IEEE Drops DMCA Reference in Authors Copyright Form 61
aurelian writes "a follow-up on this story in April: the IEEE has announced that they have re-revised their copyright form and dropped the requirement that authors verify their work does not violate the DMCA. Seems to be as a result of feedback from their authors/members. Of course authors still have to comply with the act - they just don't have to see it mentioned in the new form."
implied meaning (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they can't go out and say "we think it's alright to break the law" so the best they can do is imply it.
To me, this says that the IEEE has brains.
Re:The IEEE has lots of brains... (Score:1)
Re:implied meaning (Score:3, Interesting)
What about non-DMCA countries? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yours, Andrew.
Re:What about non-DMCA countries? (Score:2)
Of course not! (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course they do not have to - unless they live in primitive countries that pass such silly laws!
superior timing as always...... (Score:1, Offtopic)
http://yro.slashdot.org/~jeffy124/journal/7023 [slashdot.org]
No, ... (Score:1)
Not that I complain
Re:No, ... (Score:1)
lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
So what went right this time?
First press release! (Score:4, Informative)
Contact
Bill Hagen ? 732 562 3966, w.hagen@ieee.org
M arsha Longshore ? 732 562 6824, m.longshore@ieee.org
PISCATAWAY, N.J., 22 April -- The IEEE will revise its copyright form amidst author concerns about a reference that requires authors to verify that their work does not violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
?The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has become a very sensitive subject among our authors. It?s intended to protect digital content, but its application in some specific cases appears to have alienated large segments of the research community,? said Bill Hagen, manager of IEEE Intellectual Property Rights.
?We reevaluated our requirement that authors warrant their compliance because it has proven to be much more controversial than expected. We needed to respond to author objections to signing the form,? he explained. When the copyright form was last revised in November 2001, the reference to the newly passed DMCA was added in order to alert authors to the law?s requirements.
Among its provisions, DMCA prohibits ?any technology, product, service, device component or part? that circumvents digital copy protection systems. This has been perceived as a serious problem, by scientists and engineers who fear that this could prevent them from even publishing articles about digital protection, encryption, or cryptography technologies.
This concern stems largely from the case of Princeton University professor Edward Felton, who decided not to present research on copy protection technologies last year after entertainment industry officials warned him that he risked violating the DMCA with his presentation. The case was later dropped.
Although the DMCA reference will be dropped from the form, IEEE continues to expect its authors to adhere to all copyright laws. The revised form, which all authors are required to sign, will be available by the end of April.
The IEEE has more than 375,000 members in approximately 150 countries. Through its members, the organization is a leading authority on areas ranging from aerospace, computers and telecommunications to biomedicine, electric power and consumer electronics. The IEEE produces over 100 magazines, journals and transactions in electrical and electronics engineering, computing and information technology and related fields, and sponsors or cosponsors more than 300 technical conferences worldwide each year. Additional information about the IEEE can be found at http://www.ieee.org/about/.
# # #
Authors don't have to comply with the act... (Score:4)
Re:Authors don't have to comply with the act... (Score:3, Interesting)
But of course it's a good sign the IEEE is "dropping active support" for the DMCA.
IEEE would get sued, and in turn sue the author (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course they now say the same as in the old agreement, but in a roundabout way
"It is the responsibility of the authors, not the IEEE, to determine whether disclosure of their material requires the prior consent of other parties and, if so, to obtain it.".
They have no fucking balls
Re:Authors don't have to comply with the act... (Score:1)
finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:finally (Score:1)
They don't need to do that anyway -- we're perfectly able to do that all by ourselves.
Australia Is Getting Its Own DMCA
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/02/28/0243227.sh
This makes us all (Score:1)
If we cannot innovate/test and break copy protections and such things to find a weakness we are safe from ourselves.. this does not take into account everyone else who will soon be lightyears ahead of us.
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, in this case, changing the paperwork is a disservice to the people who sign it. It served as a "Beware of the Leopard," type sign. You know, as in "there is a horrible ravenous beast out there that may decide to eat you if you draw its attention." Now, of course, the ravening beast is still out there, and will still eat you if you draw its attention.
It would be sort of as if a park had formerly had a sign near a lake saying, "Beware Alligators," and then one day took it down.
When asked, the park director says, "Oh, well, we were getting fewer people coming to the park, it seems that people didn't want to swim in the lake when they knew they might be eaten by and alligator."
"Oh, so you've gotten rid of the alligators, then."
"Well, no, but now people aren't afraid to swim in the lake any more."
Re:Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (Score:2)
not so great? (Score:4, Interesting)
By removing the requirement that authors verify DMCA compliance, the IEEE has removed a constant reminder of the DMCA's blatant disregard for rights. The sneaky thing is, the DMCA still applies in all of its unconstitutional glory. So this provides no added protection to authors, but does encourage people to forget about the DMCA entirely.
Ignoring the DMCA is not going to make it go away. We need to raise awareness by putting notices and warnings everywhere, to the point of absurdity. Imagine if segregationists had not posted "Whites Only" signs on restaurants, but had quietly asked blacks to leave instead. The reason civil rights legislation went through is because of the constant visual reminders.
We need to bring back these kinds of requirements, and start making software that battles copyright infringement (according to the letter of the law) proactively. XMMS should present a dialog box every time a new song starts, asking the user to verify that he or she has the right to listen to it. Windows should force the user to confirm that every program run is legal and paid for.
If we let the DMCA become a silent force, then we have no one to blame but ourselves when in sneaks up on society and clubs it over the head.
Re:not so great? (Score:1, Interesting)
There are so many things wrong with the DMCA, but my particular, most-pet-peevish provision is how it coerces common carriers, publishers, etc, to be the enforces for this. All it takes is one letter from a lawyer saying "we suspect such-and-such of DMCA violations while using your system, make them stop or YOU go to jail!".
This aspect applies equally to ISPs and publishers like the IEEE, so I see their move in dropping the DMCA line still as a positive move.
CPT Carl
What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:1)
Bad climate? Migrate! (Score:2, Interesting)
If the act would really be harmful to innovation, why don't all innovaters move outside the US? Since the US government preaches a global free market, they'd promote (among other things) freedom of currencies, freedom of goods and freedom of labour. So when the government will eventually discover the DMCA was a counter-innovative idea, I suppose they'd get rid of it, right?!? They'd understand that better than any other organization.
You can't win all fights within your castle's walls.
(This post was probably a bad (or at least arguable) idea - so forgive my ignorance. No need to flame.)
--
Everything that can be invented, has been invented -- Charles H. Dueel, 1899
Re:Bad climate? Migrate! (Score:2)
And go where? I really do want to know. Name one halfway modernized country whose government is on the whole more in touch with reality than all the rest. You're right, the US is bad and at the rate things are going I _will_ leave it, but I'm not too hopeful about the rest of the planet either.
why don't all innovaters move outside the US?
Well, they're starting to move here from without less, that's for certain.
So when the government will eventually discover the DMCA was a counter- innovative idea, I suppose they'd get rid of it, right?!?
Hahaha, oh, that's a good one. No, when it gets to the point where even my cat and dead grandmother can see that the DMCA was fucked up from the beginning, the politicians' response will be to enact something even worse. Exhibit A, Prohibition: 12 years before it occured to them that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't the brightest piece of legislation. Exhibit B, the War on Drugs: hundreds of billions of dollars spent, criminals running wild in South American countries because their product is illegal everywhere, American citizens spending cumulative eons of 'quality time' in the slammer, terrifying and draconian measures being taken, blatantly obvious government lies regarding the whole affair, all to keep people from _potentially_ harming themselves, with not even a pretense at a logical reason for it all, and they show absolutely no signs of giving up.
That's just off the top of my head for this country alone. Britain, if you'll recall, has that wonderful bit about requiring disclosure of passwords on pain of prison. Canada is poised to freeze their entire computer storage market in place in with media storage taxes. France has their Language Police and have opted to emulate the US regarding international compliance with local laws. That Australian NSW Internet Censorship bill; you know, the one outlawing anything above the level of Saturday morning cartoons, is actually still a going concern. Hell, the EU as a whole is about to duplicate the whole DMCA fiasco. I swear, none of these governments actually live on the same planet as the country that pays their bills.
I know, I know, preaching to the choir and all. But please, if you can find some place where we can go and code without fear, by all means tell us. Until then, we're kinda stuck here and can't really risk waiting for our pointy-haired legislators to grow a clue or even learn from their bonehead mistakes. They will bring the country down in flames before admitting error.
Re:Bad climate? Migrate! (Score:2)
China? They don't seem to care to much about reverse engineering, patents or copyrights...
> Name one halfway modernized country whose government is on the whole more in touch with reality than all the rest.
Germany? The German government is well on top of web precence of extremist groups but is otherwise pretty Open Source and anti-patent minded.
Holland? The Dutch government is pretty liberal in most respects. The XS4all service provider [xs4all.nl] has its roots in the hacker community and has until now refused disclosure of any userinfo of non-convicted members to any organization.
Then again you're probably right about the EU's intentions, so you're better off in Norwegia. Also, don't forget that in Europe patent lawsuits - or lawsuits in general - are less common than in the US. Most disputes are solved by common sense, rather than big bucks.
> >So when the government will eventually discover the DMCA was a counter- innovative idea, I suppose they'd get rid of it, right?!?
> Hahaha, oh, that's a good one. [...] Exhibit A [...] Exhibit B
I meant that as a joke, but thanks for refreshing my memory. My rherorical question was meant to point out how a capitalistic democratic society still manages to fuck up its free market. I bet that once a government funded anti-cyberterrorism BSA-alike organization has come into place, it will take a couple of centuries to discover/uncover what went wrong...
However, if you'd like to give them politicians a wake-up call, then you would need a clear signal. Like a general strike of all university and free-thinking-companies related professors, researchers and students. Get media attention, threaten to leave the country, point out the economy doesn't benefit from the brain-drain. Go on strike, the French way! (Also a joke
IEEE and IEEE+ DMCA violating standards (Score:2)
Two versions? (Score:2)
Re:Two versions? (Score:1)
Limited liability (Score:1)
OT : What ever happen to Dmitri?? (Score:1, Interesting)
No they don't (Score:1)
Not unless you live in the US. Seriously, I know
DMCA is different for IEEE than for you. (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone were to write a similar paper without those credentials, and published the paper on the web without also putting it in a journal, that person would have an uphill battle proving that his intention was research and not hacking.
Look at section 1201(g)(3) for factors showing how courts are supposed to determine whether you are a legitimate researcher or a criminal hacker.
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.htm
Re:DMCA is different for IEEE than for you. (Score:1)
Tell that to Skylov.
Re:DMCA is different for IEEE than for you. (Score:1)
Re:DMCA is different for IEEE than for you. (Score:2, Insightful)
So, the first is full-on censorship. Plain and simple. You can think about whatever you like, but you don't have the freedom to tell anyone about it.
Now, the second requirement is the same as when engineers who are trying to make a better car engine have to give Ford the results of their research because they used a Taurus engine in their study. Hmmm...
The third means that not only am I responsible for who reads my research and what they do with it, but that a court of law has been given the power to determine whether what _I_ consider reasonable actually is "reasonable" (and of course the question is: "reasonable" according to whom?).
The fourth is just as bad as the third, for the same reason (what is "legitimate"?), and is in fact worse because it excludes people who are interested in encryption but do not either recieve or spend money (just time!) on their involvement in it.
Finally (my pragmatic argument), if a scientist has to worry that every time he or she writes a paper about encryption, he or she has to at the very least spend a few months defending it in court, and at the other extreme get thrown in jail, a lot of scientists probably just wouldn't bother.
Re:DMCA is different for IEEE than for you. (Score:1)
You may join the Guild only if your father was a member of the Guild.
In this way, Venice will always control the spice trade with the far East!
. .
Science must serve a social purpose! Science must be subordinate to the needs of the State and the People. Thus only the State can determine what is proper science, and who is really a scientist.
The 'Jewish Science' is not true Science.
Thank the Furher we threw out that proponent of ridiculous Jewish Science, "Doktor" Einstein! How fortunate that Mussolini got rid of that trouble-maker Fermi! The Jew and Bolshevik scientists are fleeing Europe: John von Neumann, Otto Meyerhof, Otto Loewi, Konrad Bloch, Erwin Chargaff, Fritz Lipmann, Rudolf Schoenheimer, Ernst Boris Chain, Hans Krebs, Max Perutz, Michael Polanyi!
By stamping out the Jewish Science, Germany will once again grow strong!
. .
IEEE = profit-making = strict digital copyright (Score:2, Interesting)
There is still another debate to be had apart from the one on the IEEE author copyright agreement. It has to do with the IEEE copyright policy for their digital publications.
As an IEEE member who pays for subscriptions to several journals I get to keep paper copies of the journals. I can do what I like with them. In particular, I can annotate interesting papers. I can give (or sell as used) my journals to anyone I like, including any annotations I may have made. That's fine but paper takes up shelf space and it would be better if I could do the same things with electronic copies as I do with paper copies. In fact, the IEEE and various sub-groups like the Computer Society are strongly pushing for members to take out the Digital Library subscription which gives access to digital copies of the journals.
Problem: if you read their copyright policy, you are not allowed to do any of the things I can do with a paper journal subscription. Among many other restrictions:
In November 2000, I talked to the IEEE copyright officer. I explained that the IEEE is a society that exists to promote scientific research and should not be imposing obstacles on researchers wishing to access and use research articles. He said that he sympathised with my argument but that it was basically the Marketing Department of IEEE who had almost total control over their digital copyright strategy and policy. The board of directors has always rubberstamped the Marketing Department peoples' proposals. The marketing people are from non-technical backgrounds with large corporations. They are trying to maximise revenue for the IEEE by designing restrictive copyright policies. They do not consider the wider benefits of the IEEE to science. He said the only way it would change is if many other IEEE members were to start requesting the IEEE offer equal terms of access to digital and paper materials.
Wills
Religious Tests & Loyalty Oaths (Score:3, Insightful)
The Grand Inquisitor Torquemada tortured me until I said, confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum, I declare that I am a true and unheretical Catholic....
The good fathers of Salem required that I say I am not a witch, nor have I trafficked with Satan...
Senator Joe McCarthy demanded that I say that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or else name names....
Queen Elizabeth I, insisted I renounce Catholicism and "utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme Governor of the Realm . . . as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal, . . . So help me God."....
Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen told me to swear my code does not circumvent or allow others to circumvent the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, under pain of Senator Fritz Hollings's Security Systems Standards and Certification Act requiring me to "include and utilize certified security technologies" on all my electronics.
Re:Religious Tests & Loyalty Oaths (Score:1)
It was still there last week (Score:1)
I had to sign the IEEE copyright form about a week ago for a paper that will appear in the proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent Robotic Systems (which is in Switzerland by the way, not in the USA). The form still had the DMCA clause in it. Too bad I don't have it with me now to post it.
Actually, it was a DCMA clause. They referred to the law as the "Digital Copyright Millenium Act." It looked like a joke. I thought lawyers who write copyright forms were supposed to know what they are writing about.
I was pissed off when I saw the DMCA mentioned, since I remember reading somewhere that they were going to remove it. I was planning to investigate but damn thesis --- takes all of my time.
So, it looks like their timing was wrong. They should have done this before the deadline for the conference, not after that. More than 400 authors (from all over the world) now had to put up with this insanity.
Glad to see this go, though.