Subject: Re: International definition of "fair use"

From: TSG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:18:04 -0800

Dean Anderson wrote:
> Inline:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, TSG wrote:
>
>   
>> Endre Jarraux Walls wrote:
>>     
>>> Question - would that mean that works performed within the IETF, regardless
>>> of where they're done would fall under US copyright laws?
>>>   
>>>       
>> Thats exactly what it means. The issue is the legal-jurisdiction of the 
>> entity who is sponsoring the license language. That language would be 
>> constrained by US Law's since the IETF's processes are constrained by US 
>> Federal and State Corporate Law.
>>
>> If for instance the IETF were to take the copyright statement off of the 
>> works then they could be usable everywhere. Or one would think that the 
>> FCPA (foreign corrupt practices act) might also figure in but hey - I am 
>> not a lawyer so what do I know.
>>
>> Todd Glassey
So lets take this a step farther.

Lets me submit something I was thinking about to the list.. Its the 
lyrics to the song Yellow Submarine... and let me ask this really silly 
question - who owns that song now? the IETF?... Anyone talk with Lord 
McCartney's Barrister about that yet?

So then what does NoteWell really mean then?

-------------------------

In the town where I was born,
Lived a man who sailed to sea,
And he told us of his life,
In the land of submarines,

So we sailed on to the sun,
Till we found the sea of green,
And we lived beneath the waves,
In our yellow submarine,

We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.

And our friends are all aboard,
Many more of them live next door,
And the band begins to play.

(Trumpets play)

We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.

(Full speed ahead, Mr. Parker, full speed ahead!
Full speed over here, sir!
Action station! Action station!
Aye, aye, sir, fire!
Captin! Captin!)

As we live a life of ease
Every one of us is all we need,(is all we need)
Sky of blue, and sea of green,(sky of blue and sea of green)
in our yellow(in our yellow) submarine.(submarine) ( Hahaha! )

We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.

(fading)

We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: TSG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:24:27 -0800

Dean Anderson wrote:
> Hahaha.  You should submit a properly formatted ID with these lyrics as
> an individual submission. ;-)
>
> 		--Dean
>   
Yes and because Vint Cerf was allowed to publish his XMas I-D they would 
have legal trouble for saying they wouldn't publish it too. But lets get 
back to the issue of the failure of the current Intellectual Property 
conveyance model that NoteWell provides. The submission of the lyric of 
Yellow Submarine clearly document's that third-party genesis can and 
does occur against third-party controlled IP's - so how do we deal with 
this? - lets explore that question here.

That said - the first step is properly defining the problem and the 
issue is simple -  by its very definition "NoteWell is a process program 
which assigns the rights to the core IP and all representations of said 
IP which are uttered through IETF Mailing Lists and at IETF Meetings". 
The problem is then with NoteWell's definition is that a person or email 
server can utter submissions (technology statements) about specific 
Intellectual Properties (IP) which are observations or consulting 
evaluations.

Likewise they also could be "what-if blue-sky conversations" about some 
derivative of that IP. What this NoteWell issue applies to is then those 
words. The failing is that under NoteWell alone those words may be a 
story about some IP and not actually convey the ownership of that IP, 
but rather the licensing of the story about that core IP.

What is important there is the idea that this doesn't give the IETF the 
legal (i.e. court sustainable) rights to produce or relicense ANYTHING 
other than the story about the underlying IP and the IETF and its Trust 
have misrepresented that it in fact does through the "Relicensing 
Provisions" of BCP79 and its successors. It also puts the Trust in a 
place where it becomes the direct beneficiary of fraud by wire when the 
IETF represented that it does in fact own the IP Rights to relicense the 
use of submitted IP's under the BCP 78/79 and their successor's models.

What's the solution? Simple,
(1) the first step is acknowledging that the 'rights to use the actual 
protocol' specification in a product are not properly licensed from the 
current intake model.
(2) Then face that a simple reprinting agreement is not enough and 
because topics in IETF submissions include things like "what's wrong 
with protocol XYZ" and this means that that document while discussing 
some other protocol, doesn't license the use of that protocol to anyone. 
If that other protocol happens to be a RFC2026 based filing this 
complicates the relicensing of the new work since the previous work is 
constrained by RFC2026...

and finally get that

(3) What is needed is a specific release against the use of the IP in 
the specification to create a SW or other product to test or prove 
interoperability with that IETF Standard (and Standard Candidate) nand 
that this may be done in concert with the IETF or as an independent effort.

Also I would suggest the Amending of the NoteWell Definition to 
something like the following:
------------------------------------
It is in the best interest of the IETF to own any and all new genesis 
and IP processed through its mailing lists and meetings and so all 
parties using those services agree that the IETF will own those 
properties where its possible for this conveyance model to function 
properly. Where third-party analysis or third-party works in general are 
submitted through that same process, those works are covered under 
NoteWell to the extent that they are new genesis. In instances where 
consulting analysis is performed on existing IP the analysis itself 
shall constitute a separate derivative work and not contain specific 
rights which the IETF Trust may convey beyond the copyright against the 
reprinting of those words themselves.

Todd Glassey
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, TSG wrote:
>
>   
>> Dean Anderson wrote:
>>     
>>> Inline:
>>>