] The code in question is found in
] arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c in the 2.4 tree. It carries
] an SGI copyright. It seems that SGI was not entirely
] forthcoming in documenting the source of its source; some
] of the code in question was, indisputably, not written at
] SGI. So where does it really come from?
]
] This code is from sys/sys/malloc.c in V7 Unix. It has
] been widely published; among other things, it can be
] found in Lion's Commentary on Unix (if you can get a
] copy). It featured in this 1984 Usenet posting. And,
] crucially, it has been circulated with the V7 Unix
] source, which was released by Caldera (now the SCO Group)
] under the BSD license. SCO would like the world to forget
] about that release now, but the Wayback Machine
] remembers.

LWN: Why SCO won't show the code

] Heads up, sharers of music, video and software files: If
] a prominent Michigan lawmaker has his way on Capitol
] Hill, you will soon be a felon.
]
] U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, is the
] sponsor of the Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner
] Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003, which
] declares sharing a single copyrighted file online to be a
] felony.
]
] Because the bill doesn't specifically name the type of
] file, you could theoretically become a felon by copying
] and posting this very column on your Web site. (We frown
] on that sort of thing anyway, but webmasters, be warned.)
]
] Giving fake information to the folks who register domain
] names, the basic Internet Web addresses (such as
] freep.com), would be punishable by up to five years in
] prison and a fine. Using a camcorder to record a movie in
] a theater -- whether you share it or not -- would be a
] federal criminal offense.

HEATHER NEWMAN: 60 million file sharers could face prison, fine

] In DIY culture, consumers are the producers, owning the
] tools of production -- a laptop instead of guitar, bass
] and drums. The bedroom is the studio and factory
] machinery moves out of the nightclub onto the Internet
] for millions to access. The media monopolies are fighting
] back, but with the airwaves gobbled up by conglomerates,
] homespun mash-ups may be the people's digital antidote.

Salon on Mash-ups and their IP related problems.

Salon.com Arts & Entertainment | The mash-up revolution

] U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer found that
] Ontario-based Research in Motion had violated patents
] held by NTP Inc. of Arlington for the radio-wave
] technology that undergirds the handheld BlackBerry. The
] judge ordered RIM to pay NTP $53.7 million in damages,
] interest and attorneys' fees.
]
] Spencer also ordered RIM to stop selling BlackBerry
] software and services and nine hand-held models. But the
] judge delayed imposing that decision because he said RIM
] would be "irreparably injured" without the chance to
] appeal.
]
] "If they don't win the appeal, the BlackBerry's off the
] market in the United States," said Jim Wallace, the
] lawyer for NTP.

Lawsuit May Curtail Sales Of BlackBerrys (TechNews.com)

] "The action we are taking is intended to protect the
] privacy rights of our customers," SBC spokesman Larry
] Meyer said.
]
] "It's about the fact that anyone can without any effort
] obtain one of these DMCA subpoenas," said Meyer,
] referring to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

SBC Sues RIAA to stop subpoenas

] The head of Interpol called on Wednesday for a global
] crackdown on software and music piracy, saying the
] illicit proceeds help finance al-Qaida, Hezbollah and
] other terrorist networks.

Remember, when you are downloading MP3s, you are downloading communism^Wradical Islam.

Piracy linked to terrorism (by Interpol)

] This site is a resource for individuals seeking
] information on how to defend themselves if their identity
] has been subpoenaed by a private third party seeking to
] enforce their copyrights on the Internet.

Subpoena Defense Alliance

] When I mentioned in last week's column that I would this
] week be writing about a legal way to do a successful
] music downloading business -- a business that would
] threaten the Recording Industry Association of America
] and its hegemony -- dozens of readers wrote to me trying
] to predict what I would write. Some readers came at the
] problem from a purely technical perspective, ignoring the
] fact that the real issues here aren't technical but
] legal. Some readers took a legal approach, but they
] tended to ignore the business model. Some were looking
] solely for the business model. Interestingly, nobody
] even came close to my idea, which makes me either a total
] loon or a diabolical genius. Truth be told, I'm probably
] more of a diabolical loon.
]
]
] The reason I am even writing this column is two-fold.
] The biggest reason is simply because I would like people
] to consider lateral solutions to problems. I am pushing
] the concept of problem solving in a new way. There is no
] particular methodology here, just the underlying concept
] that if things aren't working the way you like, think of
] something different. Too often, people restrict their
] thinking or they somehow expect the world to change just
] for them, which it won't. But taking a lateral approach
] often yields interesting results. And once you've found
] an approach, maybe it can be applied to a different
] problem. What I am abo

Cringely's crazy idea

] "MIT recently received a subpoena from the Recording
] Industry Association of America that was issued under the
] terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The
] subpoena requests the name and address of the individual
] whose computer was, according to the RIAA, sending out
] copyrighted songs on the Internet.
]
] "A different federal law, the Family Education Rights and
] Privacy Act, prohibits colleges and universities from
] disclosing information about students except in certain
] situations.

MIT responds to RIAA subpoena

] The movie industry announced a broad new anti-piracy
] public education campaign today, with commercials set to
] appear on all six broadcast television networks, more
] than two dozen cable channels and in 5,000 movie theaters
] nationwide.
]
] The ads are scheduled to launch at the same time on all
] participating channels during prime-time telecasts on
] Thursday. They also are slated to run between previews
] showing before Friday night's movies. Encompassing one
] 30-second and five 65-second spots, the campaign asks
] consumers not to digitally download unauthorized versions
] of movies they may find on the Internet.
]
] The spots feature actor Ben Affleck and "Titanic"
] director James Cameron, but they focus on
] behind-the-scenes movie employees, such as set painters,
] security guards, costumers, editors and theater
] concessionaires who make up the bulk of the industry's
] 580,000 workers. The point of the campaign is to persuade
] illegal downloaders that they are stealing paycheck money
] not just from multi-millionaire stars but from regular
] working folks -- folks like them.

Comments from Dementia:

Now, I understand that this may be the case. I sympathize with "the little guys." And when Hollywood puts out a film I like, I go to the theatre and see it, and later I buy it on DVD - I don't get a crappy pirated copy, I want quality. But if they're putting out the same old crap, well, I'm not going, and I'm not buying.

But this blatant heart-string-ing makes me ill. "Aw, look at these poor guys... but don't mind us millionaires/billionaires over here, though." If they really felt so bad about the little guy, they wouldn't fight union contracts so hard, and they'd be more open to independent filmmakers. And maybe some of these CEOs would take a pay cut to up the wages for the guys who aren't able to "put together 12 straight months" (from the article). There was a meme not too long ago about Keanu Reeves giving something like 75% of what he made back to his stunt crew because he didn't feel they were compensated enough - maybe Big Hollywood should take a cue.

Screw you, Big Hollywood. I don't buy your play.

Movie Industry Unveils Anti-Piracy Public Education Campaign (TechNews.com)