
marketing/TV purposes: Real geek, system programmer types in a backroom,
drinking too much Mountain Dew at night (cross-merchandise!), frustrated by
monopolies, being told what they can and can't program rally around “Code
Free or Die,” a new American revolution or something to that effect. They
should dump the Procter & Gamble marketing guys off of this
one.
It remind me of american revolution from america history high
school class. Hmm. "Give liberty or Give death". If that is correct
quote, I hopes so.---
Sincerely,
Richard M. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:05 AM EST |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3281777.stm
is the URL you want. There's a bit on the form where you can paste in the URL of
the story.
I think polite but firm is the way to go (as always lol)
ps. I also posted this to the last story on groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:05 AM EST |
good catch on the quote from RIAA judge.
and congratulations of the new Gig!
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- catch and gig - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:24 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:26 AM EST |
The story has been updated today, although not as much as we'd like (I posted
this under a previous GrokLaw story but I guess it makes more sense to post it
here)...
They changed the paragraph PJ quotes:
"It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its
website with a barrage of emails sent from countless computers into which the
worm had been insinuated, unbeknownst to the users."
To:
"It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its
website with a barrage of data sent from countless computers into which the worm
had been insinuated, unbeknownst to the users."
I emailed them this morning on that exact point, as well as a few others.
So what this shows is that they have actually updated that story to correct a
factual error, but they have done nothing else to address the obvious lack of
balance in the original story.
On the plus side, I doubt they get this much feedback over their other stories
so maybe this will stick out like a sore thumb and they'll be encouraged to do
something more about it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:31 AM EST |
Is Feb 6th still SCO and IBMs court date? What motions are being discussed? And
is there likely to be a party?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Feb 6th - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:48 AM EST
- Feb 4th - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:43 AM EST
- Feb 4th - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 03:11 PM EST
- Amended Pleadings - Authored by: rand on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 03:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:42 AM EST |
In many cases, the comparison of file sharing to video has many similarities.
Its certainly true that video, for example that large numbers of people
knowingly lend out their videos to friends who may indeed make a copy of them -
this is probably an infringing use. The only question is on what scale this goes
on - it may even be as high or higher than the 90% illegitimate use quoted for
file sharing.
There is both a good and bad aspect to what appears to be a technically savvy
judge presiding over this. The good aspect is that he's likely to cover all the
bases; the bad aspect is that he's likely to cover all the bases. If he comes
down against file sharing networks having thoroughly addressed all the issues,
then this case is likely to set a strong precedent and standard.
An earlier comment on Groklaw relates the story of how in a court case the judge
seemed to come down on the defendants side when all motions were discussed,
granting the defendants motions and denying the plaintiffs where there was the
slightest possibility of a flaw. In the end however, he still came down on the
plaintiffs side in his judgment. When the plaintiffs lawyer asked why the judge
has been so biased during the trial, the judge replied "So there is not the
slightest ground for an appeal!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:44 AM EST |
Can we get some facts right? In a story about the MyDoom virus, several comments
are made about SCO's issues with the Linux community. The statements are often
sloppy and factually wrong.
1. SCO is not suing IBM because IBM uses Linux. SCO is suing IBM because SCO
claims that IBM violated the confidentiality terms of a joint software
development project and SCO claims that IBM took information developed in that
project and passed that knowledge on to the Linux developers.
2. The statement is made that the MyDoom creators were internet vandals with a
specific grudge. If Stephen Evans did his background research, it would be clear
that not only did the MyDoom virus attack the SCO website, but it also put
backdoors into the computers which loaded the virus. The conclusion could be
easily reached that these perpetrators are after substantially more than just
this vandalism.
3. The statement is made that the court dispute between SCO and linux users is
scheduled for next year in a court in Utah. The SCO-IBM case is being heard in
Utah (the next motion hearing will begin shortly). The Red Hat (plaintiff)-SCO
(defendent) case is being heard in Delaware. The SCO-Novell case has not been
scheduled yet, but I expect it to end up in Utah.
4. The statement is made that the users are putting up formidable defenses,
noting that a defense fund has been put together. Gee, a defense fund is a
formidable defense? Personally, I think that the formidable defenses are showing
that there are serious questions as to whether there is anything in the Linux
kernel that to which SCO has any legal rights. Read, for example, the court
pleadings in the IBM, Red Hat and Novell cases. A German court decision
basically told SCO to show the actual claimed violations or shut up in Germany
and SCO decided to cease making intellectual property claims in Germany.
5. The statement is made that this attack raises the possibility of internet
blackmail. Has your reporter been living in a vacuum? This has been happening
for the last 5-10 years.
While the creation of MyDoom and any other virus is a dispicable act, this story
doesn't present any news and is sloppy about the facts. This could be boiled
down to: There are evil people out there and one of them, in the course of
trying to take over computers on the internet, attacked a company call SCO. End
of story.
Or you could add additional correct information: Another evil person then tried
to revise the attacking program to allow them to take over computers and, in
addition, attack Microsoft. The second attempt was less successful due to bugs
in the program and Microsoft's better defense capability.
If you want to include discussion about the SCO-Linux dispute, then get the
claims on both side and include the fact that all the names in the Linux
community have repudiated attacks on SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:11 AM EST |
| There is no outrage like manufactured outrage. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:17 AM EST |
From the Dec 12 order (emphasis added):
1. To respond
fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos.1-9 as stated in IBM's First Set
of Interrogatories.
From Tibbitt's Declaration (emphasis
added):
19. In order for SCO to fully answer IBM's
interrogatories, we require access to the missing verisons of software,
specifically
20. In order to fully respond to the
Interrogatories, SCO also requires complete disclosure by IBM of all of its
contributions to Linux, including:
IANAL, but does this not
seem like an admission that they did not fully respond?
From the
order (emphasis added):
6. If SCO does not have sufficient
information in its possession, custody, or control to specifically answer any of
IBM's requests that are the subject of this order, SCO shall provide an
affidavit setting forth the full nature of its efforts, by whom they were
taken, what further efforts it intends to utilize in order to comply, and
the expected date of compliance.
Perhaps SCO figures it
is their get of jail free card?
However,
by whom -
seems to be missing from the affidavit except for vague references like "SCO's
engineers and consultants"
what further efforts- seems to be
missing from the affidavit except "Once access to the missing source code is
granted, SCO will continue to analyze the code to determine improper
contributions of UNIX code to Linux and any additional discovery that may be
necessary. Given the volume of the expected disclosure by IBM [1], it is
expected that SCO and its engineers and consultants will be able to provide
further answers to IBM's interrogatories within 90 (ninety) days after the
delivery of the missing versions of software and accompanying documentation and
programmer notes related to the requested source code."
expected
date of compliance - again seems to be missing except for "within 90
(ninety) days after..."
From Tibbitt's
affidavit:
12. SCO has made its best effort to answer IBM's
interrogatories as completely as possible. SCO's engineers and consultants have
informed me that to determine the nature, extent and source of IBM's
contributions to Linux, engineers within SCO, as well as outside consultants,
have examined the following materials and sources of Linux kernel source code
(available online from http://www.kernel.org/). Several versions of source code
were examined, including:
Following this is a list basically
of Linux sources, AIX and Unixware.
From IBM's
interrogatories:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
For each alleged
trade secret or any confidential or proprietary information identified in
response to Interrogatory No.1, please identify: (a) all persons who have or
have had rights to the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary
information; (b) the nature and source of the rights; and (c) all efforts by any
person to maintain the secrecy or confidentiality of the alleged trade secrets
and any confidential or proprietary information.
INTERROGATORY NO.
3:
For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary
information identified in response to Interrogatory No, 1, please identify all
persons to whom the alleged trade secret or confidential or proprietary
information is known or has been disclosed and describe, in detail, the
circumstances under which it became known or was disclosed, including but not
limited to: (a) the date on which the alleged trade secret or confidential or
proprietary, information was disclosed or became known to such persons; (b) the
specific terms on which the information was disclosed or became known, such as
pursuant to a confidentiality agreement; (c) all documents or agreements
relating to the disclosure; and (d) all places or locations where the alleged
trade secret or confidential or proprietary information may be found or
accessed.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
For each alleged trade secret
and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to
Interrogatory No.1, please describe, in detail, each instance in which plaintiff
alleges or contends that IBM misappropriated or misused the alleged trade secret
or confidential or proprietary information, including but not limited to: (a)
the date of the alleged misuse or misappropriation; (b) all persons involved in
any way in the alleged misuse or misappropriation; (c) the specific manner in
which IBM is alleged to have engaged in misuse or misappropriation; and (d) with
respect to any code or method plaintiff alleges or contends that IBM
misappropriated or misused, the location of each portion of such code or method
in any product, such as AIX, in Linux, in open source, or in the public
domain.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
For each alleged trade secret and
any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to
Interrogatory No.1, please identify: (a) all agreements relating to the alleged
trade secret or confidential or proprietary information including but not
limited to the parties to and the terms of the agreements; and (b) all
copyrights and patents relating to the alleged trade secret or confidential or
proprietary information including but not limited to the owners, licensors,
licensees, assignors or assignees of those copyrights or
patents.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
For each line of source or
object code and each method identified in response to Interrogatory No.1, please
identify; (a) the origin of the code or method, including when, where and by
whom the code or method was created; and (b) all products in which, in whole or
in part, the code or method is included or on which, in whole or in part, the
code or method is based.
Now, I am really at a loss how they
can have even attempted to answer these for the analysis that they have already
done concerning AIX and Dynix.
Additionally, even if they had
additional versions of AIX and Dynix, I really can't see how they could answer
these.
Thoughts, comments, anybody?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:38 AM EST |
SCO likes to compare themselves to the RIAA, and I believe rightly so, they have
much in common.
Both are in the identical situation: Both have existing
"pre-internet" technologies that are being revolutionarily changed by
internet, and computer technology. RIAA's music is being transfered freely over
the internet, SCO feels its products and being unfairly challenged by Linux,
which is in some ways and extention of the internet's philosphy, and could not
be maintained without it.
Both feel they are taking losses to income to these new developments.
Unlike some companies, SCO and the RIAA's REAL problem is changing themselves to
the new environments is not an option for them, and thus litigation becomes
their solution. Even if the unpopular litigation where to prove successful, the
technology (or future looking businesses) while circumvent any legal
precidents.
Meanwhile, companies like RedHat and Apple have taken SCO & RIAA's business
schemes and blended them into the new technologies, avoiding the 'future shock'
effect.
... hum.. could be a good Groklaw essay there, huh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eSavior on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:42 AM EST |
I listened to the mp3, and I didnt quite understand the RIAA's definition of
preventable. I saw napster when filtering was put in place, and what people did
was just mispell artist names so it would get around the filtering. It sounds
like preventable means implementing half brained ideas that the RIAA _legal_
team comes up with to fix p2p software.
---
/* Doom */[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Both the RIAA case and the SCO case (in a way) are about old companies with old
business models fighting the commoditization of common technologies.
In the case of the RIAA, the distribution channel (which is where they have held
a monopoly, or at least an oligarchy) has been subverted by the internet; i.e. a
distribution channel to the consumer that is more convenient, accessible
anywhere, by both producers and consumers.
In the case of SCO (who wish to return to the days of huge license fees for
Operating systems), the internet again has served to move the Operating system
to commodity status.
In the case of the RIAA, the distribution channel has become a low cost
commodity.
Achieving commodity status for anything requires that the technology can be
reproduced by many different competitors at low cost; this is precisely what the
FOSS movement has done.
Both of these require a new business model, requiring new inventions that are
not yet commodities. Indeed, the fact that a technology becomes a commodity
spurs new inventions, and the industries that do not innovate and adapt are the
ones that get left behind.
So we are witnessing the same thing that happened during the industrial
revolution, where many industries died because their products became commodities
and they did not adapt.
Just my $0.02
---
Recursion: n. See Recursion
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:21 AM EST |
| Legal file swapping was in wide swing long before Napster was even a
conception, much less a mainstream practice.
What Napster did pioneer
was easy online illegal music
swapping. The distinction is crucially
important.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gleef on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST |
Piracy is a big problem, and it's getting worse. In 2003, 92
sailors were probably killed by pirates. I say probably because 71 of them
are "missing, presumed dead" so their families don't even know where they are.
People get killed, injured and kidnapped in piracy attacks. It disrupts
commerce and makes it harder for developing nations to grow.
It really
ticks me off when groups like the RIAA try to pass simple file sharing off as
piracy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST |
Good news for once :D.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1514794,00.asp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:26 AM EST |
Most of us have seen some rather eggregious examples of alleged journalists
jumping to the conclusion that Linux advocates are behind the Mydoom attack.
Simply pointing out the lack of supporting facts doesn't seem to make much of
any impression on them, so maybe there's another way.
Imagine what would happen if one of these "journalists" had said they
were sure the attacks were the work of someone of a particular race, religion,
ethnic background, or national origin. I think they'd get smacked silly by an
outraged public. Not only that, it wouldn't matter one bit if the perpetrator
actually turned out to match the diescription: There would still be outrage
because the reporter suggested that the crime was somehow a result of the
perpetrator's { race, creed, whatever }.
The fact is that "journalists" who report this way are doing exactly
what racists, bigots, and other such lowlifes do in their inflammatory language.
Heck, their ravings might even be called a "hate crime".
Perhaps this will suggest an alternate approach.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:35 AM EST |
The 'feedback' page on the BBC's online services is a fairly informal thing
designed mostly as a lightning rod.
There is a vehicle for more serious
complaints
here
When I've finished reading through the 'producer's guidlines' to
specify the violation, I propose to make a formal complaint about the
article.
It would be good if I could discuss the wording on this forum, and if
some other people were prepared to put their names to the complaint with me.
They should be UK residents and have paid their licence fees please!
Please
click on my username to contact me.
Thanks
Tony[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST |
"Evans was in the World Trade Center when it was hit on 9/11, by the way,
so it's only natural he would feel strongly about any kind of illegal behavior
to make a point. That likely influenced him to be inclined to believe the SCO
FUD."
Puh-leeeze!!!! Blaming "9-11" wears thin after a few years. If his
emotions affect his ability to research and write objectively, as a reporter
should, maybe he need to become a plumber.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crythias on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST |
| http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ZDM/rewriting_online_records
_pcmag_040205.html
OK, why did I bother posting this? The point about
website content being changed related (to me) to other Groklaw articles
regarding SCO's DDOS of last year. [tinfoil hat] It appears that some on Groklaw
have suggested the SCO downtime can be used to 'lose' some information from
www.sco.com.[/tinfoil hat] I'm not subscribing to this theory, personally,
but I have a sneaky suspicion that perhaps digital signatures should start
accompanying articles. Except, this only suggests that one could tell if
unauthorized people made changes. However, I believe date and time are likewise
encoded with pgp sigs, so theoretically date of change of an article could be
divulged. Sorry if this really doesn't belong here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:05 AM EST |
I think that one of the best things we can all do
about stories like the one that appeared in the
BBC is to *write* to the news organization and point
out the facts. Point out that the open source community
is mostly made up of unpaid volunteers, each
trying to contribute a little. Also point out that SCO
has recently accused the open source community of being
a conspiracy to end capitalism and of aiding North Korea.
The best defense against a accusation of being a dangerous,
hot-headed lunatic is to smile and look puzzled.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phulshof on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST |
The only compelling argument from the RIAA I could find
was at the end of the rebuttal. He stated there that it
was mentioned in the Sony case that the requested remedy,
not selling the equipment, was important to the case, and
that the plaintiffs could have requested a design change
for future VCRs in stead. Can anyone comment on how
correct this argument is, and how important? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST |
Newsweek, Feb. 9, 2004 page 9. Article titled 'Hey, You've
Got Worms' by Steven Levy. Near the end of the first paragraph
I found this:
"Mydoom infects your machine, mails out similar messages and,
at a certain date, uses your browser to attack the Web site of
a company called SCO. (Why? Because SCO is pursuing a patent
claim against the Linux operating system, beloved by geeks.)"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zjimward on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST |
I agree with this judge. That would be like calling a lock pick an illegal tool
to be manufactured because criminals could use them to steal things. This judge
makes good sense and seems to understand that just because an item is used for
improper acts does not make the item bad.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k12linux on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:10 AM EST |
To me, the most frustrating theme in the news is echoed in the BBC
story:
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted -
illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has enraged
many people devoted to the Linux operating system."
Huh?
"little doubt"? They seem to forget that whoever did this was one solitary
person and NOT the entire Linux community. And what were this person's motives?
Nobody has a freaking clue.. and that is the whole point. Any attribution of
motive is purely speculation unless the guy is caught and admits (honestly) why
he (or she) did it.
The story could just have well have
said:
There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted -
illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has
enraged and alienated many of it's own distributors."
or
how about...
There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted -
illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because spammers or
organized crime felt it would be a good diversion from the true purpose of the
virus."
or even...
There seems little
doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any
doubt - because aliens from Mars are upset over the use their trademark which
stands for Supreme Command Organization."
Of course the
whole point is that it's all just speculation. And since the media is allowing
SCO to do the speculating, who do they think Darl and Co. will blame? I'm not
saying it isn't an indignant Linux user/programmer. It's just that there is no
evidence one way or the other beyond the fact that it was SCO who was attacked.
And it's not like SCO hasn't pissed off anyone besides Linux users. ---
-
k12linux [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:16 AM EST |
| Can't you make tomorrow come faster? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:31 AM EST |
| I just came across this article at eWeek:
SCO Critic Joins
OSRM
Congradulations, PJ!
Bill [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST |
Apologies for posting in this thread, but the revelant one had dropped off the
first page.
SCOX just hit $12.94...let's see what happens now :)
Oh, of course this is nothing compared to what will happen tomorrow when their
case is thrown out and the entire SCO board are locked up for contempt
[/dream]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 12:01 PM EST |
I got this. I make no comment except to say that I am persisting with my
complaint to the BBC's Program Complaint Unit, which bypasses the Stephen
Evans's managers.
Here it is, for what little it's worth.
Dear Sir
Thanks for your e-mail.
I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on
Slashdot.org about this article.
Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story,
but
an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United
States.
It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written
just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of
spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the
main - motive.
That was not the point of Stephen's article.
In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's
audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the
Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial
application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger
that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal
actions.
Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's
actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including
virus experts.
Regards,
Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 12:01 PM EST |
The SCOX stock has just dipped below $13.00, then back up again.
This is on very low volume, so it is probably not a big trend.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maxhrk on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST |
| http://www.orangecrate.com
/article.php?sid=613 I wonder if this is worthy read for you, PJ?
:) ---
Sincerely,
Richard M. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST |
After reading this article I am not sure I posted a previous comment in the
right place .. so here it goes again .. sorry.
I just got my latest issue of infoworld (feb 2, 2004, issue 5) and was puzzled
and a little ticked off by the Editor's Letter. To get the irony of it you have
to see the cover of the issue "LINUX LOOMS LARGE" with a giant penguin
gazing into a skyrise office window at a CEO or something. Anyway, Infoworld has
quite a bit of Linux coverage in every issue but this issue seems to brag on the
current and impending success of Linux .. esp. with the new 2.6 kernal.
SO the letter says,
"THE MYDOOM WORM THAT RACED across the Internet last week is only the
latest -- and craziest -- evidence of the passion surrounding Linux"
huh?? evidence?? I did a triple take like when Janet Jackson flashed the
audience during the superbowl the day before (I was not and am still not upset
at all about Janet, just confused -- did I really see that??)
The letter continues on to talk about the progress of linux in a flattering way.
But I really think that sometimes people don't think about what they are saying
before they dumb themselves up. It would be like someone trying to flatter
American-Mexican's economic progress by saying "well that mexicans have
certainly made economic progress in this country is evidenced by the fact that
they are buying more beans and tortillas than ever!! and taco bell's stock is
way up too!!" regardless of that fact that some of us may not eat that kind
of food at all or are flattered by that statement.
I thought to write a letter to this editor using the email address provided
pointing out the ignorance of the statement but figured someone else would be
sure to do that.
I wonder if the editor uses Linux at all? That would be puzzling too. I really
don't think that the editor did it on purpose, but some people do and the effect
is the same. The effect is to paint some minority groups (hey I think Linux
users are a minority group .. don't you??) in a bad way.
I guess this is a problem with being a minority, most people swallow ignorant
statements about minorities because they don't see themselves and having
anything in common with
the minority or do not put themselves in the shoes of a minority etc .. Just
because the majority believes something doesn't make it right.
Someone once told me "this is a Democracy, the majority rules!" .. I
sigh and weep to think of all the "witches" burned, and
"savages" hanged.
Oh well, back to programming ..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CPD on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 12:58 PM EST |
OK, the stock price has been falling all week (heck, make that all year, so
far). The court hearing is Tomorrow and everything that we can see suggests that
SCO is headed for a really nasty public spanking. The FUD mill has been
ominously silent all week (since the "MyDoom" fiaSCO played out). That
suggests that Monday there will either be a monumental "spin" attempt
from SCO or a rout in their stock price.
So what could they do? Could it be that they will finally announce their
"end user" victim - or "IP violator" as they like to
mis-label potential extortionees. They've been talking about launching a lawsuit
against a Linux user in February for a while - even before getting an extension
on the court date. Are they really that manipulative? And "competent"
at manipulation?
Colin
---
Just when I thought it couldn't get any wierder, SCO proved me wrong again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KevinR on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 01:19 PM EST |
| The guys on the Yahoo Finance board appear to have identified transactions which
could be behind the PIPE finance and suggest some clever transactions
which would make money on both the rise and fall of SCOX stock.
One message on the topic is here
They mention a company
called TICC and a chap called Cohen.
Appologies if the link
is iffy - I'm getting an ampersand escape generated for some of the
ampersands!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST |
| Looks like a good deal : http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1514794,00.asp [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 02:04 PM EST |
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and
unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt - because it has enraged many people
devoted to the Linux operating system."
When I first read this, I didn't catch that it was part of an article
distorting the image of the F/OSS community, and read it quite differently.
Yes, SCOG was targeted due to the anger of the community. But as it appears,
SCOG was targeted so as to distract people from the real perps by giving cause
for people to falsely assign blame to the F/OSS community instead of pursuing
the criminal angle of the virus' payload.
In a way it's kind of funny.
---
"Every time I think I've heard it all from SCO, they come
up with a new howler." Steven Vaughan-Nichols, eWeek[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST |
Please keep politics off Groklaw, if you would be so kind.
It's not what Groklaw is for. And it makes work for me, because I get
email complaining about this or that post.
I want everyone to feel welcome here, and that means staying on the one
topic that we are here for.
Thanks, everyone. I know I can rely on you to help me with this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 03:07 PM EST |
It seems to me that one important way to protect peer-to-peer networks is to
share a much larger set of information that is clearly legal to share. It is
one thing for a court to shut down a network that is 98% copyrighted material.
It would be quite another to shutdown a network that was 2% copyrighted
material, and 98% public domain information. This is something we can do pretty
easily. E.g., insert all the works of the Gutenburg project, the Linux
Documentation Project, etc., into various peer-to-peer networks. Hey! It might
even be useful.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 03:09 PM EST |
After listening to part of the proceedings, I want to start sharing works of
Shakespeare and why not the entire Project Guttenburg text base.
But I have a question, what are legal uses of P2P networks?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mscibing on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 03:50 PM EST |
Linux geeks don't place keyloggers on your computers to grab your
credit cards, or send out Viagra spam, but professional spammers do ...
Do we know the MyDoom worm has been used to do this? Certainly the
spammer origins of this worm are very plausible, but I haven't seen anything to
rule out vandalism by a Linux zealot yet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fava on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 03:55 PM EST |
dont know if this has been posted yet but there are 3 new documents on pacer.
Doc 100: Plantiffs motion for leave to file amended pleadings.
Doc 101: Notice of filing plantiff's exibits for use at the hearing on feb
6,2004
Doc 102: Plantiff SCO's memorandum of law in support of motion for leave to file
ammended pleadings.
The urls are:
pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000100.pdf
pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000101.pdf
pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000102.pdf [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbn on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST |
The quote from the judge reminds me that the logic and framing of the issues
provided by the FSF is valuable. For those of you who don't read the FSF's
opinions or may have forgotten what they said, I encourage you to check out
their essay on "Confusing or Loaded
Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding" (in particular, their entry on
"Theft"). RMS has been debunking the logic of that term (as well as "piracy",
"commercial software", and "intellectual property") for a while now in his
speeches.
Here are some other terms you want to avoid:
- Saying
"open source" when you mean "free software": they're not
the same and they never have been. This includes giving the open source
movement credit for the GNU General Public License.
- Failing to give
credit to major contributors and be less technically accurate: you should
consider saying "GNU/Linux" ([GUH-new slash
LIH-nux]) or "GNU+Linux" instead of just "Linux" when you mean the variant of
the GNU operating system featuring the Linux kernal (as is typically the
intention). If you're just talking about the Linux kernal, by all means say
only "Linux".
- Confusing "commercial" with "non-free" software. This
is doubly confusing to listeners because English has two definitions for free,
and when one discusses commercial software there is a risk of ambiguously
refering to price and a lack of software freedom without distinguishing between
the concepts.
As the FSF reminds us, "While free software by
any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which
name we use: different words convey different ideas." I think the latter part of
that is worth keeping in mind no matter what you're writing or speaking about.
It's difficult to do, but I've found it rewarding to try. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:19 PM EST |
I remembered a story about
Linux being used at the BBC. I figured that this might balance out the picture
a bit.
Don't get me wrong - I am not condoning bad reporting, or a lack of
fact-finding - I simply thought that the BBC is due some credit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:41 PM EST |
Sorry for shouting, but I'm listening to the mp3 of the Grokster case, and
it's, just . . . I can't describe the feeling. Hope is reborn! I highly
encorage all lawgrokers to give it a listen.
I mean, with the Justices, it's like they know what they're talking about!
They're asking intellegent questions, and not falling for any slight of
hand either.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ltlw0lf on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST |
You know, the more I hear Dark Darl and his minions of biased journalists speak,
I think back to one of my favorite games: Star Wars, Knights of the Old
Republic. When you are on the Selkath homeworld, the Sith and the Republic are
obviously at odds with one another, and the Sith are obviously trying to goad
the Republic soldiers into a fight. Of course, anyone who is caught fighting
faces trade sanctions and for murder, the person is executed.
So the Sith continue to provoke the Republic soldiers, trying to start a war at
which time they will step back and pretend that they are the victims. Yet
everyone, even the Seltkath, have a sneaky suspicion that the Sith are evil and
have bad intentions with every action.
I see the same twisted and evil plot being hashed over and over by SCO, and I
have a sneaky suspicion I know what they are after. If they can manage to get
the judge to side with them, because they are obviously the victim of the Linux
Community's aggression and if that is the case, then there may be more to their
case than meets the eye. Of course, the previous judge saw through their
deception, but will future ones be equally able to see through it.
Of course, I wish folks wouldn't return the provocation, as they are only
hurting the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:15 AM EST |
Not just over SCO, see here.
There does seem to be a systemic problem at the
beeb with current affairs journalists distinguishing between :
- proven
facts
- source reports which the BBC believes taken collectively establish
facts
- source reports which don't but are worth reporting
- informed
analysis / commentary on the above
Blurring the lines may make more
spectacular stories, but it's poorer quality journalism.
To be fair, in
the heat of writing and editing it must be hard to distinguish between
unjustified over-writing / innuendo (eg Gilligan), and punchy reporting of an
injustice (eg Sally Clarke). But it's essential that the beeb's managers
backtrack if necessary. The real problem with Gilligan was not the initial
report, but the failure to investigate and admit that a mistake had been made.
The beeb's investigative (as opposed to current affairs) reporters are
usually meticulous with facts and evidence. When an investigative programme is
shown, the opposition often crumbles - as in the recent "racist police" expose.
It's the other reporters that worry me. I don't think a beeb investigative
programme would have made such an error - it's the quest for instant analysis /
answers that's at the root of this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
