CBS Interactive Sued For Distributing Green Dam 133
Dotnaught writes "Solid Oak Software, maker of Internet filter CYBERsitter, on Monday filed a $1.2 million copyright infringement lawsuit against CBS Interactive's ZDNet China for distributing the Green Dam Internet filtering software. Green Dam was going to be mandatory on all PCs in China starting in July, but widespread criticism, including reports of stolen code, forced the Chinese government to reconsider. The lawsuit, if it succeeds, could force companies to give more thought to the risks of complying with mandates from foreign governments that violate US laws."
What realistic choice does ZDnet have? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to operate in China, they've got to comply with Chinese laws. If they don't comply, the Chinese government has all sorts of levers to apply (fines, jail, blocking their site, etc).
Personally, I would just choose to not do business in China until such time as there is even a hint of transparency in the business and legal environments, but that's just me.
Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? (Score:3, Insightful)
So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can (Score:5, Insightful)
This strikes me as desperation. Solid Oak Software obviously can't sue the violator, who is China proper, so they're suing any 3rd party they can find.
As far I can tell, the ZDNet China site [zdnet.com.cn] is basically the same thing as Download.com [cnet.com], CBS American freeware/shareware/trialware download site. If this is the case, then CBS isn't directly making any money off of offering the software since they aren't selling it (they do however get ad money). It's freeware, and CBS would have no way of knowing that it contained copyright-infringing code. To add insult to injury, Solid Oak wants the full price ($40) of their own filtering software awarded to them as damages, for each copy downloaded from ZDNet China.
If this goes to trial and Solid Oak were to win, it would end up being a precedent-setting event. What Solid Oak is basically arguing is that 3rd parties are fully liable for any copyright violations in the software they distribute. That would immediately make download sites such as Download.com, FilePlanet, and MajorGeeks an impossible thing to offer. And who knows, maybe even Linux mirrors would be liable if some Linux component/package was found to be violating copyright?
If Solid Oak has their way, the idea of rehosting free (as in beer) software is dead.
Re:What realistic choice does ZDnet have? (Score:5, Insightful)
The more Western entities in China there are, the more their regime weakens. It will take time - maybe a generation or more, but the Chinese people will be doing the changing on their terms instead by mandate from Westerners.
Telling others how to live and how to govern themselves has never worked.Notice that whenever the Chinese government is criticized, the Chinese people are right there backing their Government.
Real change will have to come from within and the Chinese people will have to do it and do it according to their values.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is evil.
I think you more properly meant that the people doing evil are doing it under the guise of capitalism.
Re:Win-win situation (Score:5, Insightful)
A battle between a repressive government and a company that makes repressive software? So there's basically no downside?
Yes there is. Lawyers will profit.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wish people would stop calling "capitalism evil". Capitalism is nothing more than your neighbor building a chair, or bed, or whatever his specialty might be, and you saying, "That's really nice, can I buy it or give you something else for trade?" That's capitalism and it's not evil. It's the basis of human interaction between neighbors and goes-back 5000 years.
Have some of the corporations gotten out of control? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we need to kill capitalism. We simply need to downsize the corporation (or kill it off completely), same way we removed the kings and replaced them with democratic-elected assemblies.
That's an odd comment at the end (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all - if you're doing business in more than one country, you are going to have to comply with the laws of those countries.
Secondly, if the recent polls are an indication, about half of Slashdot aren't in the US, so why would we care if some foreign country mandates something that may be illegal in the US? Now, if it had said "could force US companies [...]" it'd be a lot better.
But why are people surprised, that if you operate in a country, you will have to abide by the laws of that country? If you operate in a country that makes it illegal to give your customers' info to any third party without a court order, and another country has a law that says any government official can ask and it's illegal to deny the request - you're going to have to figure out how to build airtight shutters between the two companies.
Duh!
Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can (Score:3, Insightful)
CBS isn't directly making any money off of offering the software since they aren't selling it
So it's OK to post a copy of Metallica's Free speech for the dumb on your website? Actually, I would be ok with noncommercial use always being non-infringing (but they'd still fall afoul, as since there are ads, it's commercial use) but the law says any distribution.
CBS would have no way of knowing that it contained copyright-infringing code.
They knew as soon as they got the takedown notice.
To add insult to injury, Solid Oak wants the full price ($40) of their own filtering software awarded to them as damages, for each copy downloaded from ZDNet China.
ZDNet is lucky they didn't post that Metallica song -- it would be not $40, but $700,000. They're getting off cheap if you ask me.
What Solid Oak is basically arguing is that 3rd parties are fully liable for any copyright violations in the software they distribute.
Seems reasonable to me. Ignorance is no excuse.
That would immediately make download sites such as Download.com, FilePlanet, and MajorGeeks an impossible thing to offer.
They must be doing a far better job than ZDNet, because nobody's sued them for infringement yet. I mean, if you saw your commercial program on download.com what would you do? If Microsoft saw Office on download.com what would they do? Even if the respective programs had been renamed?
If Solid Oak has their way, the idea of rehosting free (as in beer) software is dead.
No, it means that hosts will have to do a little more due dilligance when posting, rather than just slapping up any program shot their way.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble with capitalism is that it's become a religion; in fact, it's the US's dominant religion. And it's an insidious one; people who consider themselves Christians or Athiests worship this god.
Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to agree with your points. The only question I'd have is whether ZDNet was contacted about the copyrighted materials and asked to take them down.
If the copyright holder asked them to take down the materials and they refused, then clearly they're completely liable under the DMCA.
On the other hand, if the first notice they've gotten about hosting the files is a lawsuit, then that is a bit unfair (and not generally compliant with the DMCA).
The issue isn't so much that file-hosting sites exist. The problem is when they don't respond to requests to remove illegal content.
Re:Reaching Out To Sue Anyone You Can (Score:3, Insightful)
The only one of the three elements listed that survives into the executable is the strings, but most of those are going to be changed (into Chinese, probably). De-compiled code - if that's even possible depending on the language - usually bears very little resemblance to the original source. This kind of reverse-engineering (which some might claim is even illegal under the DMCA) is an unreasonable burden to place on software hosting sites.
It has been known for a long time that green dam was stolen code, and they knowingly continued to distribute it.
Yes, that's a valid point.
Clearly not possibly a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not a troll, I am a 6'2" fit male who knows a few languages and can make his way through a crowd.
Oh... You're tall and educated. Therefore you couldn't possibly be a troll. :)
DMCA (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that I am a big fan of the DMCA, but this seems like a perfect example of where its Title II provision [wikipedia.org] is intended to be used.
If White Oak Software started by filing a take-down notice and ZD does not comply (or contest it), then damages are fair-game in my book.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
capitalism has spawned the ability for a very small minority to amass a very enormous amount of wealth. These people are not contributing more to the world, are not necessarily smarter, and it is immoral to think that somehow they are worth 10,000 times more than the average human being.
If you believe that your worth and your wealth are the same thing, then there is no hope for you.
The pres of my company makes a modest salary by ceo/pres standards. I will work 20 years at a decent salary (top 10%) for my region, save 20% of my salary a year and it will not equal what he makes in one year! There's something woefully wrong with our system.
By your own logic; what makes you worthy of a salary greater than 90% of your neighbors? Why should you earn more than the unfit, 5'1" dullard who is illiterate in any language who cleans your table at lunchtime? How many years would she have to work to have what you make in a year? How is that fair? Indeed, why should anyone earn more than the minimum wage? Anything more would be unfair, wouldn't it?
Capitalism has given a majority in America the delusion that they too can win the lotto, they too can be the next 10million dollar a year winner but instead they don't realize that they are stuck as economic vassals.
Therein lies the misconception. Those who believe in capitalism don't believe you gain wealth by winning the lotto. You aren't given a prize for being the smartest either. You do it by adding value - not some metaphysical value that adds to your worth as a human being, but value that someone else can see and is willing to pay for. Sometimes that person is very smart, like Wozniak and Jobs, but more often they are just providing a service that a lot of people are willing to pay for. Like the lady who invented those little buttons that people put in their Crocs. I can personally attest that I would never in a million years have created that product - due to the fact that I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would ever don a pair of Crocs in the first place, let alone adorn it in such a hideous fashion. I would bet that I could best her in a "smarts" contest. You probably could too. But she made a couple of million bucks in her first year in business and you and I are collecting salaries working for someone else. And she deserves every penny of that money, and you and I don't no matter how great we think we are, because she went out there and earned it, and we didn't.