[NCLUG] Breaking news! SCO is full of crap (big surprise)

[jbass at dmsd.com]

Sean Reifschneider <jafo at tummy.com> writes:
> Again, IANAL, but that's my interpretation of the analysis.  See the
> above PDF for more the details on it.

There are a lot of ragged miss-informed claims about what copyright law
does and does not protect ... particularly by computer people that have
the mistaken idea that somehow software is different than other non-tangable
copyright protected IP.

For a readable version of the law see:

	http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/501.html

In particular see section 501.b regarding notification of other parties
that may be impacted by a copyright infringment claim. It doesn't really
mater if the court requires it, or one or both parties do it voluntarily,
it is standard practice to put additional parties on notice.

In particular see section 503.b for what SCO may ask for under the full
force of the law, which in the worst case could be every end-users
copy of infringing material.

In particular see section 504.c.2 for the maximum risk that everyone
who is aware of this suit takes on by continuing to distribute code
which is known to infringe.

In particular see all section 512, because by direct inference everything
that an ISP is provided protection from, all others are not.

There are classes of infringment, all of which are equally subject to being
held jointly, and/or severally for violation of the copyright law:

	(1) "DIRECT INFRINGEMENT" whereby an entity copies infringing material,
	whether or not it is aware that the material is protected by copyright;

	(2) "CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT" by an entity, who knowingly, although
	indirectly, contributes to direct infringement by another party; and

	(3) "VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT" whereby an infringer engages in the
	reproduction of protected material to the financial benefit of a 3rd
	party.

Ignoring a section 501.b notification can (and has) exposed additional
parties to the minimum standard of "CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT". In
general the courts have in the past held 3rd parties responsible when
they have failed to terminate infringing activity promptly upon receipt
of "competent and authentic notification of infringing activity".

Have fun,
John