Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Media Movies Software Linux

SCO to Take On Hollywood 341

Posted by CowboyNeal from the where-the-money-is dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Daniel Lyons, the man you may remember for calling the FSF 'Linux's Hit Men' is now reporting that SCO is 'Holding Up Hollywood.' Their reasoning? It's because 'They're using a ton of Linux in Hollywood, so they've become a lightning rod for us,' says Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive. As usual, Groklaw provides insightful commentary concerning rehash SCO has planted to remain in the news, saying 'Maybe they should fulfill prior threats before they throw out new ones? Otherwise, it could lead some of us to doubt their sincerity.'" At least it's smarter than trying to sell a license to every home user of Linux.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO to Take On Hollywood More

SCO to Take On Hollywood

Comments Filter:

  • SCO to play villain in next Bruce Willis movie (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:21PM (#7424290)
    In a shocking move today, DreamWorks Studios announced the next Bruce Willis feature would include the company SCO as the primary antagonist. "Yes, Bruce Willis' character will have to blow up SCO. It should be quite the scene." said director Mark van Flemburg of the as yet unnamed movie.
  • Now that will be interesting. The MPAA in one corner, SCO in the other, and no-one wants to bet on either of them.

    • Re:Let's RUMBLEEEE!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TomV ( 138637 )
      And it all ties in nicely with an earlier story on Groklaw which pointed out that what SCO are doing is the very thing which the RI AA describes as 'stealing'.

      Anyone for a quick round of Celebrity Lobby Group Deathmatch?

      tomV
    • It's IBM! and whats that in it's hands? It's a chain saw! They're taking them both out in one fowl swoop. What a grisley display.

  • Suicide (Score:5, Funny)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:24PM (#7424301) Journal
    Taking on a group with deeper pockets and more political clout than IBM? That has to be the biggest brain fart in history.

    McBride needs to remove his golf shoes before he steps on his dick again.

    • Re:Suicide (Score:5, Funny)

      by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:40PM (#7424369) Homepage Journal
      Agreed.

      I'm starting to think SCO's legal strategy is to get the entire company declared legally insane. Watch them suing Microsoft and DoJ next.

    • Lawyers are whores. I'm thinking for combing my CS degree with a law degree and becoming the biggest whore of them all. Who'd be the only lawyer that knows the difference between a pointer and a reference (rhetorical question).

    • Re:Suicide (Score:5, Informative)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:56PM (#7424679) Journal

      Taking on a group with deeper pockets and more political clout than IBM?

      Maybe more political clout, but Hollywood does not have deeper pockets than IBM. The best numbers I was able to find (without paying for access to research reports) is that the US media industry hit $100 billion in 2002. That's a lot of money, but that includes television, newspapers, music, movies and games. The gross box office revenues revenues for the top 10 movie studios for 2002 was $8.4 billion. Figure their total movie-related revenues were maybe twice that.

      IBM, on the other hand, had 2002 revenues of $81 billion.

    • I don't see it that way. SCO is taking on production houses, not Universal or BMG. MPAA members have a vested interest in supporting SCO's claims from an IP solidarity perspective. The costs passed on to them from $700 per machine paid by independent contractors is chicken feed compared to the cost of shooting the Titanic. This move shows just how clever, and revoltingly slimey, McBride really is. It also demonstrates again how SCO is no longer a tech company.

    • Re:Suicide (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kazymyr ( 190114 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @04:17PM (#7424990) Journal
      LOL. I have one more sizeable target for McBride to set his sights on. I heard that the Pentagon runs Linux on a lot of computers. Maybe he should sue them.

      Oh wait... "What's that, Darl? You don't think a missile up your ass would be good for your health? Well, shoulda' thought of that before!". Bam!
    • Wouldn't it be great if it were a fight to the death.....

      and they both died?

  • Where are the Linux kernel copyright holders? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by isolation ( 15058 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:27PM (#7424312) Homepage
    As a Free Software developer this SCO news bothers me more and more as the story unfolds.

    From GPL violations to this gangster type activity you would think that someone would put SCO to task here. I still own one share of SCO stock and am holding on to it for no other purpose than to help bring suit to them for these type of actions. What can they be nailed on and how can I as a stockholder help?

    Note: I sold the rest of my SCO stock when this mess first started and purchased Novell.

  • Well (Score:3, Funny)

    by clifgriffin ( 676199 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:28PM (#7424316) Homepage
    *Wipes away a tear*

    The Internet is just so wonderful...

  • Let's see how this plays out... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by overbyj ( 696078 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:29PM (#7424318)
    First you decide that you need to take on one of the most powerful computer companies in the world thinking that you will make them roll over and pony up your extortion fee. IBM will basically make SCO eat their own lunch and then make SCO say "Thank you sir, may I have another".

    Since that is not enough, you decide to pick on somebody else. Let's see...who might be using Linux that should just roll right over again....Oh, I know....Hollywood!!!

    Yeah, those movie companies don't mind too much about paying extortion money to annoying gnat-like computer companies that have no legs to stand on. Excellent decision Darl. I am sure that Spielberg and his crew at Dreamworks and Lucas and others will surely just pay up, no questions asked.

    SCO, I have to admit that you have some of the biggest balls in the computer industry. Unfortunately, your balls are filled with the hottest of air.
    • Its all too tempting to make a joke about "blowing steam" but ill spare you all.


    • Since that is not enough, you decide to pick on somebody else. Let's see...who might be using Linux that should just roll right over again....Oh, I know....Hollywood!!!

      Somehow I have this Image of SCO as a small dog who walks around and barks at people, checking which of them will drop something he can eat..

      It may be funny for the first or two barks, but it has gotten pathetic and I'm just waiting for someone to put the poor bastard out of his misery.

  • Great... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tolldog ( 1571 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:29PM (#7424322) Homepage Journal
    Right when I am getting ready to start work in the entertaiment industry again (in a week) SCO has to pull this stunt. I sure hope this doesn't scare people into dropping linux on the desktop or the renderfarm, the industry has just really started embracing it. The cost of swtiching to linux wasn't cheap, the cost switching back, that would be way way too expensive. Compaines with 1000+ box render farms would probably fight SCO on this (I can only hope) because the non linux solution would be going back to Solaris or IRIX, neither of which are cheap OS's or cheap hardware.

    This could be the last stupid move that SCO makes. Maybe they are wanting to be bought out. HP has to hate this too, because they are really, really heavy in the CG industry as a Linux solutions provider.

    -Tim
    • HP actually offers to indemnify users using their systems running HP-installed Linux, so they may actually not mind this very much -- it might direct renderfarm sales their direction.

      There's also BSD, of course -- BSD has been adjudicated to be non-infringing of the SVr4 code already. It wouldn't be too hard to switch to that.

      thad
      • BSD would be great, but some software products support RH only (like Maya). And the last thing I would want to do is debug render problems running Linux apps on BSD.

        -Tim
  • anonymous coward us and tell us what the hell is going on up there? Someone get their hands on a little too much nose candy?
    • It's difficult to find the local street value of crack in Utah. But I wonder - just how many kilos can $50M buy? Also, I assume SCO's huge demand has driven prices up. Perhaps that's part of the pump-n-dump also - does Darl own stock in any other organized crime rings?

    • Re:Will someone who works at SCO please... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      anonymous coward us and tell us what the hell is going on up there? Someone get their hands on a little too much nose candy?

      Sure. Yes, the thing is, Darl McBride got his hands on a cocaine deal he just couldn't say no to (no, he couldn't - they would have shot the son of a bitch). Buy two tons of the finest Colombian cola, and cover the Utah market. Great business plan:

      1) buy cocaine

      2) sell cocaine
      3) profit

      Now, the problem was, he'd fired all the sales people, marketing people, and all the engineers t

    • "anonymous coward us and tell us what the hell is going on up there?"

      I work for SCO and just yesterday I got a chance to peek in to Darl McBride's office. He was having a video chat with Michael Eisner. I only caught part of the conversation, but Eisner was laughing really really hard. Something about '100 trillion dollars?!'

  • Sorry about the explosives line (Score:5, Informative)

    by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:31PM (#7424328) Journal
    Lyons suggested that I didn't really care about the whole SCO fiasco, and I was trying to demonstrate the depth of my feeling. It was stupid. I'm sorry. It won't happen again.

    Another thing he said that didn't make it into the article, for some reason, is that the reason SCO is taking on Hollywood is to generate publicity -- that anything to do with movies gets many times the publicity it deserves.

    What this implies is that they don't really want money from this, they want press, they want buzz, they want to be in people's faces. The obvious reason would be to raise the stock price, something that has been flat for the last two months.

    thad
    • There's some discussion over at the Forbes forum to discuss Daniel Lyons and his articles.
      Send feedback you may have, to expand on your misquotation, or quotation out of context.

      http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/message.asp?webt ag =fdctech&msg=47.1
    • Although I'm sure a lot of people could contribute to a fund for this. Maybe a collection plate can be passed around at the next VES awards for Thad's explosives fund ;-). Maybe have another one for the Deep Shadows Map thing ;-).

      Yep seems a bit on the stunt publicity side. Afetr all most VFX studios are separate from the movie studios, except for a few notable exceptions. Why would they talk to the executives at Universal, since they contract their VFX work. Heck maybe even the executives at Sony don't kn
  • I don't know much about law/the justice system, but WHY THE FUCK haven't we seen the government/any other body take action against SCO, for it's actions which seem so painfully obviously wrong, unfair and plain fuckin' evil, and which have been growing steadily worse for the past 9 months?

    • Re:Okay...quick question (Score:5, Informative)

      by cmason32 ( 636063 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:41PM (#7424377)
      It's because these are civil matters. The gov't for the most part doesn't get involved in contract disputes or IP issues between two entities (there are always exceptions). When this is all over the SEC might have some claims against SCO, but I imagine/hope they are either (1) waiting to see how this plays out or (2) gathering evidence.

      The gov't can't issue a ruling on the merits of SCO's claims - that is what the courts are for. And as such, any intervention by another branch would be premature.
    • Simple:

      SCO has not yet threatened the SEC, or other big government agencies if they are running Linux. That I think is one reason the other is that SCO aren't disrupting the money market to any great degree yet.

      Its digusting that any form of corruption is allowed to go on, I'd start asking your senators too about this, no-one should manipulate the market illegally for even a cent. Its about time they got enough evidence to put McBide and Sontag in a cell with Bubba.

      StarTux

  • Maybe something good can come out of this... (Score:4, Funny)

    by overbyj ( 696078 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:31PM (#7424331)
    If nothing else, SCO could sue Lucasfilm for using Linux in a very inappropriate way....digitally creating Jar Jar Binks

    That has to be worth some amount of punitive damages...
  • First they try to take on the open-source community, then IBM, then corporate america, and now hollywood?

    For SURE with the arrangement they've taken with their lawyers; that they'll be paid handsomely no matter what, it becomes quite evident that the only people who are rich enough to take on all the avenues and still only spend pocket change is

    Microsoft.

    But as usual, they've come to the premature conclusion that they are smarter and more able to defend themselves against the whole world than everyone el

  • Is anyone else just BAFFLED? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:34PM (#7424347)
    I'm starting to think that SCO's strategic decisions are being made by the proverbial room of infinite monkeys. The last few pieces of news about them haven't been maddening, just sad and funny. Opening themselves to thousands of IP lawsuits from Linux programmers? Making a marketing move which virtually hands Red Hat's case to them? And now, attacking an entity which has the power to crush them without a second thought, or even doing more than digging metaphorical pocket change out of the couch?

    It's just insane. I can't find any cohesive thread tying all this together.

    • Yeah, it's all so crazy, that I'm beginning to thing there must be a brilliant plan behind it all : )
      • I'm not sure if that was meant to be funny, but I agree. "Tho this be madness, yet there be method t'it." Any ONE of the moves they've made lately should prove destructive to the company, much less hitting the proverbial trifecta. Either they've completely lost their minds, or there's something bigger going on.

        About the only thing I can think is that, it seems like every time they launch some damn fool crusade against someone, their stocks go up. So maybe the COs have decided to launch a huge, suicida

    • Perhaps this is what they (their handler) wants? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:40PM (#7424613) Homepage Journal
      It just occurred to me that this might be want SCO's handler, Microsoft, wants. Bear with me for a second.

      Perhaps they (MS) know that the GPL would be held up in court.

      Perhaps they know Linux would always best their products on the technical front.

      Perhaps they're planning on SCO pissing off enough companies, Linux developers, and Linux users to force to sue SCO. Perhaps they are planning on using this litigation in a anti-Linux / anti-GPL / anti-open source marketing campaign.

      See how litigous the Linux developers are? Do something with Linux that they don't like and they'll sue you!

      It's possible. It's entirely possible. Perhaps we (the Linux community) isn't looking far enough ahead. We're playing a game of chess here and our opponent is distracting us with stupid moves of his pawns while the queen gets in position for the kill. It's possible that we just aren't looking at this from the right angle. We need to be predicting their moves further in advance. Thoughts?

    • Their actions make perfect sense, if they actually do own UNIX, and can demonstrate that the GPL is trumped by the original UNIX licenses. Every linux shop would therefore be running SCO derivative works. Which ones have the biggest pockets and heaviest use: Hollywood render farms. SCO is convinced that they were dealt a royal flush, and are upping the ante. Sue the people who "stole" the intellectual property, and sue the people who are using the products illegally.

      I can see three possible outcomes w

      • Re:Is anyone else just BAFFLED? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @03:03PM (#7424705)
        Except their posting up of their OWN Linux build defeats all that. If the GPL is upheld, they get sued by thousands of Linux programmers for breech of contract. If the GPL is broken, they get sued by thousands of Linux programmers for IP infringement. There is NO scenario wherein they can claim the right to distribute their own Linux without adhering to the GPL.

        And the idea of it being declared equivilent to public domain is fanciful at best - legally if the GPL is struck down, all copyrights then revert back to being handled under the 1977 copyright law. If a judge actually were to so rule, it would be immediately struck down on appeal - there's simply no legal basis for stripping the code of its copyright protections entirely without the express permission of the copyright holder.

        • And the idea of it being declared equivilent to public domain is fanciful at best

          PJ at Groklaw explained this theory well a while back. I'm too lazy to go find it, so I'll just (probably incorrectly) recap it for you.

          Apparently, there's a legal doctrine that permits a judge to remove an owner's legitimate property rights in cases where following the letter of the law would violate the owner's intent and a better, fairer results can be obtained by altering the terms. IIRC this doctrine is mainly used

    • Don't discount the value of monkeys.

      They are probably a good bit brighter than Daryl.

    • No, this one doesn't baffle me at all (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I find this move particularly convincing as proof that a relationship between Microsoft and SCO exists.

      Consider:
      1. clustering is one technology that Microsoft has not had much success with. Part of it is the structure of Windows itself that leads to technical hurdles. But, even if they had efficient clustering built into Windows right now, the licensing terms that Microsoft has held dear for so long (i.e. one computer, one license) would kill them in the clustering marketplace.
      2. Bill Gates, in an intervie
    • And now, attacking an entity which has the power to crush them without a second thought

      How can they "crush" them?

      It works like this:

      • 1) SCO threatens Linux-using group to sue.
      • 2) Microsoft gives SCO money
      • 3) SCO does not sue
      • 4) Go to 1)

      There is no fight, there is no attack. There is just FUD, nothing more and nothing less.

    • Last time I came out with this sentiment I was modded a troll, but I think I'll try this again because it seems to answer your question:

      News Flash: the SCO case will not be decided by Slashdot readers. It will be decided by average Americans like the judge in a recent hacker case who was tripped up by the defendent using the technical term, "cut and paste" and had to ask, "you mean, with scissors?"

      The SCO view:
      SCO is operating on the assumption that Open Source, by it's very nature, gives away the

  • They need to establish a "Loss" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:35PM (#7424349) Homepage
    Unfortunately this might not be as idiotic as it seems on it 's surface. I addition to the Stock issue that will be mentioned here ad nauseam SCO needs to extablish some sort of loss if they are to collect anything.

    They have sued for $3B but this is just a number. It could just as easily be a gazillion.

    To collect anything in the unlikely event that IBM is found to be at fault, SCO needs to establish a Loss.

    They way to do this is to stated a value times the Units used. This is most likely why they have introduced this silly $699 scheme.

    For the value to be "deemed" acceptable they need to sell at least some licenses at that price . It is not enought to point to MS and say they bought licensing for $8M.

    Now if they can swing somethng with a Film maker this would go a long way to establish "credibility", so I guess this is at least one more reason for this apparent Suicide mission.

    • This seems to be exactly the tact. I commented on this yesterday:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=85084&cid=742 2 172

      Hopefully, Hollywood will recognize the "mob" (ie. organized crime) when they see it.

      --- Posting from Yesterday follows ---

      Paul Murphy at E Commerce Times

      http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31932.htm l

      has an absolutely insane article about this whole mess. Mind you, 98% of the article is completely nuts as it basically blames IBM, or anyone else, for not paying of
    • Also, the tactic is working:

      BayStar is betting that SCO will be able to collect license fees from Linux users. "We think this licensing initiative is going to work," says Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner. "We spent a lot of time calling around to potential licensees, and we believe SCO is going to sign enough companies to make this an interesting growth story."

      This is a war of opinion, and SCO are turning heads. Certainly there are enterprises using Linux who are being influenced by BayStar's and RBC'

  • IBM, huge company, deep pockets, lots of lawyers. Hollywood, deep pockets, lots of lawyers. Seeing as SCO are coming over all suicidal at the moment, I guess their next target will be the US Army [slashdot.org]. Please please please. "Darl, meet my friend Mr. 5.56mm"
    • Dear Most Honorable Premier of China

      It has come to our attention that there are a number of IP infringements occurring in your most wonderful country. To remedy this problems, it is recommended that you quickly submit a small token of appreciation in the form of a chek to cover your use of this so-called "Linux" operating system. Since we are aware that your country is actively developing a version "Linux", a monetary payment will cover your licenses for developing your inferior....I mean...most honorable

  • This weekend only! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trillan ( 597339 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:37PM (#7424363) Homepage Journal

    This weekend only! Live in Hollywood!

    In this corner, the reigning heavyweight champion, with millions of dollars in court awards over the years: The heavyweight champion, the MPAA!

    In this corner, the challenger, featherweight SCO. With no significant assets, no business plan, and no hope in hell, SCO.

    Personally, I don't really care who wins. I'm just hoping it goes the distance and we see a lot of blood...

  • Hollywood Doesn't Care (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:38PM (#7424364)
    Silly SCO - Hollywood only writes the copyright laws, they don't actually obey them themselves!

    • Hollywood only writes the copyright laws, they don't actually obey them themselves!

      Darn right. Had the copyright terms established by the Bono Act [pineight.com] been in effect when Disney was making its classic films, we definitely wouldn't have Disney's Pinocchio or Disney's The Jungle Book in the form that we know them. The original authors' estates would have demanded artistic control over the works (as seen in Disney's licensed films such as The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and Tarzan) and a hefty cut of th

  • Just a couple of questions. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StarTux ( 230379 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:40PM (#7424371) Journal
    First question I have is this:

    Are SCO/Sontag/McBride digging their own financial graves should the suit get thrown out as being baseless?

    Whats the likely effect on Hollywood? Are they going to be scared of the SCO monster and back down, or will SCO have made another enemy that mobilises its army of lawyers?

    Can the investment firms named also be sued? Like in class action lawsuit?

    StarTux

    • One significant difference between IBM and Hollywood is that IBM has a HUGE staff of patent and copyright lawyers who are very capable. Hollywood's lawyers are focused in a totally different direction - the entertainment industry and their copyrights. The two have very little in common.

      Thus, I can see IBM putting on a great defense regarding SCO's suit against them and a great offense in their suit against SCO. I can't say that I see the same level of legal practice in regards to Linux rights from the f

  • Best Quote from Darl (Score:3, Funny)

    by elsegundo ( 316028 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:41PM (#7424379) Journal
    "I'd be surprised if we make it to the end of the year without filing a lawsuit."

    Yeah, I'd be surprised, too.

  • Let's See... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:45PM (#7424387)
    • SCO Takes on IBM, that is bad from many people's perspectives, but the media doesn't take notice, so many others don't care.
    • SCO takes on Sun, SGI, and the like, and no one really cares beyond the computer enthusiasts.
    • RedHat files against SCO. No one who isn't a computer enthusiast seems to really notice.
    • IBM counterfiles against SCO, which is slightly noticed in SCO stock, but probably more because it's IBM suing, rather than what the suit is about.
    What's going to happen when SCO starts actively taking on the very media that has publicized it's side but not publicized the other side of the argument? Remember, many media conglomerations own movie studios, television networks, newspapers, internet sites, and radio stations, or if they don't own them outright, they have a significant financial interest and a certain level of control. If the media feels that it's being attacked, it's in a great position to do two things: show the stories in a positive light for others that are also being attacked, and to villianize the attacker. This has the potential to be the single largest screwup that Caldera International d/b/a SCO Inc has committed.

    This one I'm actually interested to see play out. This is going to be fun to watch.
  • At least it's smarter than trying to sell a license to every home user of Linux.

    And not to mention being smarter than SCO paying Linux-using businesses to use products SCO doesn't even own [slashdot.org]. Yeaaah... great revenue generator, that one.

    • I can just picture Darl in a big dark helmet, having his head rams into the soles of his shoes as the SCO Legal Department jumps to Ludicrous Speed :)
  • Do you ever get the impression that SCO is turning into a kind of software tabloid company? They keep making ridiculous claims/statements, and they keep making news. The more ridiculous, the more people discuss SCO.

    (I wonder what they have on page three... I bet they have spreads on page three -- well, maybe spreadsheets...)

    Although seriously, maybe that's the whole idea. Maybe they're trying to increase brand awareness by making news so often? Dumb idea, if you ask me, but I've been around enough mar

  • Maybe this'll drive a lesson home (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:53PM (#7424422) Homepage
    Those insane IP laws the studios wanted are coming back to haunt them. It's not so much the specific laws, but rather the culture they foster. This probably won't do anything other than further convince the fat cats in the movie industry that they need more protection from the proles.

  • go Darl, go! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 )
    Let's hope he continues this lawsuit mania. Why? Because most members of the gov'ts servers are linux. Congress (the democractic party at least) is beholden to lawyers who file these frivilous lawsuits. They won't institute tort reform until it bites them in the ass. Darl could just be the one to do that.
  • Maybe it's just me, but this made me laugh...

    Beier, who runs a 30-server render farm, says he hasn't heard from SCO, but the idea of being asked to pay for Linux makes him furious. "That just sends me right up. If I had explosives, I'd be in Salt Lake City,"...

    I'm guessing that Thaddeus isn't serious but I would love to know what makes Darl, et al, continue on with the lawsuit and accusations knowing there are so many people that utterly despise them for it. It can't just be money, can it?

  • If the interpretation of "derivative works" for Hollywood was defined in the same way that SCO wants Linux classified as derivative of Unix, then Hollywood stands to make a mint for doing absolutely nothing.

    It's not as if SCO is a jackal trying to nip at Hollywood, there are jackals on both sides of this court case. Perhaps Hollywood will act innocent and put up a marginal defense, but they stand to gain much if SCO loses

  • Losing the media (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nucleon500 ( 628631 ) <tcfelker@example.com> on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:56PM (#7424435) Homepage
    Although it's taken far too long, I think the mainstream media (Forbes, in this case) is beginning to catch on. Before, they just parroted SCO ("SCO, owner of Unix, has sued IBM, and the free Unix derivative Linux is at risk.") Now, however, we see the media going under the surface, creating quotes like "[SCO] didn't even play a role in creating Unix," and, "McBride's assault on the "peace and love" Linux movement already has made SCO the most hated villain in the computer industry. Now he wants to shake down the people who make cartoons for kids." I expect that in a month or so, the media will be overtly telling people how much of a farce this really is.

    This article was mostly good, but I wish they had picked apart McBride's "'Boy, this free stuff is sure cool!'" lie - the difference is that the creators of movies don't want them to be free, while the creators of Linux do, and McBride's the one usurping our copyrights. Also, the author slipped up and called Linux freeware, but that's a minor distinction to everyone but us. And there was quite a bit of emphasis on people investing in SCO, but hey, this is Forbes, so what a company does is secondary to how its stock will react.

    As for SCO itself, it's difficult to understand why they are so suicidal. They've ruined their defense against RedHat by explicitly threatening to sue their customers (assuming RedHat has at least one customer in Hollywood.) They're extorting from companies even bigger than IBM, companies which might have more to lose, companies that exert some control on the media, which SCO desperately needs. Everyone assumes Microsoft, but one would think Microsoft could buy higher-quality FUD, and hide its ties better. Pump-n-dump doesn't quite fit either - McBride isn't making any attempt to appear like he has a case anymore. Anyone who can't tell he's a raving lunatic isn't looking hard enough. I remain frustrated at our incredibly slow legal system, which won't do anything about this for at least two more years.

    • It's obvious that MS is funding the effort, at least in part. This doesn't mean that MS is controlling it. Probably the idiot who wrote Darl's contract (x consecutive quarters of profitable operation was it?) didn't realize that the only way to achieve this was to destroy the company. But Darl did, and didn't have the ethics to decline the deal.

      So he's gotten lots of people to kick in money in a frantic effort to meet his deadline. What happens later doesn't matter. So you have stupidity (the contract
  • how long until SCO gets the shit kicked out of them legally?

  • Could be a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by balloonhead ( 589759 ) <doncuan.yahoo@com> on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:02PM (#7424461)
    All the Linux used in movies, I believe, is heavily modified. Although this applies more to the rendering software than the kernel, I am still pretty sure adjustments have been made to that too.


    Surely anyone in the industry who is challenged just has to say "We're running a customised kernel, we have modified lots of code. Show us your code and we can tell you if we've replaced it or not".


    They're not going to pay up if there's any chance they're not even using the SCO 'IP', are they? Couldn't this force an admission of code?

  • And in related news.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by close_wait ( 697035 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:03PM (#7424465)
    The Crack Smokers Association of America sues SCO for bringing their name into disrepute.

  • Hollywood's GPL-know-how/$ is worse than IBMs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Maybe SCO hopes Hollywood is more likely to buy it out.

    Unlike IBM, Hollywood is unfamiliar with the legal underpinnings of the GPL and more vulnerable to smoke and mirrors.

    Yet, like IBM, Hollywood also has deep pockets.

  • Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaEMoN128 ( 694605 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:04PM (#7424473)
    SCO has already contacted sony. Will sony pony up? Not a chance in hell. SCO is going after any one that is using Linux that they might be able to squeeze some money out of. With Novell buying SuSE and claiming it still has certain rights that it can wave.... SuSE is pretty much a safe bet. HP is imdemnifying its customers as well. Red Hat is waxing the floor with them. Are there any other companies that they can go after? The IBM suit is only between IBM and SCO. It does nothing else for the rest of the industry. SCO can still try to go after other Linux contributers that have access to SVR4 source code. DoD, that could be a funny attack. They are stupid enough to try it, but will not succeed. Hollywood s the only place they almost possibly have a prayer that they can extort some money. Everyone else is pretty much safe at the moment. They could go after other distrobutions, but there isn't any money left. If Novell does still have rights to waiver infringments....then all people have to do is switch to suse and keep on trucking. There shouldnt be any need to go back to windows or sun, irix,hpux, or other proprietary os. They also would have to prove that they have infringing code in the Linux kernel and other GNU software if they are to attack HollyWood.

    I think SCO has just reached 100 deciJobs in the reality distortion field.
  • Ok, let's see, that's the $14 mil from Microsoft and Sun and the $50 mil BayStar stock deal.

    Lessee, take out the stock deal because that's not really a sale, round off, carry the one, adjust for sample error, that's approximately. . . no sales.

    SCO's a playa!

    KFG

  • General Uninformed Assumptions... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:10PM (#7424490) Homepage Journal
    IMHO, most linux users are pro Open Source, and the GPL, This is the fundamental problem. No Linux users are genuinely going to beleive the FUD that comes from Utah.

    Lets say you work in a department and you use a considerable percentage of your machines are Linux, what are you and your fellow hackers going to say when mr PHB comes down from head office and asks you about the SCO thing ?

    Hopefully you'll convince him that SCO are talking out of there ass. So there inherently lies the problem, most organisations are not going to change. I havent yet heard of anyone who's actually bowed down to SCO.

    These absurd threats and forays they are making must surely be reaching a climax. I dont think there can be any doubt now that Microsoft are behind this. SCO are nothing but a pawn in Redmonds little game. One way or the other the results of this court case are going to forge the future business strategy of Redmond. One thing is for sure though, SCO are going down and the world will be a better place without them.

    Redmond dont want to destroy Linux, they want it, the problem is it just doesnt fit with their proprietary business model. If only they could find a way to make Linux a proprietary system by invalidating the GPL. That is the real reason behind it.

    My real fear is that when SCO finally does go down, who's going to get to pick up the peices ? i.e. the Unix rights?

    nick ...

    • If he comes to you... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @03:28PM (#7424806) Homepage
      Lets say you work in a department and you use a considerable percentage of your machines are Linux, what are you and your fellow hackers going to say when mr PHB comes down from head office and asks you about the SCO thing?

      Usually, PHBs don't ask tech about legal issues, they ask legal. Lawyers like to keep all bases open, so they're probably not ready to dismiss it completely, even if they have some clue about the case. Good old "Cover Your Ass", they don't have all the facts, so they can't make it 100% definitive. Then the PHB will percieve this as a risk, and *then* he'll come down to tech and go "Can we do something about this 'Linux' risk?" Don't expect him to take your legal advice "SCO is smoking crack" at face value.

      Instead, show him all the people they've threatened. IBM (don't forget AIX), Linux distributors (Redhat countersuit, Suse getting gag order in Germany), Linux users, SGI, HP (which offered indamnification), Hollywood, the list goes on and on. Make them sound as if they're trying to take on the world, suing everybody and anybody, demanding money for allegations they won't prove. In short, make them sound like one of those "companies" sending out fake bills, only in this case they're using licence fees instead. "Pay us this licence fee/bill, or else..." "Else what? For what?" "Uh nevermind..."

      Kjella

  • This is like getting previews and teasers to one of the most anticipated movies of all time. I just want to be able to see what the outcome of this case is. I want to see SCO's ass kicked in court.

    This has to be a unique moment for me personally. I normally don't give a rat's ass who wins a litigation in the USA - it seems to happen to damn often - but SCO are really asking for it. They're like the dumb little kid in the playground who's taunting the big fat kid, and you just want the big fat kid to pound

  • A couple of quotes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pohl ( 872 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:16PM (#7424514) Homepage
    McBride points out that Hollywood studios, keen to protect their movies from being pirated on the Internet, have preached the need to respect copyrights. "It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying, Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,'"he says.

    I'm preaching to the choir by responding to this, but it's worth saying that the difference bettween the two cases is that the holder of the copyright gets to declare the terms of distribution. If Hollywood wants to sell their product, that is their choice. If Linus (& friends) want to give their product away for free, that is their choice. If Hollywood wants to simultaneously reap the technical/financial rewards of the GPL and the financial rewards of selling their movies, there is no hypocrisy -- so long as in both cases the terms of the respective copyright holders are honored.

    SCO, which has retained hired gun and Microsoft nemesis David Boies, plans to target titans of financial services, transportation companies, government agencies and big retail chains

    I think the "Microsoft nemesis" meme here is very interesting. Lawyers are only enemies-for-hire. Since Boies is no longer working on the DOJ-vs-MS case, it doesn't make sense to think of him as their nemesis any longer. Still, I wonder if he was specifically hired to give "plausible deniability" to any alleged MS funding of SCO's actions (knowing how most people probably don't understand how dispassionate lawyers can be if enough money is on the table.)

  • Rawhide! (Score:3, Funny)

    by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:24PM (#7424540) Homepage Journal
    Darl McBride in the shower....

    Rollin' rollin' rollin'
    Keep that FUD train movin'
    Damn my ass is swollen
    Rawhide!

  • Time for Remedy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BuckaBooBob ( 635108 )
    Really... some legal group should get a cease and desist order put on SCO and their frivolous claims to IP infringement until 1 of two conditions are met..

    They show the linux community offending code so that it maybe remedied.

    Or the courts rule on their claims. In which case if their IP rights have been violated the linux community will be able to remedy the situation and life will go on without SCO making news every other day.

  • When will we all learn? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mark19960 ( 539856 ) <MarkNO@SPAMlowcountrybilling.com> on Saturday November 08, 2003 @02:32PM (#7424576) Journal
    The sooner we stop paying it any attention, the sooner they will go away.
    I say, ignore them, let them do battle and they will just... sod off and die.
    I really get sick of hearing SCO fud.
    We should just STOP listening to it!
  • This page [mozillaquest.com] says that "SCO Clears Linux Kernel but Implicates Red Hat and SuSE"... so why is it g oing after linux users in general?
  • Well, I guess in light of this course of legal action, Hollywood won't be using SCO either.

    You win some you lose some I suppose. SCO isn't doing anything to win new customers.
  • (Shamelessly ripped from a great Simpsons episode)

    McBride: Mr. Spielberg, we've got some source code, some powerpoint slides, and a paper trail a mile long.

    Spielberg: Yes. But I have ten high-priced lawyers.

    McBride: Ya, ya, yaaa!!! [runs out of office]

    Spielberg: He left his briefcase. Hey, it's full of SCO press clippings!

  • Hasn't SCO heard? Never get into a fight with someone who owns a printing press. (forgot who said it) Taking on Hollywood is a great way to get the media to make you look really really bad.

  • There's a difference Darl....... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mormop ( 415983 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @03:09PM (#7424735)
    "McBride points out that Hollywood studios, keen to protect their movies from being pirated on the Internet, have preached the need to respect copyrights. 'It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying, "Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,"' he says."

    Errrrmm, this may be because Hollywood generally pays someone to write a script or buys one from someone else, hires the actors, CGI guys, film crews, director etc., maintains a level of control over the production process then credits (and pays) those responsible for their contribution.

    This differs from your claim which is based on the concept of "we didn't actually contribute any effort, development funding, or anything really but feel we deserve money because IBM included software THEY'D developed to work on UNIX into Linux" a concept that is stretching the term "derivative work" to the limit.

    The two are wholly different claims and your idea as expressed above is akin to wholesale distribution of Windows or your proprietry UNIX or ripped of movies via the net.

    Again, it's fairly easy to spot when a movie has stolen the plot of another movie makers work and you can bet Hollywood would jump on the back of anyone who stole significant chunks of a film script without crediting the original.

    One more time:

    YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SHRED OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CASE! YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ME OR ANY OTHER LINUX USER WITH ANY CONVINCING SOLID REASON WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY!

    So until you are willing to put the proof to public scrutiny, and I can download the kernel source from any Linux distro or kernel.org so don't give us this "it'll be revealing our trade secrets crap, shut the fuck up and start behaving like an adult.

  • Given that.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mormop ( 415983 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @03:13PM (#7424746)
    Most of the posts on article are modded "5 Funny", anyone would think that no-one's taking SCO's claim seriously.

    Except Uncle Darl that is.
  • Daniel Lyons - what is he getting out of this?

    Although, Hollywood should know all about hacks being paid to write propaganda.

    Darly Mcbird, playfully challenging an anonymous coward to fistucuffs?
    Bwahahahaha.
  • 'They're using a ton of Linux in Hollywood, so they've become a lightning rod for us,' says Darl McBride

    Ah, so Darl thinks he's Zeus now? The thing to remember is that after the storm and noise are done, it's the lightning rod that remains. And he should be careful with electricity when he and his claims is so obviously groundless.

  • It's interesting--most people don't realize that lightning rods are put in place in order to decrease the chance of lightning hitting there. The pointed tip 'leaks' out the electric charge of the earth, decreasing the voltage and the resulting chance of arcing.

    So does that mean that the fact that Hollywood uses lots of Linux mean that they have a lower chance of being sued?
  • The 60's were the hippie decade.
    The 70's were the "me" decade.
    The 80's were the Al Franken decade.
    The 90's were the dot com decade.

    So far the 00's are shaping up to be the Who Cares If Everybody Knows You're An Asshole As Long As You Make Money decade.

    The main thrust of 21st Century innovation, at least in America, seems to be in blatantly profiteering from defects in the system and shoving it in everybody's face. Sleazy business tactics like obstructive litigation, bogus intellectual property claims and political bribery are nothing new. The innovative element is that these activities now occur right out in the open. In many cases we know damn well that what some CEO is saying is absolute and utter crap. They know that we know; they just don't care. They've spent a lot of money tailoring the legal system to their needs, and they aren't going to hesitate to use it just because they might look bad. Advertising and low prices will eventually buy public forgiveness.

    There is no pride or shame in high places anymore, only a pervasive arrogance.

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close