| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Criminal Copyright InfringementCriminal Copyright InfringementPosted Mar 2, 2004 14:33 UTC (Tue) by melevittfl (guest, #5409)Parent article: SCO lawsuit to be filed today?
How do we got SCO charged with CRIMINAL copyright infringement?
The Linux kernel is clearly copyrighted by Linus and others. 2) There has to be copying of a copyrighted work, without a license. SCO continues to distribute copies of the Linux kernel without a license (having violated the terms of the GPL) 3) The copying has to be willfull. I.e., The defendent has to know they were copying someone elses work. SCO is certainly aware of the terms of the GPL; it's in their SEC fillings, and they are certainly aware they are distributing the kernel to their customers. 4) The defendent has to have made 10 copies with a total value of more than $2500 in a 180 day period. SCO has definitly distributed the kernel more than ten times, even after it lost its right to do so under the terms of the license. The value part might be tricky, but I don't think it would be hard to prove that the Linux kernel would be worth a lot of money if you measured it in dollars. So, to me, it's pretty clear that SCO has commited a criminal offence. So, when is the FBI going to storm into their offices and seize their computers? Or does the FBI only go after small children while rich people and their companies get to do what they want?
(Log in to post comments)
Criminal Copyright Infringement Posted Mar 2, 2004 14:51 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] When the United States population stops electing people who value free boat-rides more than free societies.When the "press" stops abusing their right to free speech by way of inuendo and outright lying. When people start valuing integrity more than money. The people who are sucking money out of this scheme (all of them, not just SCO,) know what they're doing. They are manipulators, liars, and cheats; we're only lucky they haven't become physically abusive, too. I think I'd feel different if the FBI took SCO down, but I'm hot holding my breath.
Criminal Copyright Infringement Posted Mar 2, 2004 16:20 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] The violation of GPL has to be proven by the accuser. Statements made by SCO can be interpreted that SCO is against GPL but complies with it.
Criminal Copyright Infringement Posted Mar 2, 2004 17:11 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] No, as Eben Moglen has explained, you have it exactly backwards. The copyright owner doesn't have to argue that the GPL is valid. What happens is this: the copyright owner says "Judge, this person is distributing my copyrighted work without my permission. Make him stop." Notice that there is no mention of the GPL at this point. The defendent then must say "But I have a license" and pull out the GPL. This forces the defendant, not the copyright owner, to defend the GPL, because only the GPL gives the distributor any rights to distribute. Moglen then points out the line from clause 4: You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. At this point, the violator's attorney usually tells the violator that the FSF's case is slam-dunk, and they should negotiate terms of surrender. And this is exactly what has happened in about 100 cases over the last decade. But in SCO's case, they have not only violated the GPL (by trying to sublicense the code, that is, to require an additional license), they argue that the GPL is invalid. If the GPL is invalid, then SCO has admitted to copyright violation, as only the GPL gives them any permission at all to distribute the Linux kernel, or Samba, or GCC, or all of the other GPL-covered works they distribute.
Criminal Copyright Infringement Posted Mar 2, 2004 16:43 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > How do we got SCO charged with CRIMINAL copyright infringement?According to some, that may be what has held SCO back from actually filing charges so far. Several folks with copyrights to portions of the kernel and other GPL licenced software SCO uses have made it known that should SCO sue a Linux user or otherwise attempt to actually legally enforce SCO's "Linux License", these developers *WILL* take SCO to court. That will be substantial legal proof of infringement of the GPL, having gone past any mere speech into actual action. Thus, if SCO actually DOES sue an end user, I'd expect 2-3 and possibly ten or more suits from various kernel and other software developers to hit SCO pretty quick. They think they have problems paying their lawyers now, and getting them to show up at all the proceedings, just wait until they move against a user and have several MORE suits to deal with, this time in full defense. Still, they can only announce and let pass so many deadlines before they fail to have any effect at all, and SCO is in a position to pretty much have to sue SOMEONE at this point, to maintain credibility. It'll pretty much need to be a prearranged fall-guy, however, given the Novell actions and the doubts they cast on anything SCO might attempt to enforce. If they do it, I'm guessing they will try one of two things. They will either go after a Novell client, attacking directly, or they will go for someone not directly covered, say a Mandrake user, hoping for a cave (assuming now that one isn't prearranged). Duncan.
|
|
||||||||||||