MPAA Forced To Take Down University Toolkit 292
bobbocanfly writes "Ubuntu developer Matthew Garrett has succeeded in getting the MPAA to remove their 'University Toolkit' after claims it violated the GNU GPL. After several unsuccessful attempts to contact the MPAA directly, Garrett eventually emailed the group's ISP and the violating software was taken down."
A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
MPAA don't fuck with my shit.
(And yes, I did attempt to contact them by email and phone before resorting to the more obnoxious behaviour of contacting the ISP. No reply to my email, and the series of friendly receptionists I got bounced between had no idea who would be responsible but promised me someone would call back. No joy there, either.)
Awesome.
Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
One might almost say that the summary of the article is more informative than the article itself.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
i like the post article (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this is all just a joke. Really.
>I don't nor does the Slashdotters posting here except the rabid, fanatical F/OSS fanboys.
How can you assert that? Did you do a survey?
>This is not a victory.
Then tell us what it is.
>Silly kids, go trim your neck beards and worship Stallman some more.
How do you know "kids" are responsible for this? What backs up your suggestion that if they are kids that they are silly? How old do you think Matthew Garrett is? Go google it.
Maybe you should take a chill pill and leave this topic alone if you aren't interested in it. You are making baseless assertions just to try and stir shit.
You come across as a dumb ass.
Re:i like the post article (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uuuuubunnnntttuuuuuuuu Correction... (Score:4, Interesting)
"The University Toolkit is essentially an operating system (xubuntu) that you can boot up from a CD-ROM. The package bundles some powerful, open-source network monitoring tools, including "Snort," which captures detailed information about all traffic flowing across a network; as well as "ntop," a tool used to take data feeds from tools like Snort and display the data in more user-friendly graphics and charts. "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/11/mpaa_university_toolkit_opens_1.html [washingtonpost.com]
Chinese Translation (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
2. LiveJournal servers slashdotted to hell
3. ???
4. geekocalypse!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll make you my friend... apparently we are the only two who thought this post was funny and so we better stick together
Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
You missed the two screen shots. Essentially the post shows a "before and after" screenshot of the MPA University Toolkit page [universitytoolkit.org]. The before picture contains a link that the after picture doesn't: "Click Here to Download The Beta Version of the Toolkit"
There's also another link that links to a blog entry about the MPAA toolkit [washingtonpost.com] which, if you dive into the comments, explains the GPL violation. (Just search for GPL, it's easier than trying to find it.)
So not entirely worthless, and therefore not a new low, just meeting the same low standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps just a new low... apparently the old low was defective and replaced.
Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
You got 20 gil.
You found an MP3!
Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright laws do need to be changed to take reality into account, but the issue here is that the software is being distributed in violation of the license. Copyright law is just the "enforcement stick" of this license.
Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure anyone still works in binary except for the "There are 10 kinds of people in the world" guy
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious retaliation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Since I was not a citizen (I was there illegally), I was unable to contract an ISP. I feel I missed out somehow, but I got over it after Glasnost.
Anyway, my point is, y
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Explanation. (Score:5, Informative)
As TFS & TFA have little info, here's some background:
The MPA(A) released a Xubuntu derived livecd with a bunch of F/OSS tools to assist universities in monitoring their networks. *rolls*eyes*. More info about the software in this Washington Post article [washingtonpost.com].
Unfortuntately the CD as shipped contained no source & no written offer for the source, so was in violation of the GPL (and hence, the MPAA are in violation of various software author's copyright).
After several attempts to reach contact the MPAA, the ubuntu developer sent a takedown notice to the hosting ISP.
I hope he now presses for copyright violation - as he so elequoently says: MPAA don't fuck with my shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you suggesting that each distro made from Ubuntu must have its own separate repository for the source? That clearly flies in the face of what already exists.
Re:Explanation. (Score:5, Informative)
Even if all you do is change a strcat(); line, you have to (at minimum) distribute that change's source.
Actually (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where that breaks is when you change the code (like they did with ncat), and then not distribute the changes in the form of a diff. That's not a minor "technicality:" that's the whole purpose of the GPL, is to require that if you make those kinds of changes you distribute your code changes.
Re:Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You could argue that, provided you do nothing to hinder the user from accessing it, that providing a URL to somebody who hosts the code IS distribution.
That might not be the FSF's reasoning, mind you.
But, I'm quite sure that the court would at least hear the argument: "While we personally didn't distribute the source code, we made arrangements for the source code to be obtained free of charge on the Internet through a third-party."
In brief, you're m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You must do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
[with the further clarification that: "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution
Stop talking shit (Score:5, Informative)
You must distribute (or offer to) the complete source code corresponding to the binaries you distribute. The whole purpose of the GPL is that someone getting a binary can get the full source for the binary.
Except in one scenario (Score:2)
Otherwise if I were giving a Ubuntu CD to a friend I'd have to be prepared to distribute the source to him too! As it is I can just refer him to the offer Ubuntu gave me.
That may even apply to most of the packages aggregated on the Xubuntu CD the MPAA were distributing (I haven't see
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the changed packages it would be interesting to know what the changes were, to the extent that can be determined without the source.
It would be interesting, I suppose, from an academic point of view, but it doesn't really matter. As long as they changed them, even the slightest bit, they're required to distribute (or offer / provide a method for users to obtain) the complete sources to the modified components -- specifically not diffs [gnu.org] -- or they're in violation of the GPL.
Even if all they did was change a few strings or customize an interface, they have to distribute the changed components in source form along with the binaries.
Re: (Score:2)
It might matter. I don't know what they did (and there seems surprisingly little public analysis) but it's feasible to imagine a scenario where someone got the functionality they wanted by merely changing configuration files relating to the binary package rather than changing the actual source and recompiling.
If that were the case I'm not sure that they would necessarily have to distribute because of the GP
see also (Score:2)
It would be nice to know precisely what went on. Obviously we don't have to be told, but if "MPAA don't fuck with my shit" is going to be splashed around the kernel/Debian/Ubuntu planets I think it's reasonable for people to be interested in the details.
Perhaps this story can get even wierder and the MPAA will post the DMCA notice on Chilling Effects [chillingeffects.org]
Re:Except in one scenario (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Common misconception at least with regard to GPLv2 because when it's done that way, FOSS authors often let it slide but strictly speaking it's a license violation. Quoting from GPLv2 section 3:
Re:Explanation. (Score:5, Informative)
So, it's not even a technical violation in the letter of the license, it's a legitimate violation of the spirit of the license. They are distributing a change to the code without source.
Re:Explanation. (Score:5, Informative)
There was also a page on the 'monitor' site that stated the software was released under the GPL, but I don't recall if it included a copy of the license itself. The MPAA code seemed to be kept separate and the license on that was unclear, however there were Java Server Pages distributed as binary only as well as some shell scripts and maybe some python (again, i don't remember).
Does anyone know of a mirror of the original ISO? I would like to look at it further but I deleted the one I originally downloaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
When did you last check? Prior to the GPLv2 at least. From gpl-violations.org's FAQ [gpl-violations.org]:
Or are you suggesting that each distro made from Ubuntu must have its own separate repository for the source? That clearly flies in the face o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see the standard package manager anywhere in the MPAA UT Admin Guide [universitytoolkit.com] (PDF). It appears to go straight from the splash screen to the "Peerwatch" configuration.
Besides, the GPL section 3 is pretty clear on this: if you're not distributing source code yourself (option a), or a written offer to sell it (option
Re: (Score:2)
then you must "Accompany [the program] with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code". Unless you count disassembling the install CD, they haven't met this at all.
Remember also: that's only an option for noncommercial distribution. I think what they're doing is pretty close to commercial distribution -- I'm not intimately familiar with how the GPL defines "commercial" but I wouldn't simply assume that because they're not charging for it directly that they're allowed to fall under non-commercial, particularly if they're using it in order to advance a business position or working on behalf of for-profit entities.
Yes, everyone has to provide their own source copy (Score:2)
No, each organization that distributes GPL binaries has to supply their own copy of the source. It's not sufficient to point out some other website that has it.
I know this because I subscribe to the Cygwin mailing list, which has discussed this extensively. The Cygwin DLL is a POSIX emulation layer for Windows, and it's quite common for companies to port their *NIX apps to Windows with Cygwin, and then to bundle their app wit
Re:Explanation. (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet he didn't do it right (Score:2)
Ha! (Score:2)
Encouraging result (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Encouraging result (Score:5, Insightful)
The delicious irony here is that the MPAA drafted the DMCA and were primarily responsible for pushing it through Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. And, since this Livejournal entry made slashdot front page, the entire world and beyond knows. The only logical conclusion: the MPAA is preparing self termination out of shame and drafting the necessary papers as we speak.
Re:Encouraging result (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Encouraging result (Score:4, Insightful)
It probably stings terribly to be spanked with a paddle of your own design and construction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Congratulatons, you've learned something for tomorrow, too! (I don't normally bother about spelling errors on Slashdot, but this was actually a good point to remember.)
"Simple email" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Encouraging result (Score:5, Informative)
We're not talking about a "social-engineering" takedown, but about a takedown notice defined and authorized by federal law, and enforceable in any court in the land.
IMO, the takedown notice defined in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is one of the few good things in that law. It says that if someone is publishing your copyrighted materials on the Internet, all you have to do is send a notice to the ISP, stating that the material is yours. The ISP is then *required* to take it down, or else be considered guilty of infringement. On the other hand, if the ISP does take it down, they are granted a "Safe Harbor" status, meaning that they're absolutely free of any liability for the infringement.
If something you've published on-line is taken down as a result of a DMCA takedown and it is not infringing, all you have to do is send the ISP a notice stating that the material is not infringing. The ISP can then put the material back on-line, without losing the "Safe Harbor" status. The system is set up so that the ISP doesn't end up trying to determine what is infringing and what is not.
Both the DMCA takedown notice and the counter-notice are sworn affidavits, meaning that when the issue goes to court any untruths in the notices can be prosecuted as perjury. So there's a strong disincentive for someone to issue a DMCA takedown frivolously, as it will cost the publisher almost nothing to get the takedown reversed, and may land the issuer in hot water. Likewise, there's a strong disincentive for a publisher of infringing materials to issue a counter-notice.
And, above all, the ISP who is caught in the middle is shielded from any potential liability, and doesn't have to make any attempt to adjudicate the ownership of the materials (which, obviously, no rational ISP would do anyway -- if in doubt they'd just take it down and leave it that way).
Re:Encouraging result (Score:5, Informative)
Once you violate the GPL, your right to distribute the licensed software is terminated. You can only start distributing it again if the copyright holder relicenses you to do so. In GPL violation disputes, the FSF have normally relicensed a distributer once they conform to the GPL's requirements - but this is not automatic, or written into the GPL.
From GPL v2:
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
There is no clause about reinstating rights under the license.
In other words - if any of the copyright holders in Xubuntu code insist, the MPAA can't ever distribute their software, even with source. IANAL, so I don't know if the courts would support this hard-line.
Re: (Score:2)
What can happen is that the copyright owners can still sue them for the copyright violation that they have already done.. but it never happens. Even the recent Busybox lawsuits have been settled before they got to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you violate the GPL, your right to distribute the licensed software is terminated. You can only start distributing it again if the copyright holder relicenses you to do so. In GPL violation disputes, the FSF have normally relicensed a distributer once they conform to the GPL's requirements - but this is not automatic, or written into the GPL.
This is interesting. What this basically means is that the MPAA may never use Xubuntu again. I highly doubt any of the developers will give them permission. And I think for them to get permission, they have to ask EVERY SINGLE ONE of them. They still can't use later versions either because those will be derivatives and it would violate the copyright of this older one.
Don't think that's true. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you violate one of the GPL terms, your license to use the software is terminated. Fine. However, as long as the software is still being offered to anyone under the GPL, you can just go, conform to every part of the GPL, and use it again. You can think of it as one license being terminated, but then going and getting a new one; the GPL is an "infinite stack" of licenses: all you need to do to get a new one is to play by the rules.
There's nothing in the GPL that says 'if you violate this once, you're out for good,' although I'm not sure that would be an entirely terrible idea. But that license-termination clause doesn't necessarily imply that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't think that's true. (Score:4, Informative)
It does not refer to the right to modify or distribute a piece of software, it refers to the developer's decision to grant you that right. It's not an automatic right in copyright law, so it needs to be granted; without a license (that is, the developer's granting of this right), you don't have it. So if the developer decides to not allow you to do this anymore, you can't do anything: you can't "take a new license", because the developer simply isn't granting you this right anymore.
Now, of course, you might say that once you've been granted a right, the developer can't arbitrarily take it away again whenever it suits them. That's true. However, the restrictions to your granted right to distribute and modify is subject to are explicitely spelled out in the GPL, so you know about them right away; you know right away what you can't do and what will happen if you do it anyway.
So, yes, the GPL *does* say "if you violate this once, you're out for good" - unless/until the developer decides to grant you these rights again after all, something that is neither automatic nor guaranteed (even though most developers - notably, the FSF - will probably do so if you start complying with the license and show an understanding of why this is important).
Finally, allow me to say that you seem pretty confused about the GPL in general, anyway: you talk about a "license to use the software", yet no such thing exists. In fact, the GPL specifically does not apply to mere *use* of the software, and you do not have the accept it in order to do so. You don't even have to accept it to modify the software (at least in the GPLv2); you only have to accept it if you want to *distribute* the software, modified or unmodified.
Re: (Score:2)
"Once you violate the GPL, your right to distribute the licensed software is terminated. You can only start distributing it again if the copyright holder relicenses you to do so."
Sorta-kinda. They can terminate your license for that instance of that software (and that is, I believe, the intent of the portion of the license you quoted). Revoking your license to use any instance the software ever again for the rest of your life is, as you've stated, unenforceable.
He should also sue... (Score:5, Insightful)
for copyright infringement as well.
Now that would be poetic justice.
Re:He should also sue... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually it wouldn't... but it would be funny.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, $9250 is far too greedy (Score:2)
MPAA Pwned by DMCA Takedown Notice (Score:3, Funny)
Possible deterrent? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The MPAA/RIAA has distributed 1500 copies of my work. I offer that software at $50,000 per copy. They owe me 75 million dollars in damages!"
That's basically what they big media is trying to do to the consumers, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
With a lot of "IP" issues, big business loves to sell these highly-priced items (patents, probably) back and forth. In the end, it's not actually any significant profit for any one player, but a lot of money changes hands making "sales" of their stuff.
So... if you could somehow get two Free Software groups to buy this commercial high-
Re: (Score:2)
Or possibly net loss $30,000 in taxes on two $50,000 sales. Check with your tax accountant before trying this.
Re:Possible deterrent? (Score:4, Informative)
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
$30,000 a pop ain't bad money if you can swing it. I'm not sure exactly what the result would be if you claimed "actual damages" on a zillion dollar price tag despite never having had an "actual sale." Judge might throw out the claim, I suppose. AFAICT, worst case would just be to get laughed at with the huge price tag and then just fall back to statutory damages instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You jest, but the damages they arrive at are statutory. The ruse, technically, is unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See here [cornell.edu]. If you charge a gazillion bucks for your non-GPL software and no one buys it, you'll have a hell of a time proving in court that you suffered any actual damages. You have to price it competitively, and then you might as well be selling it for
Nomenclature, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an awful porno.
Not that they don't have it coming... (Score:2)
That said, I think that'd make the blaggards filthy copyright infringers who deserve to walk the plank. I also think they are hypocrites who obvious
If I may be a geek... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:aww... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:aww... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:aww... (Score:5, Funny)
You wouldn't steal a car!
You wouldn't steal a baby!
You wouldn't shoot a policeman
and then steal his helmet.
You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet!
And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow.
And then steal it again!
Re:aww... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is slander! Or libel! Or something!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No GPL Violation (Score:4, Interesting)
None of what this AC says is true. It doesn't matter if the MPAA never changed any code, the fact remains that they were distributing the code, changed or not. Now, if you want to distribute GPLed code, either you comply with the license and provide source code, or you find yourself just as guilty of copyright infringement as these people torrenting movies that they are so quick to prosecute. What happened was the latter. As for suing them for copyright violation, the fact that no one lost any money is also immaterial. There is such a thing as statutory damages, which would be at minimum US$750 for each copyrighted work thus violated, and could be as high as US$30,000. They would thus theoretically be on the hook for statutory damages for every GPLed package in the Xubuntu distribution, just like Ms. Jammie Thomas. There are hundreds of GPLed packages in Xubuntu... You do the math.