Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) [LWN.net]

Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times)

Posted Oct 13, 2003 14:18 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (guest, #3222)
Parent article: Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times)

When I was a little boy, a charitable organization arranged to get me a piano (I could play, but we didn't have the money for one.) The local paper covered the story:

- Got my age wrong
- Got my home location wrong
- Got the name of the organization wrong (well, semi-wrong)

There was a second story about it later on, which appeared to be more of a promotion for the organization. They had a gathering in which they had my mother and I standing before a flash camera near a piano. This piano had a shiny case, was perfectly tuned, and was located in a big banquet hall. The article talked about the "tears in his eyes as they presented him with his piano."

What actually happened was that my father and some of his friends were shown where the beat-up piano was at that I was supposed to receive, and told that they would have to pay money they didn't have if they wanted it moved to my house. The owners felt the thing was in at least playable shape, and were happy to get rid of it if they didn't have to pay a mover. My father and his friends, who knew nothing about moving pianos, wound up manhandling the thing into our house. It was *not* in playable shape by the time we got it.

We had to pay for our own tuning specialist.

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Oct 13, 2003 15:32 UTC (Mon) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

You shouldn't blame your father and friends for the piano needing tuning. That's pretty normal after a move of any significance.

I would like to underscore your experience and that of "cpm" regarding the media. Every single time where I've had first hand knowledge of an event covered by the news media, the resulting story bore almost no resemblance to what I witnessed. In each case, it seemed that the reporter had talked to someone who had interests in spinning the story in a way orthogonal to reality. It's as if the reporter had said "you draw your line and I'll plot some points to support that".

Recent example: Dan Rather of CBS news dragging the names of LANL and an individual through the mud after a certain episode with a Mustang had been thoroughly investigated by appropriate legal authorities. Rather's report was just a pack of lies, but he has the protection of the first amendment, and CBS News has the same inappropriate level of admiration from the general public as does the NYT.

Dan Rather is also a frequent apologist for Microsoft. I'll always remember how he reported the news a few years ago of someone throwing a pie in Bill Gates' face. Rather was practically foaming at the mouth. I wish I'd recorded that. Priceless.

Posted Oct 13, 2003 16:17 UTC (Mon) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]

Rather's report was just a pack of lies, but he has the protection of the first amendment

The First Amendment provides no protection for libel or slander. If a reporter or organization runs a story that's a "pack of lies" they can be sued pretty handily. If Dan Rather says on the evening news that company XYZ is selling cars that burst into flames after 14,000 miles, he can be (and would be) sued and would most likely lose -- unless, of course, the car actually did burst into flames at or around 14,000 miles. The only exception here is if Rather said it as an opinion rather than fact, because you cannot sue someone for stating their opinion, no matter how derogatory it may be. (Therefore, "wow, that new Chrysler looks like it would burst into flames before it hit 14,000 miles" might be damaging, but it's legal.) The First Amendment is never protection against libel and slander -- something the folks at SCO would do well to remember.

Posted Oct 13, 2003 19:13 UTC (Mon) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

I'm sure you're right about all that. CBS News is probably careful to phrase things in just the right way to weasel out in court. Some of the "transducers" which Rather's report implied never existed happen to be sitting on my desk at work. The rest are stored about 50 ft. away. But since CBS never outright stated their non-existence, they can squirm away.

Another curious Rather-ism: When Microsoft announced that it would be shutting down chatrooms worldwide since it could not properly monitor them, Dan's spin was that Microsoft will be even more profitable since the chatrooms did not provide a revenue stream. That was presented as an unqualified fact, not even as the opinion of a Microsoft spokesman. But subtle word choices like should or may may keep them out of the position of touting stock.