Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Adds DMCA Clause for Submitted Papers
xpccx writes: "Newsforge has this blurb about the IEEE changing its 'IEEE Copyright Form' for submissions to the 'IEEE Copyright Transfer & Export Control Compliance Form.' From the IEEE site: 'While the IEEE standard manuscript submission process has always required authors to represent that the necessary clearances and approvals have been obtained, the newly revised Form now requires the author's explicit affirmation that the manuscript does not violate U.S. export laws or restrictions.' And specifically from the new form, 'The undersigned further warrants that the publication or dissemination of the Work shall not violate any proprietary right or the Digital Copyright Millennium Act (the "DCMA").' Maybe the IEEE just wants to protect itself from DMCA lawsuits, but I hope their intention is not to abandon authors who get sued."
when the US chapter launched its campaign against forgeign programmers working in the US (under H1-B visas).
Q.
What does IEEE stand for?
A.
The initials I-E-E-E represent the legal name of the IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE is pronounced "EYE triple E." The IEEE is a global technical professional society serving the public interest and members in electrical, electronics, computer, information & other technologies.
I is not for international. Personally I don't think that an institution which only accepts membership fees in $ and has no decent payment sheme for non-USians besides credit cards is hardly international.
You are the dot in slashdot !
xpccx writes:
What's the difference? The IEEE is asking authors to "warrant" that their works don't violate the DCMA, which means the author is accepting full responsbility if the work does violate the DCMA.
What was NOT quoted was this: "The undersigned agrees to indemnify and hold harmless IEEE from any damage or expense that may arise in the event of a breach of any of the warranties set forth above."
This is interesting language -- it requires the author to pay any damages or expense arising from a breach, so if the DCMA is violated, the author is responsible for all attorney's fees and damages. The IEEE does not expressly require that the author pay all defense costs from the time an action is filed, nor at all if there is no breach.
The bottom line, though, is that if a lawsuit is filed, the IEEE and author will need to somehow hire an attorney to defend against the claim, and if the ultimate verdict is that the "work" violates copyright, DCMA, or other laws, then the author is on the hook for all the fees, costs, and damage awards.
This is "chilling effect" is not the IEEE's fault, it is an intrinsic, intentional feature of the DCMA and other recent changes to intellectual-property laws in the USA. The goal is not to actually outlaw everything, but to create a cloud of uncertainty that will cause most people to simply avoid the "cloud" entirely.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
If you download the PDF version of the form, open it in Acrobat Reader and choose Document Info, you'll see that this form was actually created back in October 24, 2001. Plus, the name of the form NewCRform101901.htm should also hint that it was done a pretty long time ago (the date is right there).
However I don't know whether the form was already up there all along, or perhaps the Newsforge submitter just spotted it recently and thought it was new.
I guess the link to the IEEE IPR Office could be put to good use to let them know what you think about this move.
For the record the IEEE presents itself as an international organization, with chapter is many countries. The problem is that its headquarters are in the US and it is very much US centered, and run by a purely US management, with a US legal counsel. For exemple IEEE-USA was the only national chapter to voice their opinion (against!) on the extension of H1-B quotas, which might be detrimental to US engineers but probably not so much for foreigners. Oh, and it also gave an award to Microsoft for "Outstanding Contributions in Technology"...
The IEEE isn't exactly a rich organization. They exist to promote research, education, & the development of standards in the Electronics/Electrical/Computer/Software engineering fields. This is their main concern. They wish to distance themselves from any possible liability because one large lawsuit, whether just or not, could bankrupt the entire organization. This is why they probably aren't taking a stand against the DMCA - holding themselves blameless is the lesser evil.
The IEEE takes the same approach with their code of Ethics. The code is a recommendation, one which many groups have worked hard to meticulously craft. Nevertheless, the IEEE cannot back up someone who is coming under legal fire for abiding by their Code of Ethics' principles. The reason is again that any large organization/corporation with deeper pockets than theirs could wipe them out, and then all the greater good that the IEEE accomplishes would be lost due to an attempt to stand their ground for one minuscule portion of what they represent.
While the DMCA stands as a law in the USA, the IEEE will respect it. There are many other organizations and people (& hopefully you, the Slashdot reader) who can fight the DMCA with much less risk. Support the EFF, or it's variant in your country. Spend a few hours working on any government initiated review of Copyright law, if this is happening in your country. Win the big fight, and non-profits like the IEEE will lift the restrictions that they are legally obligated to enforce.
try one of these
member-services@ieee.org
marketing@ieee.org
or take your pick from
http://www.ieee.org/about/location/
Article in New Scientist, available online (but with annoying popup ad) at
9 99 92169
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which publishes 30 per cent of all computer science journals worldwide, is to stop requiring authors to comply with a controversial US digital copyright law.