Strike 3 Saga: Turning BitTorrent Downloads Into A Copyright Infringement Settlement Mac...

Have a question or want to start a discussion? Post it! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Appellate Courts Recognize Strike 3's Ability to Meet Standard for Early
Discovery to Obtain John Doe Defendant's Name and Address

While some bullheaded District Court judges have stopped Strike 3 in its
tracks by denying its request for early discovery, most appellate courts
to have considered the issue find that Strike 3's allegations of
copyright ownership and illegal downloading of their works by an
identifiable IP address are enough to permit Strike 3 to discover the IP
address owner's name and address.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/strike-3-saga-turning-bittorrent-downloads-copyright-infringement-settlement-0

---  
Bill Horne
Telecom Digest Moderator

***** Moderator's Note *****

There are a number of artists (Janis Ian, for one) who distribute
their works via BitTorrent and other online channels, without
payment. If some mego-record-corp decides that it owns those works, I
don't want to get sued for downloading them, just because I'm not a
millionaire who could fight back.

That's not even to mention the Linux binaries that I get via
BitTorrent: if some preteder-to-the-Linux-throne *COUGH*Redhat*COUGH*
decides to make an example of someone like me, what then?

Bill Horne
Moderator


Re: [telecom] Strike 3 Saga: Turning BitTorrent Downloads Into A Copyright Infringement Settlement Machine Part 2
On 9/23/2020 3:55 PM, Moderator wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Uh, no, Bill. Red Hat, which is now one of the more profitable parts
of IBM, would not attempt anything stupid like that. Linux is all
under the GPL and very much "free as in speech". Red Hat did have a
little proprietary software, but it's not the core of Linux, just
extras they sell (now as IBM).

There was, of course, a case about 15 years ago, wherein The SCO
Group, which had at one point been a minor Linux distributor, decided
to sue IBM and everyone else distributing or using Linux for patent
and copyright infringement. They claimed that they owned Unix, having
bought it from AT&T, and that Linux copied from Unix. It was
preposterous, of course, but people make nutty claims and sometimes
sell shares based on it. The case went on for a few years, eventually
proving that SCO did not own Unix, just had a master license to
distribute it, and that Linux was in any case original. Oh, and the
claim that BSD (Open Source) too had copied from AT&T? That one got
shown to be backwards; Berkeley's work was largely original and AT&T
had taken some code from it.

- -  

  Fred R. Goldstein      k1io    fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701

***** Moderator's Note *****

RedHat not only attempted, but accomplished, something like that: the
company exploited the open-source movement and managed to convince
corporate America that it owned an operating system called "RedHat
Enterprise Linux," after it relied on hackers like me to popularize
its brand name.

Not only did RedHat prove that the average IT purchasing manager is a
gullible fool, but it got very rich, very quickly, and then its owners
cashed out to IBM and settled in to laughing themselves to sleep every
night, while those of us who had made them their money were relegated
to "Enthusiast" status and told that we would henceforth be allowed
access only to the "Fedora" brand of products, so that we would be
"privileged" to do RedHat's beta testing for them.

When we all finally got to see the man behind the curtain, I ranted
about RedHat's business model and tactics in several posts to the
Boston Linux & Unix User Group's discussion list: FYI, I've included
some of the links here.

http://blu.org/pipermail/discuss/2003-November/017846.html
http://blu.org/pipermail/discuss/2003-November/018051.html


Bill Horne
Moderator


Re: [telecom] Strike 3 Saga: Turning BitTorrent Downloads Into A Copyright Infringement Settlement Machine Part 2
On 9/24/2020 10:32 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The original guru of Free Software (not to be confused with Open  
Source), Richard Stallman, explained the business model that he approved  
of. Software came Free, with a license allowing everyone to use it and  
modify the sources, but the vendor could make money selling support  
services. And that's what Red Hat did. RHEL is a fully supported  
operating system, competing with other paid OSs. A corporate buyer is  
not going to trust an important system to "let's check the forums and  
ask on IRC and Usenet if anybody knows how to deal with this problem".  
They want and need support, and are willing to pay for it. So RHEL has  
lots of free code, but you get support from experts (though I don't know  
how good their first-line help is; I never used it myself).

Your flames were written in 2003. In 2004, Centos kicked off its own  
distro, which is basically RHEL (minus any proprietary tools) recompiled  
for free. So you can run the same stuff on Centos as on RHEL; you just  
don't get IBM's support. What's not to like? You now have supported and  
free (as in beer) versions to choose from. And Fedora is there for  
hackers who like to play with the latest stuff, or developers, which is  
probably the major share of the desktop and educational Linux market.

I've seen Centos used in mission-critical embedded systems.

- -  

  Fred R. Goldstein      k1io    fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701

***** Moderator's Note *****

Fred, I'm sorry, but I was there. I believed RedHat's pitches, their
oh-so-enthusiastic talk about obtaining world domination for Linux,
and their we're-all-comrades-together tricks to get the techo-literate
"back room boys" to talk up RedHat to our bosses, and then - surprise,
surprise - it turned out that some animals really are more equal than
others.

RedHat changed Linux, in every way they could, to make it look like
and be treated like a separate OS. I looked back after they took the
money and ran, and realized that I had learned a set of one-off file
names, renamed utilities, and it's-not-here-it's-over-there
directory structures. You're right: businessmen want support, but they
want it inhouse, where they can get it at 3 AM, and the practical
affects of all of RedHat's changes was to chain task-oriented support
employees to the RedHat model.  

That was the first of what Bruce Schnier would label "Semantic
Attacks" - changing the appearance of the user interface and the file
locations and the it's-just-Linux common core to something alien and
owned. For practical purposes, RedHat took over Linux - not in theory
or law, just in all the ways that they needed to make some quick cash.

That, of course, is my opinion. Your mileage may vary.  

Bill Horne
Moderator


Site Timeline