From kadie Mon Jun 24 22:25:08 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: SPECIAL: caf-batch interruption
Status: R
I will be out of town from this Wednesday until July 8th. During
that time, caf-batch will probably be interrupted.
As a caf-batch reader, you have two options.
1) just wait it out. When I get back I will post either
all the back notes or just the best notes (depending on
the number of accumulated notes)
2) switch to caf-talk or to the alt.comp.acad-freedom-talk
newsgroup
To switch to caf-talk (which will cause you to get lots of little
notes every day), send email to listserv@eff.org with the lines:
add comp-academic-freedom-talk
delete comp-academic-freedom-batch
To switch back, send the lines:
add comp-academic-freedom-batch
delete comp-academic-freedom-talk
An enclosed note tells how to switch to the newsgroup versions.
If you have problems, send mail to caf-talk-request@eff.org.
- Carl
---
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 16:43:02 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun18.164302.26318@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Switching from the mailing lists to the newsgroups
This is a reminder that the Computers and Academic Freedom mailing
lists are now available as newsgroups (if you don't know what
newsgroups are, just ignore this message). The newsgroups are
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (gatewayed to comp-academic-freedom-talk)
- everything posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, or mailed to caf-talk@eff.org,
appears here without human intervention.
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news (a moderated newsgroup corresponding to
comp-academic-freedom-news)
- the best notes from caf-talk (as selected by me). A collection
is posted at the end of each week, and now at the end of each month.
Newsgroups offer several advantages. Incoming notes are held until
*you* want to read them. Distribution is robust and automatic so you
don't have to depend on me to keep things running (I'll be out of town
much of next month). For your computer system, newsgroup distribution
makes better use of disk because only one copy of a note is sent to
any given site. For me, more people reading the newsgroups means less
work will be required to maintain the mailing lists. Finally, for
anyone interested in these issues, newsgroup distribution means there
will be more readers as other people at your site discover the
newsgroup.
If your system offers newsgroups, but not these newsgroups, send
your sys admin a note something like this:
-------
Subject: newsgroup requests
I request that we subscribe to the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news newsgroups.
If you have any problem locating a feed for these newgroups,
you can contact Chris Davis (ckd@eff.org), the sys admin on
eff.org.
Thanks
----------
Once you begin reading the newsgroups (or at any other time), you can
quit the mailing lists by sending mail to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line
delete comp-academic-freedom-
where is either talk, batch, or news. If that doesn't work,
sent email to me at caf-talk-request@eff.org.
- Carl
From kadie Wed Jun 26 01:22:54 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Jun 26 01:22:30 EDT 1991
In this issue:
king@ukulele.reaso : Re: SPECIAL: caf-batch interruption
zaphod.mps.ohio-st : Re: User theft of service
horning@Pa.dec.com : Please remove me from this mailing list
mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!un : Test - please reply if seen in US.
king@ukulele.reaso : Re: Test - please reply if seen in US.
Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: SPECIAL: caf-batch interruption
<9106250225.AA20499@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 08:24:14 BST
From: king@ukulele.reasoning.com
I switched.
Could you send out a reminder when we can switch back? Thanks...
-dk
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 25 Jun 91 18:00:20 GMT
Message-Id: <44346@fmsrl7.UUCP>
Organization: Ford Motor Company, Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale.edu!ox.com!fmsrl7!wreck@uunet.uu.net
References <0094A5B1.52726440@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>, <1991Jun19.170241.12261@eng.umd.edu>, <0094A5C7.0D7C4520@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Reply-To : wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter)
Subject: Re: User theft of service
In article <0094A5C7.0D7C4520@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>Are you entitled to disrupt the work of other users? No. What about THEIR
>RIGHTS? They also paid their student activity fees and are trying to get an
>education. Don't they have rights in your worldview? Or is it their tough luck?
Yes, WHAT ABOUT their rights? So far, I see no indication from Mr.
Rusotto that anyone's ability to get work done was disrupted, outside
of a few pranks which he did and then got tired of some WEEKS before
the sysadmins took action (pranks which, incidentally, were only
possible due to the sysadmin's carelessness in setting up the systems
in question). Instead, the sysadmin suspended his accounts because
he was present when ANOTHER USER was attempting to learn non-obvious
information about the filesystem directory structure.
I've seen the limits of a directory structure be reached in TOPS-10.
It was pretty boring; no new subdirectories could be created, and
neither could any be deleted. It disrupted nobody's course work.
It may have created a small headache/learning experience for a
system guru who had to figure out how to delete the tree, but it
was a problem which could be ignored indefinitely at no risk.
>Do you have the right to disrupt the normal operations of a system outside of
>the normal bounds of doing class assignments (the purpose to which you pay
>your geld to the University, and the INHERITANT reason why these accounts are
>supplied)?
WHAT ABOUT the rights of other users to learn things which ARE NOT
part of the course? Are they to be intellectually crippled by
being shackled to doing only the assignments given, only the
problems the teaching staff puts on the homework, to learning only
what one person's imagination thinks to bring up in class? Are
the users who have the smarts and joy of learning to gain more
from the course than others, to be purged from the institution
of learning for the crime of trying to learn?
God, what an impovershed world it would be if you ran things.
-------------------
From: horning@Pa.dec.com (Jim Horning)
Message-Id: <9106252119.AA13427@jumbo.pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 14:19:02 PDT
Cc: horning@Pa.dec.com
X-Folder-Carbon: 91-Sent2
Subject: Please remove me from this mailing list
It's not that I'm not interested, it's just that I don't have time to keep
up.
Thanks,
Jim H.
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 25 Jun 91 21:55:14 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
From: mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!unix1.tcd.ie!pmoloney@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Test - please reply if seen in US.
Are you reading me??
Anyone??
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersneworderpratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y | pmoloney%vax1.tcd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.edu spike
james Trinity College, Dublin| uunet!vax1.tcd.ie!pmoloney@uunet.uu.net lee
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
-------------------
for comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Message-Id: <9106252343.AA07980@ukulele.reasoning.com.>
Subject: Re: Test - please reply if seen in US.
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 16:43:53 BST
From: king@ukulele.reasoning.com
Here is the full text of what i got.
>> Return-Path: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
>> Received: from ukulele.reasoning.com by drums.reasoning.com with SMTP (5.61/25-eef)
>> id AA10568; Tue, 25 Jun 91 16:40:04 -0700
>> for king
>> Received: from drums.reasoning.com by ukulele.reasoning.com. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
>> id AA07944; Tue, 25 Jun 91 16:40:02 PDT
>> Received: from eff.org by drums.reasoning.com with SMTP (5.61/25-eef)
>> id AA10564; Tue, 25 Jun 91 16:40:00 -0700
>> for king@ukulele.reasoning.com
>> Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
>> id AA11194; Tue, 25 Jun 91 19:27:54 -0400
>> From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
>> Precedence: bulk
>> Return-Path:
>> Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
>> id AA11157; Tue, 25 Jun 91 19:21:59 -0400
>> Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
>> for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
>> contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
>> Date: 25 Jun 91 21:55:14 GMT
>> Message-Id:
>> Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
>> Sender: mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!unix1.tcd.ie!pmoloney@uunet.uu.net
>> Subject: Test - please reply if seen in US.
>>
>> Are you reading me??
>>
>> Anyone??
>>
>> P.
>>
>> --
>> moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersneworderpratchett
>> clive P a u l M o l o n e y | pmoloney%vax1.tcd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.edu spike
>> james Trinity College, Dublin| uunet!vax1.tcd.ie!pmoloney@uunet.uu.net lee
>> brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
-------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 20:19 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: My rights end where yours begin.
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Reply-To : wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter)
>Subject : Re: User theft of service
>
>WHAT ABOUT the rights of other users to learn things which ARE NOT
>part of the course? Are they to be intellectually crippled by
>being shackled to doing only the assignments given, only the
>problems the teaching staff puts on the homework, to learning only
>what one person's imagination thinks to bring up in class? Are
>the users who have the smarts and joy of learning to gain more
>from the course than others, to be purged from the institution
>of learning for the crime of trying to learn?
>
Important disclaimer: In the following discussion I am NOT considering
mistakes made by a user in the process of learning
new things (including non-coursework items) but
deliberate pranks.
You do not have a right to learn things which are not part of the course IF
they interfere with someone else's right to learn. IF pulling a prank causes
someone to miss a deadline or drop out of a course or makes the person too
nervous to enter the computer lab again, the prankster has drastically
interfered with the "victim's" right to learn.
You may disagree but in my opinion the purpose of pranks is not to learn
anything but to annoy and harass either a fellow user or the system
administrator. Also, in my opinion pranks are pulled by frustrated users
trying to show off their new found power to cause injury.
>God, what an impovershed world it would be if you ran things.
Denying someone learning is indeed impoverishing them. Allowing them to play
pranks is impoverishing everyone else.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
From kadie Mon Jul 8 12:12:38 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Jul 8 12:12:16 EDT 1991
In this issue:
mojo!russotto@mims : Re: (none)
John McCarthy
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References: , <22910619005022.0003158580NB4EM@mcimail.com>in
Subject: Re: (none)
In article <22910619005022.0003158580NB4EM@mcimail.com> 0003158580@mcimail.COM (William Hugh Murray) writes:
>Subject: Punishment
>
>>Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer
>>systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions.
>
>Well, perhaps. However, users are rarely suspended as punishment. Rather,
>they are suspended to restore order. In many cases there is no alternative
>way to restore order. If this were the policy, it might always be the only
>way.
Sieg Heil!
>>Disciplinary action should respond to the indent (sic) of
>>the student and the damage caused by the student, not outside pressures
>
>Absolutely not. Disciplinary action should be based upon the
>behavior of the student. It should be based upon the behavior without
>regard to intent or consequences. It should be based upon the degree of
>variance from the policy.
Behavior without regard to intent or consequences? So it was OK when a
sysadmin suspended a users (not mine) account because he put X-things
up on display 'vs06csc' when he meant to put them up on his display,
'vs06wor', due to a mistake? After all, intent does not matter.
>otherwise outrageous student behavior? The objection to suspension is
>precisely because it is effective. Suspension can be measured and
>responsive to the extent of the disruptive behavior.
The objection to suspension is because it is harsh summary punishment by
someone who doesn't have to answer to the users. Effective? Maybe.
Depends on how badly the student involved will escalate the situation. If he
is a good student and slinks off with his tail between his legs, and changes
departments or transfers to another university or does something to get out
of the admin's hair, it is extemely effective. There are other options open
to the student.
>>Resolved: The punishment that a computer administrator can impose on a
>>student should be not exceed (sic) that which an instructor can impose.
>
>Why do I have the feeling that this resolution is proposed by a student?
>Why is the issue punishment? While I can visualize vindictive
>administrators imposing punishment, the administrative remedies of which
>students complain are mostly remedial, not punitive. It is true that
>student's accounts are suspended, but the intent is not aimed at the
>student. Rather, it is aimed at restoring and preserving order.
WHOA! I thought you said INTENT didn't matter?????????
>Administrators of commercial systems are not having this problem; it is
>primarily a university problem. It results from student hubris and it
>must be curbed.
>
>William Hugh Murray
>Executive Consultant, Information System Security
>to Deloitte & Touche
>WMURRAY@MCIMAIL.COM
Damn right. Gotta slap them students DOWN. We'll show them who the Gods
are around here.. (you do realize that it is GODS who punish hubris...)
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
-------------------
From: John McCarthy
Message-Id: <9106260538.AA16791@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
I am apparently receiving the batch edition still. Since I can get it
on usenet, I would like jmc-lists@cs.stanford.edu to be removed.
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 05:49:02 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun26.054902.2811@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: CAF-news v01 #13 abstract
This is the abstract to the lastest issue of Computers and Academic
Freedom News.
"This week's selection is mostly about user-sys admin relations. In
the first note, a sys admin describes the pressures of his job. In the
next series of notes, users describe bad experiences at the University
of Kentucky, at the University of Maryland, in industry, and at the
University of Illinois. The topic is concluded with notes from sys
admins and users that tell the secrets of great user-sys admin
relations (good communication and moderation-in-action.)
Next, a note argues against charging users with "theft of service"
because the charge is too broad. The last note tell how you might be
able to switch from e-mail delivery of CAF-news to newsgroup delivery.
I will be out of town the next two weekends, so distribution
of issues #14 and #15 may be delayed. - Carl"
You may be able to read it as newsgroup "alt.comp.acad-freedom.news".
If not, it is available via anonymous from eff.org as file
academic/news/cafv01n13
More information about Computers and Academic Freedom is available via
anonymous ftp as file academic/caf.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
From: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
Message-Id: <9106261559.AA12348@eff.org>
Date: 26 Jun 91 11:34:00 EST
Subject: RE: Test - please reply if seen in US.
yep.
------
-------------------
From: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
Message-Id: <9106261838.AA22205@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Subject: RE: Test - please reply if seen in US.
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 11:38:03 PDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL10]
>
> yep.
> ------
>
Hi!
Bruce
From kadie Mon Jul 8 12:13:30 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Jul 8 12:13:17 EDT 1991
In this issue:
mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!un : Is the Information the (was RFC on my "abuse" )
spool.mu.edu!think : Re: My rights end where yours begin.
Sanjay Kapur
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
From: mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!unix1.tcd.ie!pmoloney@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun26.052725.14920@mp.cs.niu.edu>, <1991Jun26.134621.15275@ms.uky.edu>,
Subject: Is the Information the User's? (was _RFC on my "abuse"_)
dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) writes:
>BTW, at my site, whenever I'm forced to turn off a user's account, I
>always do it by changing their shell to a program that tells them why
>their account has been turned off, and I always make them able to
>extract their files via FTP, or some other solution if they don't have
>other net access. I consider that information their property and I
>don't have the right to keep them from accessing it.
That last line is interesting. I don't know much about law, but I've heard
it claimed, at least in Ireland, that copyright exists on something you've
written the moment you write it. So keeping files of writing from a user is
in effect illegal. So should a sysadmin at least give a user whose account
has been suspended some way of retrieving their files, at least hard copies
of them?
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College,Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%VAX1.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 27 Jun 91 21:43:53 GMT
Message-Id: <44417@fmsrl7.UUCP>
Organization: Ford Motor Company, Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
From: spool.mu.edu!think.com!yale.edu!ox.com!fmsrl7!wreck@uunet.uu.net
References: , om
Subject: Re: My rights end where yours begin.
In article Sanjay Kapur writes:
>Important disclaimer: In the following discussion I am NOT considering
> mistakes made by a user in the process of learning
> new things (including non-coursework items) but
> deliberate pranks.
I'm very glad you said this. It makes the distinction between
accident and malice very clear, and it ought to be a part of
every computing policy; novice users should be EXPECTED to
make mistakes, and bollux things up once in a while.
Getting back to the thread which began this, according to Mr.
Russotto's account of things, he and his friend were booted
off their system for conduct (exploring the filesystem) which
I firmly believe falls into the "learning new things" category.
First, no other user was affected. Second, the only way any
other user could have been affected in the least is if the
operating system had a bug, and finding OS bugs is definitely
part of any comprehensive education in computer science. True,
they could have filled up the scratch disk, but there are much
easier and faster ways of doing so than by creating more and
more directories. Their intent does not seem malicious at all.
Ergo, assuming that Mr. Russotto is telling it like it is,
his former sysadmins treated him capriciously and prejudicially.
I find such conduct reprehensible. I also find it unsurprising.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 22:31 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: My rights end where yours begin.
Message-Id: <573AD7639C222F94@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: spool.mu.edu!think.com!yale.edu!ox.com!fmsrl7!wreck@uunet.uu.net
>Second, the only way any
>other user could have been affected in the least is if the
>operating system had a bug, and finding OS bugs is definitely
>part of any comprehensive education in computer science.
Since operating systems are written by humans and not God, there will be bugs
in them. One may argue that under certain circumstances finding bugs is a
valid excercise. The problem arises when bugs are exploited rather than
reported. One may argue that a bug should also be explored, but I say only in
a controlled environment and with the cooperation of the System Administrator.
Just because the System Administrator does not know the existence of a bug or
has mistakenly left the system wide open does not mean that you have the right
to mess up other user's work. Please do not punish other users for the System
Administrator's incompetence.
The System Administrator may clamp down hard on every one and in so doing may
make the system very secure (i.e unusable) if too many users start
"messing" around. I repeat, Please do not punish other users for the System
Administrator's incompetence.
>Ergo, assuming that Mr. Russotto is telling it like it is,
>his former sysadmins treated him capriciously and prejudicially.
>I find such conduct reprehensible. I also find it unsurprising.
IF Mr. Russotto is telling it like it is, the system administrator treated
him much harsher than I would. Not knowing all sides of the story, I would
not judge the conduct capricious since even Mr. Russotto admits that he
was warned several times and chose not to follow procedure. I do not
know if anyone (except Mr. Russotto) was prejudiced. Prejudice implies bias
and I do not know enough about the circumstances to make any judgement. If
prejudice was really involved than the conduct would indeed be reprehensible.
As for surprise: I would have been surprised if the System Administrators
shirked in their responsibility and allowed Mr. Russotto to continue without
taking any action.
Some words about prejudice: The main prejudice and stereotyping I read in
this news groups is the prejudice AGAINST system administrators.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
From kadie Mon Jul 8 12:15:16 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Jul 8 12:14:35 EDT 1991
In this issue:
snorkelwacker.mit. : Intellectual Property Agreements
Joe Brennan
Organization: Penn State University
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!jct110@world.std.com
Subject: Intellectual Property Agreements
I'm rather pissed. This past spring I received a Graduate Teaching
Assistantship from Penn State. Amongst all the paperwork I had to
fill out was a Pennsylvania Loyatly Oath. I thought it was pretty stupid,
but as it really didn't hold me too much, I had few qualms about
signing it.
Yesterday I got a memo in my mailbox saying that the University had
adopted a new set of guidelines, and that as part of those
guidelines I had to sign an Intellectual Property Agreement, which
basically states that Penn State has all rights to anything I do in
conjunction with my duties as outlined.
How common is this? Am I the only one who thinks that this is at the
least silly, and at worst outrageous? I do all the work, but they
get all the credit.
You know you've got troubles when the universities atart acting more
like banks than schools.
Half a bee | But half a bee
Jim Thomas Philosophically | Has got to be
Penn State Univ. Must ipso facto | Vis a Vis it's entity
Half not be | You see?
-------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 12:01:01 EDT
From: Joe Brennan
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Agreements
Message-Id:
Jim Thomas writes:
> Yesterday I got a memo in my mailbox saying that the University had
> adopted a new set of guidelines, and that as part of those
> guidelines I had to sign an Intellectual Property Agreement, which
> basically states that Penn State has all rights to anything I do in
> conjunction with my duties as outlined.
I think this is about patents. I know people in Biology who end up,
as a result of research in the University labs, with patentable
processes. Some of these can be very lucrative, since industry, like
drug companies for example, would like to use them. The University
wants to get that income. Of course the University should be happy to
have people like this on the faculty, and reward them with titles and
raises to get them to stay. The reasoning is that the research
wouldn't have been possible without the University providing the space
(and the grad students to do the work!).
However, it sounds like publications are included here? Does this
really mean faculty have to turn over royalties from books and
articles developed at the University? Can you imagine important
senior faculty being told that? I'm afraid this is going to be one of
those things where the written rule and application will differ,
leading to lots of bad feelings.
---
Quite separately, I am amused by the idea of:
> Pennsylvania Loyalty Oath
It sounds like you can be fired for saying you prefer Ohio, or
something like that :-)
Joe Brennan Columbia University
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 28 Jun 91 15:39:27 GMT
Message-Id: <6710@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
From: ns-mx!pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu@uunet.uu.net
References: , <91179.104545JCT110@psuvm.psu.edu>owa.
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Agreements
by JCT110@psuvm.psu.edu (Jim Thomas):
> I'm rather pissed. This past spring I received a Graduate Teaching
> Assistantship from Penn State. Amongst all the paperwork I had to
> fill out was a Pennsylvania Loyatly Oath.
I don't remember having to sign anything other than pension-plan
related paperwork when I took my faculty job at Iowa. I was amazed
at the fact that there wasn't even an employment contract. I later
learned that Iowa faculty have the legal status of day laborers, with
only academic traditions to protect us from capricious behavior on
the part of the state. So far, the traditions have worked.
>
> Yesterday I got a memo in my mailbox saying that the University had
> adopted a new set of guidelines, and that as part of those
> guidelines I had to sign an Intellectual Property Agreement, ...
I'll post the University of Iowa policy as a separate posting.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 28 Jun 91 16:17:06 GMT
Message-Id: <6712@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!ns-mx!pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu@uunet.uu.net
References: , <91179.104545JCT110@psuvm.psu.edu>ate.
Subject: U of Iowa Policy on Intellectual Property
Here is the University of Iowa Policy on Intellectual Property:
------ begin quote ------
1) Except as provided in section 3, textbooks and other products of
teaching, research, scholarship, and artistic endevors belong to the
faculty or staff member when the product is not the result of a
specific assignment or commision and where there is no substantial
University contribution or support beyond the salary, developmental
assignment, services and facilities (including libaraies and
laboratories) customarily provided to faculty in the respective
discipline and University unit.
2) The University has an interest in and reserves the right to review,
negociate, and sign agreements for the use or sale, outside the
immediate instructional setting, of the following educational
materials:
a) Materials specifically commissioned by the university.
b) Materials to which the University has made a substantial
contribution (one which is significant in the context of the situation
and the practices in particular disciplines, schools, departments, or
other units of the University).
c) Materials developed with the assistance of outside funding where
terms of the grant or contract are binding on the author or the
University.
Examples of materials in which the University reserves the right to
review, negociate, and sign agreements as provided in this section 2 are:
Video or audio recordings
Motion pictures
Programmed Instructional Materials
Computer programs and software
Computer-assisted instruction courseware
Three-dimensional materials and exhibits
Combination of the above and other types of materials;
e.g., multimedia and other instructional packages
3. Rights in inventions are administered by the University Patent
Committee and the University of Iowa Research Foundation pursuant to the
official University Patent Policy adopted by the Board of Regents.
------ end quote ------
CLARIFICATIONS:
When this policy was announced, we in the computer science department
immediately saw a problem because our department customarily provides
access to computer facilities to our faculty and students, yet the
policy singles out computer based materials as being subject to review.
We asked for clarification from the Vice President for Research,
D. C. Spriestersbach, and he said, and I quote:
"In your discipline the computers in the Computer Science Laboratory
and in the Weeg Computing Center are clearly facilities customarily
provided to you. Therefore, they are not considered to be a `substantial
contribution' which gives the University rights in your creative works."
COMMENTS:
I find this policy to be quite liberal compared to the policies at many
universities. I think that the reason for this is that Iowa has a long
history of commercially successful creative work in the fine arts and
literature. It would be very difficult for the University to try to
claim any rights to, for example, a novel written by a professor
(a good recent example is David Morrell who wrote Rambo while on the
English faculty here), and in this light, it is hard for the University
to extend a claim to similar creative works in other disciplines.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 13:06 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Agreements
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>
>I'm rather pissed. This past spring I received a Graduate Teaching
>Assistantship from Penn State. Amongst all the paperwork I had to
>fill out was a Pennsylvania Loyatly Oath. I thought it was pretty stupid,
>but as it really didn't hold me too much, I had few qualms about
>signing it.
>
> Jim Thomas Philosophically | Has got to be
> Penn State Univ. Must ipso facto | Vis a Vis it's entity
I quote section 3 of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
members of the several State Legislatures, all executive and
judicial officers, both of the United State and of the several
States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support
this Constitution; but no religiuos test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States.
I am not a lawyer.
The question I have is: Are state university employees considered executive
officers of a state? If so are they bound by to take the above oath of
office?
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 02:39:49 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: The World
From: bzs@world.std.com
References: , , <44417@fmsrl7.UUCP>
Subject: Re: My rights end where yours begin.
>Getting back to the thread which began this, according to Mr.
>Russotto's account of things, he and his friend were booted
>off their system for conduct (exploring the filesystem) which
>I firmly believe falls into the "learning new things" category.
>First, no other user was affected. Second, the only way any
>other user could have been affected in the least is if the
>operating system had a bug, and finding OS bugs is definitely
>part of any comprehensive education in computer science. True,
>they could have filled up the scratch disk, but there are much
>easier and faster ways of doing so than by creating more and
>more directories. Their intent does not seem malicious at all.
When I ran most of the systems at a large university I don't remember,
personally, *ever* giving a student a hard time for what appeared to
be an accident or reasonably innocent experimentation.
In fact, I often would use the following as a signature:
"A toy shouldn't break just because a child plays with it."
-Tonka
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for my colleagues who often
seemed to enjoy making some poor kid squirm. A pathetic power trip,
basically.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 16:00 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <85910629160058/0003158580NB2EM@mcimail.com>
> "A toy shouldn't break just because a child plays with it."
There is an underlying problem here that is contributing to the tension
between student users and system administrators.
While I am content to believe that innocent students have been
victimized by system administrators suffering from megalomania, I do
not believe that the few documented cases of megalomania can be the
cause of all this furor. Instead, I suggest that the tension results
from expected differences in perception of the situation.
The student knows that systems are robust. "Pac-Man" never broke.
"King's Quest" never broke. You could push as hard as you wanted to; it
never broke. You could not get out of the "land." It did not break.
Yet. Push! Problems are related to hardware and software, not users.
The rules of the game are implicit in the game. If you can do it, it is
legitimate. The way you "win the game" is to explore the land to its
outermost boundaries.
The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. Most have come
about by elaboration of earlier systems. They were not designed of a
piece. Even when we do a major upgrade, we often include function from
earlier systems, usually as an accomodation to users. This
functionality often includes gratuitous generality and flexibility. The
systems have often been extended to support user populations which are
much larger and less orderly than the ones for which the systems were
conceived. The result is systems which are not as robust as might be
indicated or expected for their current use and user populations. The
system administrator knows this.
Each also knows different things about the consequences. The system
administrator knows that there are hundreds of users out there waiting
for the prompt. If they do not see it, they are at least anxious, many
are panicky, and some are justified. Unless you contain the damage
early, you may never completely recover. You may not recover without
disruption.
The student believes that "Ctrl-Alt-Del" will fix most anything. The
consequences, whatever they may be, are limited. While intellectually
he may understand differently, deep down inside, where he knows how to
feel hungry and grow fingernails, he knows that they are limited. Much
of what the student "knows" he learned in single user systems. He does
not appreciate multi-user systems.
All system intrusions and many accidents are preceeded by anomalous
behavior. There are warnings. As a security consultant, I participate
in many "post-mortems." It is rare to see a system failure caused by
user behavior in which there were no warnings. System administrators
know this from experience. They have learned that the "way to win the
game" is to be on the alert for such behavior and nip it in the bud.
The student insists "judge me by my motive," not by my behavior alone.
Of course, his motive is usually benign; perhaps a little mischievous,
but never malicious. Most often he was "merely exploring" or seriously
"experimenting." He believes that in the academic community, these
motives sanction anything. (In reality, academic experimentation
involves controls to which this behavior does not pretend.) But no
matter, whatever else he intended, he did not intend to break the
system.
The administrator says "I cannot know your motive in advance unless you
tell me about. If it is innocent, tell me; if it were innocent, you
would have told me. At best, I can only know about your motive in
hindsight. Your motive is not relevant; the system is fragile and you
can break it without intent. It is not your sandbox; there are other
interests to be protected. I must react on a timely basis to the
behavior that I see. Others will have to deal with motive after the
fact.
And here is the nub of the tension. The administrator and the student
are looking at the same behavior but from very different perspectives.
Each projects onto the other things that the other cannot know about.
The student expects the administrator to appreciate and be tolerant of
his motive. The administrator expects the student to appreciate the
vulnerability of the system, the extent of the consequences of breakage,
and the reponsibility of the administrator to the majority user
population.
The student expects the administrator to act as good parent, with
tolerance, restraint and deliberation. The administrator feels pressure
to act immediately to contain the behavior before it gets out of
control. Some of you may recognize this dilemma as similar to a basic
one between children and parents.
The student knows the source of the behavior and intends to do
no harm. The administrator does not know the source or the intent, but
has learned to expect the worst.
The student sees the system as a toy; his toy. He believes it to be
robust, but even the strongest toys break. No big deal; he was only
playing. He did not intend to break it. There are always more toys.
What is all the excitement about? That guy must be out to get him.
It must be personal. What other explaination can there be?
The administrator sees the system as a piece of the infrastructure, as
capital equipment. He has tried to make it sufficiently robust to
withstand normal use, but he knows its complexity makes that a risky
effort at best. He knows that it is no one's toy and that playing with
it puts it at unneccessary risk. (Even the best toys will break if hit
with a big enough hammer.) He knows that it can be broken without
intent. He knows that the consequences of breakage are grave, perhaps
or partially irremedial, and not related to the motive of the breaker.
Its not personal. He is only doing his job.
Each sees his view as eminently reasonable; almost everyone that he
knows holds the same view. Indeed, each is likely to conclude that, as
even-handed as I have tried to be, I really agree with him.
I do not argue for either of these views, but simply that they are the
origins of the tension. It may be that this tension is so intrinsic to
the situation that it cannot be alleviated; I do not believe so. Rather
I believe that the problem can be dealt with by the kind of prior
understanding and agreement that I have earlier proposed here.
William Hugh Murray
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106291747.AA21148@eff.org>
From: "Dean Gottehrer"
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Agreements
Intellectual property (as generally referred to by universities) comes in two
varieties--copyright and patents. Most universities that I know about provide
that copyright ownership remain in the hands of the person who created the
material. I am aware of several instances where the work made for hire
provision of the copyright law has been used to insist that the copyright be
in the hands of the university. (A work made for hire is one that is created
when someone hires someone else to create a work. A good example is a
reporter writing for a magazine or newspaper. The employer hires the reporter
to create these works, provides the resources to create them and under the
work made for hire provision of the copyright law owns the copyright in the
work. Works made for hire, however, have to be done under a contract that
says the work is made for hire.)
I don't know of any university that says a faculty member's lecture notes are
university intellectual property. The faculty member created the notes and
there is a long tradition that faculty own their lecture notes and even I
believe a few court cases on the subject. But a university that hires a
faculty member specifically to produce, say, a televised class in which the
university contributes production costs and staff to help produce the series
has a good argument that the programs are works made for hire. The way to
ensure a faculty member's rights in this kind of situation is to make sure
that a contract exists specifying who owns what, who has the right to show the
program and where any revenues from the program go. If you are being hired to
do something where revenues are being divvied up, be sure to consult a lawyer
knowledgeable about copyright law.
I suspect, but have never done a survey, that most universities are insisting
these days on owning the patent rights to any inventions developed in their
labs. While lecture notes are an intellectual invention that can be done
anywhere, research that results in a new invention that is done in a lab
provided by the university often can not be accomplished elsewhere. The
university's argument is tantamount to saying that it provided material
resources that made the invention possible and it should own the patent on the
invention.
It is perhaps not mere coincidence that in the overwhelming majority of cases
patents are worth more than copyrights and that money has determined policy.
In any event, for those of you contemplating making millions from your
research, these policies can be opened to negotiation. Any university that
says it is not willing to negotiate over such a policy is simply letting you
look to another that is willing. The fact is, however, that most faculty will
not write books like Rambo or Samuelson's economics text that bring in big
bucks nor will they devise some new gene that will cure AIDS or cancer.
Unless you think your intellectual property is capable of earning you
additional money, I wouldn't worry about the agreement. But if you have any
concerns, you ought to consult your local version of the AAUP or AFT or a
lawyer before you sign away your rights to something that could be worth a lot
of money.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
I am not an attorney and therefore cannot give legal advice. If you seek
legal advice, talk to an attorney.
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106291815.AA21380@eff.org>
From: "Dean Gottehrer"
Subject: Re: My rights end where yours begin.
Barry Stein quotes Tonka that "A toy shouldn't break just because a child
plays with it."
I strongly agree and the best made children's toys are that sturdy.
There is a difference, however, between children's toys and the tools and
machines adults use. Fine made machinery can be delicate and less sturdy.
The question is whether a computer is a child's toy or an adult's machine.
I'll accept your answer to that question if you can also tell me what is the
sound of one hand clapping.
In all of this debate about arbitrary power being exercised arbitrarily, I
side with those who want to see the rules of the game spelled out and then
applied with due process. That means the users must be informed in advance of
their rights *and* responsibilities and the system administrators must know
what their responsibilities *and* rights are. The long discussions we have
had here resulted, in my mind, from a lack of rules, or of the rules not being
widely disseminated, or of the rules not being applied with due process, or
from a lack of accessiblity of those in power. To my mind, this results from
not enough experience with computers and violations of rights to have created
in a body of law developed in court cases that forces universities to write
the rules of the game and then follow them.
Rules can be written even to define those limited and few circumstances under
which a sysadmin could take the extraordinary step of shutting an account down
and then providing the user with a process to protest and reestablish the
account or be suspended for a definite or even indefinite time, depending on
the severity of the offence. We don't punish theft the same way we punish
murder.
Universities have managed to determine which offenses are to be sanctioned by
lowering a grade, failing a student, suspending a student or expelling the
student. Humans of good faith could apply all of this to computers and
guarantee due process and academic freedom.
We have users of not such good faith and sysadmins of not such good faith.
Where customer service and support is the dedicated goal of the computer
administrators, good faith will work out little problems before they become
big ones. When a bad apple starts rotting the barrel for the rest of the
apples, the police need to take over and follow a well-defined process with
safeguards for all--sysamin as well as user.
If that doesn't happen chaos or dictatorship results.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
From kadie Mon Jul 8 12:17:49 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Jul 8 12:16:44 EDT 1991
In this issue:
bbrown@pepvax.pepp : Who owns your reaserch
zaphod.mps.ohio-st : Re: Intellectual Property Agreements
cs.utexas.edu!asuv : Bored on the Fourth of July
snorkelwacker.mit. : Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Joe Brennan
Subject: Who owns your reaserch
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 1:14:41 PDT
Cc: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL10]
There was a person that performed reaserch at
the National Cancer Institute. While working
for NCI he developed a method of making
monoclono cancer therapy. He resigned NCI and
started his own company! For about $30,000 a
person can use his treatment. In my opinion that
is blood money.
-Bruce
-------------------
