After reading through some news this morning, I couldn't help throwing 2 Cents in on the continuing SCO/Linux case(s) and the infamous RIAA/music file swapping issue.
- SCO is going to have little recourse in the end. Sure, that is a simple, almost baseless statement in itself, but if you take time to look through the stories and try to boil things down to root statements, it is that simple. SCO wants us to believe that [after contributing to Linux development] they feel ownership of code was infringed upon and that software developers like IBM owe them royalties or damages based upon stolen work. SCO has yet to show what they mean by stolen code. Show me the proof that code was directly stolen from your intellectual property and then we can battle. Otherwise, the claims being made are still without merit. They apparently showed glimpses of the materials they feel are copyrighted at a Unix trade show recently. Unfortunately, they still have not been clear about what they believe to be the copyrighted material in question:
SCO, though, was steadfast.
"Their assertions are incorrect. The source code is absolutely owned by SCO," said Chris Sontag, general manager of the company's software licensing arm. "In fact, SCO knows exactly which version of System V the code came from." SCO declined to answer additional questions.
If you are not willing to give proof for your claims, then you have no ground to stand on. I don't know what kind of weed they have been smoking lately, but I'd love to try it if I could make claims without proof... what a wonderfully naive life I could live... (Rant via SCO Adds Twist to Linux Case by Displaying Code.)
- Trading copyrighted material is simply wrong. You are stealing. I understand that you don't feel that the prices for said material are fair, but that's life. If you are going to use music as part of a collection like you would for CD's, tapes, etc, then you are doing nothing different than someone would if they took a CD from your collection and didn't give it back. Just because the technology is there to copy the materials (easily, I might add), it doesn't mean that you have a right to copy the materials without paying for them. Just because you feel that the RIAA has used "relative, subjective terms", doesn't mean that you hold the right to copy copyrighted materials. (All this talk via Vague Limits Vex Music Traders.)
Is the RIAA justified in invading your privacy, hacking into your computer, etc? Absolutely not. I think they are just as much idiots as SCO. These types of battles lead people to do exactly what you don't want them to do - i.e. copy copyrighted materials, use Linux, and the list goes on. These two groups are idiots. There, now I feel better - and I've gotten my 2 Cents in.
Leave a comment