On 1/29/2012 6:34 AM, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM, todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Today virtually no IETF protocols take into account US or any other >> countries copyright laws with regard to Internet based content. Content >> like domain names, DNS events, and BGP4 routes are also in addition to >> the obvious publication events like a websites content, are in fact also >> IP impinged. > > I think it is bad to integrate copyright policy into protocols. for > example how do you take into account if submarine cables transit into > territorial waters of another country are the countries copyright > policies to be applied to the content if so how ? This pertains to something totally outside of our issue. The issue is whether it is legally actionable to attack something for intentional infringement and under US and international law the answer is yes. > > Also please do not club everything - Trademarks, Copyright and patents > under the same umbrella. They are very different things. Please read > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more information.\ GNU's philosophy is the ideas of the people that wrote that policy - it is NOT law. As such the idea that it protects this group is part of the problem. > >> So the question is what happens when a priority provide with a peering >> relationship claims (c) against a set of Internet Routes... it is coming >> I think. >> >> That said - I am proposing that there is a need to figure out now with >> regard to IETF projects whether the content flowing through the >> technology will have legal impact attached to it and in those instances >> provide the proper information management and IP noticing controls. >> >> Yes I am very sure this annoys the anarchists and anti-intellectual >> property people here and you folks have done a great job up until now, >> except you have failed to change the world. That said - the win hear is >> in not fighting in changing the laws by going to war with the >> superpowers - they will just hire technologists to replace us as a class >> and much sooner than you think too... > > Who is they ? The people who come to realize that the IETF isnt actually responsible for anything... its standards are trailing edge, it has no real license possible for code to be created through its process, and its basically an exercise set up as a bolt on for an academic-style operation IMHO. I think its amusing how many people have made this their life too... Scary! > >> If we don't put both proper IP controls into our processes and into the >> actual work product so that its use can also respect the same laws we >> built the IP to operate under the Government's trying to enforce those >> laws will make official changes in who represents their interest in the >> IETF and what effect the IETF has on there routing. > > IETF has processes in place for patenst More reading: > See the work of the IPR group. > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipr/ Which also fails to take into account that the IETF is a collective development group and NOT a standards org. For the history of the IETF its standards used to be trailing edge meaning that they IP was already in place when they created the standards so these issues were moot. Today it is IMHO being used by many to lead their infringements. That has to change. > > For example see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3669 - RFC 3669 > >> What I am telling you is that ISOC has no where near enough power to >> protect the IETF from IP fraud complaints at a national level. And if >> they were stupid enough to try - which they might, it would be >> catastrophic. My take is formal pull out of the DNS Root because all of >> the peering contracts say nothing about whose root must be used. Its >> that simple. Governments will tell foreign carriers that their route >> copyrights are now enforceable and that's it. If the carriers want to >> serve in that country they will pay. >> >> This is serious stuff. The world Internet is changing - the wild west is >> dying out, and accountable at the content level is happening today. >> Rather than trying to stop that we need to make it possible for our >> masters to meet their goals through our work or we need to make public >> disclosure who's goals as individuals we serve. > > Who are our master here ? There are people working for governments, > commercial enterprises and self-employed on this lists. I think > generalisation of their agendas is not possible. Can you please > qualify your statements ? Considering I have a patent matter in the courts now, I speak from first hand experience here. > >> Disclosure is key - and disclose everywhere. No vapor - no vacuum no lies. > > Please read the links above. I have - my commentary stands. Todd > > -- Vinayak > -- Todd S. Glassey This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with personal disclaimers. Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf