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."
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.
So what went right this time?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
From the horses mouth...
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/.
# # #
... if they're not in the US. Journals take submissions from all around the world, and many authors are not living under repressive regimes.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
good riddance to the stated requirement. IEEE has around 400,000 members in 150+ countries. Since they are one of the largest publishers of electrical engineering/computer science literature, they were effectively extending the DMCA's censorship beyond our borders to places like Autralia and Europe, where software can't even be patented.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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."
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
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)
But if they still have to comply with it, then what's the difference? This could actually be a bad move for them.
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
Couldn't the IEEE do two publications, one for the haves (non-DMCA countries) and one for the have-nots, the US, and probably soon the UK /EU, China etc....
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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
At the average cost for a science-type journal in page fees, probably not. Many journals are already losing money, and/or just barely breaking even.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
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
President Eisenhower asked me to say "I pledge allegience to the Flag...."
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.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
IEEE is a US organization, thus bound by US law. They ask for the copyright form when they become a publisher. I think it's pretty easy to see why they wouldn't want to publish something in violation of US law (albeit a possibly unconstitutional one).