Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Drops DMCA Reference in Authors Copyright Form
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."
What about an IEEE member in (say) the UK where the DMCA isn't law. I assume that before any UK copyright thingy required to comply with the DMCA.
Yours, Andrew.
Of course they do not have to - unless they live in primitive countries that pass such silly laws!
From the US governmental point of view of course the whole world (and beyond) has to comply with US laws. Besides, since the IEEE journals are published in the US it is also reasonable to believe that US law applies to all articles, regardless where the authors are residing.
But of course it's a good sign the IEEE is "dropping active support" for the DMCA.
Well, I'm sure my reaction to this news was similar to those of most of the slashbots. However, I've been thinking about it, and the IEEE may have done the community a disservice, in some sense.
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.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
So why all this fuss about the millenium act? Doesn't it mean that reverse engineering is "a bad thing" only within the US? Why would anybody outside the US ever bother about it? And for that matter, why should Americans? My advice: migrate to a country with more liberties.
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
Any verdict??? or is it still going on ?
The author promises to indemnify IEEE in the case of a lawsuit if he does not comply to IEEE's agreement. With the DMCA requirement in there that meant the author could end up footing the bill if IEEE was found guilty.
...
... authors should be demanding seperate US/non-US publications for putting the burden on them IMO. They will probably be tired of the controversy by now though, and just let it slide because IEEE is nice enough not to explicitly name the beast anymore.
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
Remember that the DMCA has provisions allowing exemptions for research related work. Serious papers, written by degreed and credentialed scientists and engineers, published in journals are very likely to qualify for the exemption. And that would include papers describing weaknesses in an encryption system, including the publishing of code exploiting or demonstrating those weaknesses.
l
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
I'm glad the IEEE dropped it's absurd cheerleading for a law that contradicts the first amendment. It's a shame that the Edward Felten case was dropped. It could have been the test case that drove the DMCA all the way to the Supreme Court, where it would have been ruled unconstitutional. The Dmitry Skylarov case, if it goes that far, isn't such a blatantly obvious abridgement of free speech, so the courts might not understand how much a danger the DMCA is to the first amendment. I sure hope that they are paying attention to current events. This whole thing reminds me of an old chinese curse, May you live in interesting times.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
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
Why oil price increase equals economic trouble (Score: Interesti