[svlug] (forw) Re: (forw) RE: (forw) Re: Time to dump those yahoo accounts

[Rick Moen]

(Forwarding a follow-up, with Richard's permission.)

----- Forwarded message from Richard Michael Morrell <richard at linuxtec.co.uk> -----

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:12:50 +0000
To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
From: Richard Michael Morrell <richard at linuxtec.co.uk>
Reply-to: Richard Michael Morrell <richard at linuxtec.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Group-Office 2.17
Subject: Re: [svlug] (forw) RE: (forw) Re: Time to dump those yahoo accounts



	I hired Andrew Waugh one of the UK's best IP lawyers who pointed out
exactly what you did. Issue is I know for a fact that to get to a
point where any of IPcop's crew of muppets (US based) could be placed
as liable (and also Eben Mogel also pointed this out) would cost tens
of thousands of dollars if not more and anyway it achieves nothing.
They did what they did - they even admit it removing my name and
Lawrence's names etc from our own code and thats just how it is. You
can't treat most opensource geeks on projects like IPCop like adults.


	I made my money from selling SmoothWall it means I'm comfortable for
life and after taking massive financial personal risks with a young
family to make it including maxing out credit cards for years to get
it to fly it was only just worth it from a stress perspective. 

	Now Open Source gives me an income greater than I could earn at most
software companies working for governments and major projects pee'ing
all over proprietary technologies and that gives me a buzz thats
worth more than money. 

	IPCop was a time and place and if you read the attached dated pdf
you might get a snapshot of how reserved Lawrence was over being
screwed over by a bunch of morons. 

[RM:  snip Richard's included copy of my entire prior post.   The
attached PDF of a 2002 interview with Lawrence Manning of Smoothwall,
Ltd., published in _Linux Magazine_ (UK), mentioned the IPcop incident
only in pasing, saying "After the rampant abuse of our rights as
developers by the IPCop team, and others, there is no way we will share
advantage with the community.  And there is no doubting this point. I do
not want to go into details or get into a debate. But we were abused."]

----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:40:18 -0800
From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
To: Richard Michael Morrell <richard at linuxtec.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [svlug] (forw) RE: (forw) Re: Time to dump those yahoo accounts

Quoting Richard Michael Morrell (richard at linuxtec.co.uk):

> I hired Andrew Waugh one of the UK's best IP lawyers who pointed out
> exactly what you did.

Nice to hear I was on-target -- though I try to be pretty careful in
what I say about copyright law.

> Issue is I know for a fact that to get to a point where any of IPcop's
> crew of muppets (US based) could be placed as liable (and also Eben
> Mogel also pointed this out) would cost tens of thousands of dollars
> if not more and anyway it achieves nothing.

Here, I think your legal advisors may have missed a point.  I will not 
address your specific legal situation -- because it could be unlawful
for me to do so (unauthorised practice of law statutes), but will point
out that, for the last decade in the USA, the radically cheaper remedy
against Internet copyright violators of 17 U.S.C. 512 takedown notices
has been available.  See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA

It's a badly written law, poorly conceived, and probably should be
repealed wholesale.  However, until it is, it exists and is the obvious
way to get first-level redress against Internet users violating your
copyrights.  That is, if you're willing to state that you have good
faith believe that the other guy's stuff violates your copyright, and 
say under penalty of perjury that you own the copyright (or are
authorised to operate for the owner), then it _will_ get taken down.

The other guy has the option of certifying that he/she is _not_
violating copyright under penalty of perjury _and_ consents to US
Federal jurisdiction for lawsuit.  If that happens, the material can be
restored in something like 10 days, but true copyright violators will be
strongly motivated to not try.

> They did what they did - they even admit it removing my name and
> Lawrence's names etc from our own code and thats just how it is.

Again, I cannot lawfully address your specific case, but someone who
admits on the record to having stripped a valid copyright notice has
committed a blunder extremely useful to the other side in a 17 U.S.C.
512 complaint scenario.

----- End forwarded message -----