SCO Caught Copying

linuxwrangler writes "While accusing everyone else of copying "their" code, SCO has meanwhile been caught copying documentation. In fact they copied several chapters of the Book of Webmin directly into their online documentation. While the book is available online, it is not licensed for redistribution. Details are sparse but it appears that SCO had to pay the publisher for using the material."

Oi, reminds me...

[Dark Lord Seth]

Things are awfully silent around SCO lately...Cat got Darl's tongue?

Re:Uh

[DaHat]

They paid after the fact to settle the copyright violation. Same as you paying for a speeding ticket because you did bad.

Re:Uh

[casuist99]

Because, if you RTFA you will notice the words "copyright infringement settlement." In other words, they took without authorization first, got caught, then paid.

Irony

[hawkeyeMI]

The irony here is palpable. Not that we expected anything more. Aren't there suspicions that their "Linux Kernel Personality" is a direct Linux ripoff as well?

Re:Uh

[LostCluster]

So if they paid the publisher for the documentation, why is this even a story?

Because the were stealing, and like... not respecting the inviolable rights of someone else to not have their stuff pinched.

If they paid, then in exchange for the money they got a non-public license to redistribute the content.

If they didn't pay and get a proper deal, then they stole.

That's a huge difference that isn't clear in the /. summary.

Sheesh

[casuist99]

You know, I swear that posts are going up faster and faster. I clicked, wrote a quick reply, and when I check, there are 6 other posts saying exactly the same thing as mine.
That'll teach me to be baited in such a blatant way by a question that is so clearly not intended to be replied to.

Just so that I don't come off sounding rediculous or offtopic, let me say something that is original.

SCO as an organization didn't do this. One lazy person or group which was supposed to write documentation decided not to write their own. It may be that we can take this as a compliment to the Book of Webmin. It was so well written that SCO couldn't even improve upon it... wait... is that a compliment?

Re:Uh

[Slowtreme]

But SCO did put their money where their mouth is. They copied text, waited for someone to notice, then paid up without a court order. That's pretty much the way most businesses work.

Re:Uh

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times do we have to tell you people - copyright infringement ISN'T STEALING no matter who does it.

Re:Uh

[DaHat]

True, however here it did not sound like there was a question of who owned the infringed upon text, it was a clear-cut case of copyright infringement, SCO realized that and paid up.

In the SCO vs World case, the ownership issue is still one that will need to be settled before most of the cases can go anywhere. Expect that if the courts rule that SCO does in fact own the code that they claim to, that plenty of companies with little prompting will pay up.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:sco?

[cmowire]

The problem is, they passed the point of no return a while back.

If SCO gives up, they have lost and will go out of business rather quickly. They are not going to be able to settle so easily with IBM because IBM's out for blood.

If SCO plods on, they are most likely to lose. But there's some chance for them to win.

It's also the case that, even if they aren't doing a pump-n-dump on the stock, they are still getting paid huge amounts of money and will continue to do so as long as the company is a operating concern. If they give up, that happens relatively quickly. If they plod along, as long as they can avoid a ruling, they can still get paid.

Re:Oi, reminds me...

[Anonymous Coward]

This one [yahoo.com] is also fun.

Re:The Real Point

[stevesliva]

It's not "information," it's unique creative works that are protected. If you want to protect your "information," you keep it secret as best you can. If you want to share your "information," you copyright your work and begin publishing it. People can use your "information" but cannot copy you verbatim.

Re:End of court case.

[DaHat]

The world does not need convincing, the courts do. Popular opinion is not what sways a judge, facts do.

Re:Sheesh

[arcanumas]

SCO as an organization didn't do this. One lazy person or group which was supposed to write documentation decided not to write their own.

It could also be that because SCO sponsored Webmin at some point that said person assumed (incorrectly) that the Book was ok to use.
I doubt that evil was involved here...

Re:sco?

[cmowire]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that.

If IBM wanted this over, they'd have paid off SCO at the start and never let this hit the public media.

No, IBM's business at this point relies upon their ability to ship commercially-supported army-of-consultants software on free operating systems (i.e. Linux). This, more than anything else, is why IBM has helped out Linux. Good feeling among geeks doesn't pay the bills, but competitive advantages do.

If IBM wins, they won't have to worry about anybody else trying to pull a similar stunt in the future. If IBM were to have settled, others might try to do the same sort of racket with them down the road. It also wouldn't prevent SCO from suing other Linux vendors, which also hurts IBM's chances in the Linux market.

Re:Sheesh

[lfourrier]

SCO as an organization didn't do this. One lazy person or group which was supposed to write documentation decided not to write their own.

Let me disagree. SCO, as an organisation, and as the publisher of the documentation, did this. They failled to implement the IP safeguards they pretend are missing in Linux developement. Even if the fault can be tracked back to an employee, the organisation didn't implement what it preach (for OSS).

Re:The Real Point

[mindfucker]

Not necessarily.

People don't blindly follow laws just because it's the law. I follow the law when I think it's fair, reasonable, and justified. The GPL is very fair and very reasonable, and is designed to give users as much freedom and empowerment over their system as possible. The RIAA want's to do exactly the opposite.

When I can respect where something is coming from like the GPL, I'm more inclined to comply with it. I can't say the same for the RIAA's stuff.

Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[indulgenc]

"The ironing is delicious"

^-- much better Simpsons Quote in this case.

-i

Re:Oi, reminds me...

[Chordonblue]

Actually, we haven't heard from Darl and the boys for a while. No ludicrous statements. No bold and cunning plans. No 'all your code are belong to us! Muahahahaha!'

On Yahoo's finance boards, you could count on an almost daily press release from them or their lackeys. The last news listed is from May 7 and it's about Royal Bank pulling out.

All this takeover business must be keeping them busy. Well, that and the fact that Groklaw keeps track of all verbiage over time.

I'm certain that Darl now wishes he'd shut his mouth and stuck to what few facts there are.

Re:Oi, reminds me...

[csirac]

This is off topic I know, but I'm Australian and going through school we were always taught that "Ayers Rock" was the bad, insensitive, politically incorrect name for Uluru. That's its real name under the current owners since the government handed over the land in the Kata Tjuta national park to the local Aboriginals of the area in 1984.

The Department of Environment and Heritage [deh.gov.au] doesn't even have the term "Ayers" anywhere on the Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park [deh.gov.au] website.

If you're worried that Uluru is too confusing, probably use "Uluru/Ayers Rock" instead of "Ayers Rock Uluru" which I've been seeing some people use.

Re:Thorough SCO SEC complaint.

[Hays]

Wow, that's a very thorough complaint. What worries me, though, is all of the focus on conspiracy theories. A lot of the material in the complaint is slam-dunk, send SCO executives to jail material. But a lot of it is tin-foil-hat conjecture. And I hope it doesn't get dismissed because of such.

Re:Copyright infringement

[Adriax]

After all, if SCO does it, gets sued, and settles, it's funny and bad and an illustration of how evil SCO is.

But when a pirate does it, gets sued, and settles, somehow it's evil that the RIAA sued in the first place and the pirate is the good guy martyr.

Bit different here, the pirate you speak of isn't sueing the MPAA, claiming ownership of "millions of lines" taken from their failed movie script and added into every blockbuster movie ever made by 90% of the movie studios.

Re:Uh

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as you paying for a speeding ticket because you did bad.

It's not *exactly* the same. You can't pay royalties to the State Patrol and get authorization to speed, for example.

Re:Copyright infringement

[llefler]

But when a pirate does it, gets sued, and settles, somehow it's evil that the RIAA sued in the first place and the pirate is the good guy martyr.

First of all, I could care less whether people get their free music. I think it's a bad business decision to not make it available in some form, because so many of us won't buy a new CD until we have heard all of it since we are tired of getting burned buying CDs with a solitary good song.

But downloading music is a bad comparison. People aren't downloading MP3s so that they can incorporate it on their own CD and sell it. If they are, they are distributing and should be sued by the copyright holder. SCO was incorporating someone else's IP in their product without prior authorization.

I disagree with most of you

[adiposity]

Yes, SCO was caught violating copyright. Is there any company in the world that doesn't do this, on occasion, by accident, or because some employee pretends he wrote something he didn't? I doubt it.

The test of respecting the copyright, however, isn't *never* violating one, but fixing it when you realize you have. SCO did exactly what it should have, here, and both parties are perfectly satisfied with the result, I should think. SCO's quick action shows that they are eager to demonstrate how much they respect copyrights of others.

Does any of this mean SCO's suit is more or less merited? No, of course not. Does this infringement make them hypocrites? Not unless those filing the lawsuits sanctioned this infringment.

Now, the one point that someone made which has some validity is that SCO is hypcritical to suggest that Linux's review process is tainted, when they themselves are unable to review sufficiently to avoid infringement. SCO has no business complaining about the review process of any software if they cannot guarantee their products are 100% clean (and no one can, of course). SCO has made that argument to make Linux sound out of control and "scary," but it is not really a legal argument, just a tactic.

Like SCO's documentation, Linux is open for review at any time by anyone. Like SCO's documentation, if something infringing is in Linux, it is likely to be noticed by the copyright holder. SCO is saying that they have noticed such a thing, but unfortunately isn't able to point it out. That is what makes this documentation case so cut-and-dry, and the Linux one so out of control.

Personally, I think SCO should put up or shut up...but the fact that they were caught infringing, and made amends doesn't do anything to the validity of their suit. From their point of view (assuming they actually believe there is infringement), they are just asking for the same treatment they offered here.

-Dan

Re:Uh

[bluefoxlucid]

It goes like this.

Good person:
1) Pay for content
2) Get content.

Bad person:
1) Get content.
2) if (Gets_Caught())
Pay_For_Content();
else
Never_Pay();

The point is, they likely wouldn't have paid if they didn't get caught, and they still broke the law. Do you say everything's ok and you're just like a normal, honest citizen after you've served your 4 years in jail for auto theft, or do you have a GTA record?

My first thought

[einhverfr]

Was that SCO, like the RIAA, is further evidence that you can tell alot about the misdeeds of an organization based on the wild accusations that they make against everybody in the world.

Re:The Real Point

[el-spectre]

OK, but how would you fix this? OK, some dipshit is a troll... I don't think it's fair to expect mods to examine his history and make a judgement call on every poster they look at.

The mods messed up, other mods caught it... check and balances and all that shit.

Now, there is something to be said for checking a poster's history before responding (to avoid said trolls), but even that it tough to trust, given that any number of valid opinions (against the quasi-groupthink around here) can get you moderated troll...

adipostity?

[BigBadBri]

Is that cranial adiposity, perchance?

The reason SCO acted so quickly wasn't because they respect other peoples copyrights, since they obviously didn't check before ripping this material off.

It's simply that to do otherwise given their current legal shenanigans would have been foolish.

There's no honour involved, just cold calculation of the lawyer variety.

Re:Unsolicited advice on shorting

[MarkusQ]

I never short stocks. Bought stocks can go to zero and all you loose is the entire principal. If on a fluke you shorted SCO and by another fluke they won in court, you can loose many times your investment. You could owe your entire future. The sky is the limit on your potential losses. I'd rather diversify than have the potential for unlimited losses. The potential of unlimited growth is why I'm in the market. The thought of unlimited loss is pretty scarry.

This is standard anti-shorting FUD. You can (and should) just as easily limit/hedge loss on a short position as on a long, and even if you don't no broker will let you go infinitely negative on any position, so your losses are limited to what you choose to risk.

That said, one of the biggest problems with the market today is not enough people take short positions on the questionable stocks. This creates a bias in the market because everyone wants "the market" to go up--meaning they want bad stocks rise in value along with good stocks. But that's just another way of saying "bubble" which is bad for everyone but the few crooks who get away with the goods without getting caught.

If you want a healthy market, learn how to short stocks, look for idiots trying to scam the system, and nail them for a tiddy profit. It's fun, it's helps the good guys and hurts the bad, and if you do your homework (you should always do your homework) it's an easier and safer way to make a profit than buying into the FUD and going long across the board.

-- MarkusQ