If we just started boycotting them, they'd crumble in no time.
We don't want IEEE to go away, we just want it to see the facts about academic papers on the Internet and change its ways.
Would that be a good thing? I haven't seen much evidence that IEEE is a no-good parasite. It's a huge leap to go from "gone beyond their stated purpose" and "exist purely to sustain themselves".
Don't forget- the last time your computer performed a floating point op, you benefited from the existence of IEEE (IEEE 754). The last time you used a network adapter, you benefited from the IEEE (IEEE 802.3 & 802.11), and I'm guessing it hasn't been long since you last used said adapter.
>The last time you used a network adapter, you benefited from the IEEE (IEEE 802.3 & 802.11),
All IEEE is doing here is acting as a standardization committee. IEEE didn't invent floating points or ethernet adapters.
Not everything is standardized by IEEE(in fact very little, if you are talking computers), and stuff will work fine if IEEE is vaporized today. IEEE didn't invent anything, new stuff will keep getting invented, and if need be, some other label will be stuck on them.
Lord only knows how they spent $120m to curate a bunch of journals and magazines, but the $14m profit is less than what they earned in investment income ($25m).
So, here is my loud complaint: I hereby declare that I find this policy by IEEE outrageous, and that we should boycott them until they change.
You're right, it must never be able to work in practice and must just be the realm of socialist paradise.
And I tend to think that, where sharing costs you nothing, the socialist dream is quite possible.
Not everyone is old and weary. There are plenty of students in the world who need to learn about these things, and every year a new wave comes. So, that is why re-hashing 'old news' is very important in our tech world today.
The page itself has no date which I think is unhelpful and I was going to ask if anyone knew when this was posted.
# curl -I http://cr.yp.to/writing/ieee.html
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 05:52:17 GMT
Last-Modified: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:40:39 GMT
Age of information is not a reliable predictor of its spread.
Other than that, we have one person (the IEEE Intellectual Property Rights Manager) who misunderstands the law and does not behave in a very friendly manner.
The above do not strike me as sufficient reasons for singling out the IEEE for blacklisting. If you want, blacklist everyone who puts publicly funded research behind paywalls. Or blacklist no one. But just the IEEE? That doesn't make sense.
IEEE is famous enough it would survive even if this was a small market negative.
It's more problematic with low-end products made by child labor for instance. If they couldn't compete with other child-labor products they'd go out of business. There you need to do a more comprehensive blacklist or you're just swapping the devil you know for the ones you don't.
I did not know that authors who are not with the government had tried to put works in the public domain, that are submitted to IEEE. I didn't know this was possible.
I know it certainly is standard policy for government researchers and labs to retain copyright when work is submitted to IEEE (or anywhere).
Sometimes publishers say tough words about how this isn't possible, and you have to sign their copyright form, and you're holding up publication of the work. It's BS. The government copyright people will talk sense into them, and retain copyright so that the work can be distributed openly.
But, it's OK to republish the work in any way, including as part of a public web site or government report.
I interpreted this as meaning that the government retains copyright, but that may be the wrong legal phrasing. The point is that the work is freely available.
Thus, copyright does seem to apply to work done by me.
I know from experience that the publication people at my lab will arm-twist to ensure copyright is not retained by an external publisher, like Springer or IEEE, and that the work remains openly available.
If a person wants to buy a paper he can buy from IEEE, but a person just want to refer the paper with all details he can freely do so from my Blog website.
I don't know whether its a right approach or not?
But I didn't wanted my research to just sit in some Publishers Library.
If we publish more work in public , we get more people involve in to those research work. :)
Good that most of CS papers are published in ACM conferences, and most of the authors publish a soft copy on their homepages.
Also, more and more CS people are posting their papers on arxiv.org.
Here is a brief excerpt:
By owning exclusive publication rights to articles, ACM is able to develop salable publication products that sustain its top-quality publishing programs and services; ensure access to organized collections by current and future generations of readers; and invest continuously in new titles and in services like referrer-linking, profiling, and metrics, which serve the community. Furthermore, it allows ACM to efficiently clear rights for the creation, dissemination, and translation of collections of articles that benefit the computing community that would be impossible if individual authors or their heirs had to be contacted for permission. Ownership of copyright allows ACM to pursue cases of plagiarism. The number of these handled has been steadily growing; some 20 cases were handled by ACM in the last year. Having ACM investigate and take action removes this burden from our authors, and ACM is more likely to obtain a satisfactory outcome (for example, having the offending material removed from a repository) than an individual.
Personally, I gladly pay money every year to the ACM and the IEEE, as I feel I get excellent value for it. I don't begrudge them their business model, and I don't think there is anything particularly nefarious about their copyright policy (which explicitly allows authors to post freely available copies of their articles for non-commercial purposes.)
Quality comes from the authors and the volunteers who peer review submissions, not from copyright
Plagiarism, or detection of (academic) plagiarism has very little to do with copyright. Academics has it own set of instruments to prove that somebody lifted an idea or result with out attribution and to deal with said situation, and they all do not need any copyright rule.
This is true. But that does not mean that the publisher provides minimal value; it's worth remembering that Knuth lobbied hard to get the Journal of Algorithms moved from Elsevier to the ACM (where it became TALG) due to issues of copyright and pricing.
The ACM (and IEEE) are miles above the commercial publishers in this regard.
Plagiarism, or detection of (academic) plagiarism has very little to do with copyright.
The ACM says otherwise, and they are the ones who are actually pursuing cases. I tend to take their word for it.
Aside from review and editing, what else is really needed these days? Just throw it up on a website, make sure it gets indexed, and that's all that is really needed in the Internet age. For things like plagiarism, that really easy to detect if the source and copy are both online.
I know from my experience though, that many in academia would not publish papers without a journal because their contracts with the university either forbid such action or part of their contract explicit state they MUST be published by a respected publisher.
The problem isn't that Wikipedia is free. The problem is that Wikipedia is, by definition, a secondary(where it links to a primary source) or tertiary source(where it links to another link that links to the primary source). If you're doing the proper research, you should be using primary sources as much as possible. That means you should be directly citing the paper that Wikipedia is using, not Wikipedia itself.
(My favorite: El Naschie's photo gallery in Elsevier's Chaos, Solitons and Fractals: www.el-naschie.net/bilder/file/Photo-Gallery.pdf)
Elsevier and Springer's pricing, in contrast, is extortionate.
A while back Elsevier was caught publishing fake journals for pharmaceutical companies. Classy bunch.
This is no longer strictly true as of last year. IEEE now explicitly forbids authors from posting the officially published versions of papers. You can post preprints though, which are often better since it includes content you had to cut to avoid huge over-length charges, and any errata or updates.
Every year I struggle with whether to renew my IEEE membership, whether to continue to publish in their journals, and whether to review for those journals.
I really don't understand it, what is special about IEEE.
Why do Scientists send their papers or findings to IEEE etc. instead of just publishing it?
Seriously, can someone please give me an insightfull answer to this?
If you answer with, nobody has been able to to code system x, that makes IEEE so special and unique, then it's not valid point I think. Because there are enough developers who could pull out a P2P Scientific Document store in a matter of days.
Heck, if someone writes text that he think is valuable and is willing to share it with the public domain, why doesn't he just upload it to say: P2P Networks, Cloudstorages or anything else that helps in this matter?
You get zero credit for self-published papers, or papers in non-ranked journals.
So a researchers will always look after the highest ranked journal that is likely to publish a particular result. Issues of copyright get no regard and accessibility gets very little. Copyright ownership won't get you funding. Accessibility might get you more citations (which also affects ranking), but most citations come from other University researchers, who have access anyway through their libraries.
Research is only taken seriously if it's published in a respected, peer-reviewed venue. For some fields in CS, this is mostly ACM and IEEE conferences. The more theoretical sides of CS tend towards the journals.
I think this video will answer that question for you.
I don't have an answer to the rest of your questions but I think that video will answer your first question pretty well.
IEEE publication policy is nothing but a barrier to innovation.
Shame WikiLeaks / anonymous / whoever couldn't help us all out here.
Instead, let me offer a more interesting factoid: to the best of my knowledge, in the United States, and probably in certain other countries, there is no such concept as a private individual dedicating a publication to the public domain.
Documents fall in public domain when the owners' copyrights have expired. For the federal government, the expiration is immediate. For everyone else, there is no legal mechanism for hastening a document's copyright expiration. [This is why it's foolish to "put software in the public domain". You haven't actually done anything at all.]
a) random person on the internet (SeanLuke) says you can't dedicate your work to Public Domain
b) Creative Commons, which has a staff of lawyers, including very prominent and respected Lawrance Lessig: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Public_domain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
2. re: "obviousness". There's nothing "obvious" about IEEE's greed. The stated goal of IEEE is http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html:
"IEEE is the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity. IEEE and its members inspire a global community through IEEE's highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities."
The "obvious" thing, consistent with their stated mission would be to try to disseminate useful information to the largest number of people, like, say, Wikipedia or Khan Academy.
It's sad and shameful that they put profits above "advancing technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity".
So in response:
> b) Creative Commons, which has a staff of lawyers, including very prominent and respected Lawrance Lessig
As I understand it, Larry's position on this is controversial. There is no legal instrument in US copyright law to allow for public domain dedication, and specific parts of US copyright law essentially forbid it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_Sta...
Larry Rosen (whom I hope you admit is no slouch when it comes to licensing) has this to say:
"Just as there is nothing in the law that permits a person to dump personal property in the public highway, there is nothing that permits the dumping of intellectual property into the public domain — except as happens in due course when any applicable copyrights expire. Until those copyrights expire, there is no mechanism in the law by which an owner of software can simply elect to place it in the public domain."
If you look carefully at the Creative Commons' CC0 license, and its associated documentation, you see that Creative Commons is fully aware that they're being... optimistic. See:
"Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain."
"CC0 helps solve this problem by giving creators a way to waive all their copyright and related rights in their works to the fullest extent allowed by law." [note the couching st the end]
and my personal favorite couching:
"While we can't be certain that all copyright and related rights will indeed be surrendered everywhere, we are confident that CC0 lets you sever the legal ties between you and your work to the greatest extent legally permissible."
> 2. re: "obviousness". There's nothing "obvious" about IEEE's greed. The stated goal of IEEE is http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html:
I didn't say it was good, or even moral. But to anyone who publishes papers with IEEE, or indeed most any other publisher, it is indeed obvious.
A work can enter the public domain via expiration or forfeiture.
EDIT: A bit of clarification. Some people get confused because copyright actually affords you two different sets of rights: Economic rights, which everyone is pretty much on the same page about (once your work is in the public domain you can't charge for it later). You also get moral rights (right to attribution, right to maintain the integrity of you work, etc). These rights vary wildly by jurisdiction, but are rarely the ones that get argued when a work is in the public domain.
Perhaps you could support this claim.
Graber, H. B., & Nenova, M. B. (2010).
Intellectual property and traditional
cultural expressions in a digital
environment. (p. 173). Edward Elgar
http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html says otherwise, backing it up with citations to court decisions and jury instructions. Dan, by the way, is no stranger to the courts; the legal battle he fought for a decade is the reason that you can export strong cryptographic software from the US today without registering as an arms dealer and getting approval for each download.
Your comment is full of other errors. The IEEE, for example, is not a business. There are others I cannot be bothered to correct at this moment.
So, who do I believe, someone going under an assumed name or the real court of law?
(By the way, that decision also calls Duke Nukem 3D "very cool".)