Ahahahah - You know Russ - its amazing how WRONG you possibly could be with that big and powerful Stanford AUP under your belt... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Allbery" <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Flaw in the NOTEWell System makes NOTEWELL NOTWELL > todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Gee Jeffery A. > > >> Universities provide e-mail services to their students, staff, faculty, > >> alumni, and frequently guests. > > > until November of last year I was TGlassey@xxxxxxxxxxxx so I wouldnt > > have ever known this... Thanks. And BTW - true - but only through a > > limited and very specific EULA usually... and an EULA that BTW prevents > > one from access when they violate the terms of the EULA including the > > posting of anything through that channel which would violate the > > posting-ip management rules of the ISP - in this case the University. > > An Acceptable Use Policy is not the same thing as an End User License > Agreement, and using the two terms as if they were synonymous is just > confusing and calls into question what the heck you're talking about. The EULA pertains to the IP transfered through the facilities constrained by the AUP-agreements executed by every recipient or every Stanford.EDU account. The EULA pertains to the IP which is specifically constrained by the University's DMCA and Takedown Process policies. Also the departments have their own Ethical Compliance policies (especially the Medical School) which is why the Campus network is what it is. Is that clearer or do you need it drawn out with crayola's and paper ... > > So does using strange, idiosyncratic terms like "posting-ip management > rules." Really > > Most ISPs, and universities are no exception, have a posted policy on what > you are and are not allowed to do with your access to their systems, and > will terminate your access or take other actions should you violate those > rules. You mean the AUP... > That's a completely different question than ownership of IP > passing through those systems. No, they are linked documents and they leverage each other - so they do not exist in the vacumm that you represent them. The AUP says you may not violate any other University Policy or Law... trust me its in there. The other University Policies would be the DMCA Process Policies. > Universities generally have additional > restrictions that they have to impose over and above a typical ISP for > legal (generally tax) reasons, such as not allowing more than incidental > use of their systems to support specific political candidates or run > commercial businesses. Those legal restrictions are highly unlikely to > interfere with IETF work. No - those specific restrictions DO interfere with the IETF, its just that the University has no idea what policy and IP management issues actually exist inside the IETF. > > >> In fact, many universities have strict privacy policies that state that > >> e-mail belongs to the users and not to the University. > > > Uh, would that be personal email, work email, or class email? 'cause the > > answer is "Uh gee - not always." Class related email always belongs to > > the University and is considered deparmental IP and there are numerous > > other cases as well so this is blantently not true as a blanket > > statement, in fact if you are a grad student they own everything - you > > mind - everything - read the admission agreement again. > > > Likewise if you are a post-graduate researcher they own it all... What > > is true is that the Schools may not lay claim to the IP based on the > > conversation you are having, but ALL of the commercial entities do and > > their employee's know it. > > It would be helpful if you would read the specific policies about which > you're publicly declaiming, at least for the institution with which you > were affiliated. Class-related e-mail most certainly does not always > belong to the university. Here is the actual policy for Stanford > University employees:\ yes from the Provost's site. So what? > > Stanford policy states that all rights in copyright shall remain with > the creator unless the work: > > 1. is a work-for-hire (and copyright therefore vests in the University > under copyright law), So if you are working for the IT Department anything that you did in concert with that career would be constrained under the WFH model as documented above and belong to the University. Technology interactions with the IETF are not "works of Art" but rather either specific works particular to ones fulfilling their Job in IT or IP that is protected under the following rules: > > 2. is supported by a direct allocation of funds through the University > for the pursuit of a specific project, i.e. Is paid for by the University in any way or form - including any and all professional association memberships that are used as a part of "Employee Development"... > > 3. is commissioned by the University, Is an officially sanctioned initiative of the University > > 4. makes significant use of University resources or personnel, or takes any time out of your performance of your duties as a salaried employee or subcontractor to the University... > > 5. is otherwise subject to contractual obligations. Like the DMCA and the University's DMCA policies. > > For work done by students: > > In accord with academic tradition, except to the extent set forth in > this policy, Stanford does not claim ownership to pedagogical, > scholarly, or artistic works, regardless of their form of > expression. True - but the IETF works dont quite fit into that - they not only use Campus Computers for the drafting oif the 'work itself' they also use those systems for the prototyping of the property; and that passes IP rights - NOT just the copyrights to the University... If you would like I can point you to Stanfords Technologies Licensing people and they will I assure you explian the actual process and how it fits into your world to you since you seem to be missing parts of it. > Such works include those of students created in the course > of their education, such as dissertations, papers and articles. The > University claims no ownership of popular nonfiction, novels, > textbooks, poems, musical compositions, unpatentable software, or > other works of artistic imagination which are not institutional works > and did not make significant use of University resources or the > services of University non-faculty employees working within the scope > of their employment. (See Sections 1.H and 5.B below). > > For the definition of significant use: > > Stanford University resources are to be used solely for University > purposes and not for personal gain or personal commercial advantage, > nor for any other non-University purposes. Poof - instant ownership. > Therefore, if the creator > of a copyrightable work makes significant use of the services of > University non-faculty employees or University resources to create the > work, he or she shall disclose the work to the Office of Technology > Licensing and assign title to the University. OTL's lawyers are all there and can explain the whole shebang to you... > Examples of > non-significant use include ordinary use of desktop computers, > University libraries and limited secretarial or administrative > resources. Questions about what constitutes significant use should be > directed to the appropriate school dean or the Dean of Research. > > All of the above excerpts are from the Stanford University Research Policy > Handbook, one of the official policy documents of Stanford University. > You can read the copyright policy for yourself at: > > <http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/Chpt5.html> Why bother - I have bunches of copies of it - I ran streaming media as a LNA for KZSU. > > >> Universities much like ISPs such as Yahoo, Google, AOL, etc. provide > >> e-mail as a service to their users in order to obtain secondary > >> benefit. > > > Ah yes - And they also accept liability therein which is why they ALL > > have DMCA compliance policies... > > Our DMCA enforcement policy is essentially "we follow the rules stated in > the law for academic institutions," which have nothing to do with > ownership over intellectual property created by people at Stanford and > everything to do with a precise sequence and timing of steps that we have > to take when a third party reports to us a copyright violation that uses > our computing facilities in order to establish a legal defense against > becoming a party to the complaint. No "EULA" is involved. Nice argument - wrong but nice still. > > > which gets us to the EULA and whether it is a violation of the EULA > > between the University and the IETF's Participants who are subject to > > those rules (the University's EULA) when the IETF refuses to meet the > > same DMCA control-requirements as the University's mandate internally... > > I can't speak to other institutions, but Stanford has no EULA. I can't > imagine what you could find in our Acceptable Use Policy that would be in > conflict with the IETF Note Well statement. Gee - all of the copyrighted Stanford Software in the IT site has EULA agreements with it as do all of the streaming media sites on the campus - so EULA's are there and in place... you crack me up. > > > As to the Schools, the school's do lay claim to IP that they happen to > > already own, in the form of IP that was developed with the use of their > > facilities. What is actually the real thing to notice here is "that the > > School's do not allow for you to transfer IP through their systems which > > you do not already own or hold some tangible rights/license to". > > If by this you're trying to say that universities don't allow you to use > their computing facilities to violate other people's copyright, then that > is of course true, but it seems so obvious and so irrelevant to this > discussion that I don't know what you're trying to get at by saying it. The IETF violates the guidelines of copyright controls by creating a 1-way trip into print and then by 'giving away' the media for any and all uses, not just reprinting. This makes it impossible to stop something from bouncing around without a court order, but I am betting that was the intent here - software anarchy... I wonder how the Provost will react to that? > > > "likewise they dont allow the use of their ISP Services by their EULA > > constrained users to violate any of their own rules whether you violate > > those policies internal to their facilities or through their ISP > > facilities to some other site." > > The above statement reduces to "ISPs don't allow you to use their services > contrary to their rules for using their services," which is a content-free > truism. The detail lies in what those rules actually *are*, and as you > can see above, you were comprehensively wrong about the rules at Stanford. > I expect you're equally wrong about the rules elsewhere. No actually I am not. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/5-2.html > > > So if the school has a DMCA policy - then I think it makes sense that > > the IETF must also have a matching or acceptable one on its side or > > technically speaking - you probably/maybe cant play in this sandbox from > > their Infrastructure... > > Unless the IETF hosts content from third parties about which it may > receive a copyright complaint and wishes to avail itself of the DMCA safe > harbor provisions for ISPs, it has no need for a DMCA policy. I don't > think you understand the relevance of the DMCA to ISPs at all. Uh Safe Harbor is about privacy and not the DMCA big guy... > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf