[linux-elitists] fwd: [SLL] Fighting evil with evil

Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
Sun Nov 2 16:48:12 PST 2003


on Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:35:55AM -0800, Seth David Schoen (schoen@loyalty.org) wrote:
> Ragnar Hojland Espinosa writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 05:30:54AM +0000, Michael Shields wrote:
> > > In message <20031031194012.GK22471@ssc.com>,
> > > Dan Wilder <dan@ssc.com> wrote:
> > > > ----- Forwarded message from Glenn Stone <technoshaman@liawol.org> -----
> > > [...]
> > > > Each and every person who has ever written even a one-byte patch to Linux is
> > > > eligible to DMCA-notice them, and their upstream provider when they are
> > > > ignored.  
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't it actually be anyone who has written a patch large enough
> > > to have a copyright interest in -- generally considered to be around
> > > twenty lines?
> > 
> > I got a ~10k file signed with my name.  If someone is kind enough to
> > instuct me on how/where to DMCA, it will be delivered. 
> 
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi
> http://www.xo.com/legal/sendclaim.html
> 
> Sending the 512 notice to SCO itself is not appropriate; it is
> supposed to go _to the registered DMCA agent_ at its ISP.

Right.

I'd advise contacting a lawyer in any event.

> Sending a 512 notice because SCO infringes your copyright may create
> standing for them to bring a declaratory judgment lawsuit against you
> to try to establish that they have not infringed.  If they choose to
> do this and you do not answer their complaint, they can get a default
> judgment against you which could permanently eliminate any copyright
> claims you might have against SCO and possibly subject you to other
> sanctions.  

For a given original contribution, odds of success for Caldera/SCO at
this are low, and the level of proof is reasonably low.  If the
developer can document origin and implementation.


> I don't have any way of knowing whether SCO would decide to do that
> when they are the subject of 512 notices.

I smell a press release and some hystrionics.

While I think an action along these lines could be useful, I'd also,
again, recommend it be performed under legal advice.  Coordination would
improve effectiveness but could lead to conspiracy charges.  If
coordinated through a group independent of IBM &/or RH this too might be
mitigated.


> The upshot of this is that sending 512 notices isn't, or ought not be,
> risk-free for the sender.

Done correctly, relatively low risk at some gain:

  - Caldera/SCO finds itself off the Net.

  - The point is hammered home that Caldera/SCO's historical technology
    business goodwill is nil.

  - The rather embarassing situation of claiming copyright infringement
    of others (with vague, unspecified evidence), while being accused by
    multiple other parties of copyright infringement (with specific,
    detailed evidence).

The ten days interval makes for a nice, steady stream of negative PR
against Caldera/SCO as well.  Stretch it out to two weeks even and they
get their feet up under them before having 'em knocked out again.

Hosting provider might start getting sick of the issue as well.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    "You don't have to pretend to be interested in me you know," said
    Marvin at last, "I know perfectly well I'm only a menial robot."
    -- HHGTG
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20031103/cb37243e/attachment.pgp 


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list