|
Bill - I was rereading this and wanted
to re-respond to you and I apologize to the list for not doing this in one
posting, but these comments illustrate the issue pretty well.
IMHO - The problem is that the IETF then is a 3rd party
beneficiary of a criminal action, the fraudulent conveyance by wire of IP to an
unlicensed party, by an unlicensed party. So let me ask -
What's the difference here between this and someone like NAPSTER? - nothing I
would say.
Err, how about because the IETF is representing that it
(its)
-------------------------------------------------
1)
Has a formal policy that 'the relationship between it and the IP Owner's is
codified in BCP78/79 Terms... and that anyone who is participating has agreed to
these terms and conditions' - which isnt true. There is no proof in any of the
filings that anyone read and understood all of BCP78 and BCP79 or that those
rules are complete and enforceable.
2) Is protected from any damages becuase the
responsibilities to disclose those terms and conditions to the the Sponsoree's
Sponsor's is the Sponsoree, and this simply isnt true.
3)
BCP Rules have been disclosed and agreed upon by those who are legally empowered
to act for their Sponsors, something that also isnt true.
There simply is NOTHING in any IETF working documents which
codifies "that the Participants in the IETF's processes MUST disclose and
continually get their Sponsor's reapproval of the ever changing sets of terms
and conditions for their (the sponsoree's) participation in the IETF'", so there
is no proof of anyone's authorization to represent their sponsor's here or that
the sponsor's ever granted approval to their sponsoree's to legally represent
the sponsor's IP interests herein... ANYONE who actually reads all of the
contract components will get this too.
4)
That those BCP78/79 Changes effect works either in progress or ones which work
on was previously completed, something also not true. Or that for that matter
that the IETF can convey those pre-existing standards to the IETF Trust without
the approval of the submitters. Or that the IETF can at its whim change the
conveyance rules for materials already conveyed under RFC2026 or earlier
rules... also all of which are untrue since there is nothing in those works
allowing the IETF to do so AFAIK.
Again - Let me ask, what is the difference here then in
someone submitting a media to the IETF and the IETF's then republishing it when
that individual doesnt own it? i.e. If that
party who submitted the filing doesnt own/control it, how then is this model any
different than NAPSTER which was in fact shut down by US Courts for US Copyright
and IP Rights violations??? I say its not.
What is different here is that there isnt RIAA here
kicking people's butt's in US Court. That is the ONLY difference I can
see between NAPSTER and the IETF at this point relative to the IETF's IP
conveyance and transfer actions therein. Especially in the IETF's republishing
the works with an "Any and All Uses" license to its relying parties which
totally blows any possible control those who actually own works which someone
submits to the IETF would have.
Further - the IETF's model DOES NOT take into account that the
person submitting IP to the IETF may in fact not only not own it but may
not be its creator and is essentially just writing a literary work about the
technology, which in fact DOESNT transfer that technology into the coffer's of
the Standards Development Org we all know and love as the IETF. I.e. the
Submitter may have nothing to do with the actual IP Owner, and as such cannot
convey anyrights to anything in the technologies IP to the IETF
either.
No personal offense meant by this Bill - but this is the
Ostrich Mentality that drives me buggy. Putting the IETF's head collectively
into the Sand doesnt protect it or the body of the IETF either
IMHO.
Uh yeah, but as the 3rd party Beneficiary the IETF has
liability too, and these are exacerbated since it (the IETF) is
fully aware that the requirements for proper conveyance are not met here.
And yeah, while its true that the IETF is trying to
protect itself by saying "its the submitter's responsibility", since there is
nothing else to constrain the submitters such that they MUST actually get
their Sponsor's approval, this isnt functional either. This is NAPSTER all over
again in spades IMHO...
The issues are simple. If the submitter doesnt own the IP
then the IETF's rules dont protect it. Neither did NAPSTER's... Further - the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as well as the Stored
Communications Act allow for civil recourse against the IETF for these damages
as far as I can tell as well as those in the DMCA/US Copyright Act.
- Get actual legal advice from your counsel - I am not a
lawyer! -
Todd Glassey
|
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg