Slashdot Mirror

UCITA applies only in Virginia and Maryland. In August of this year, NCCUSL, the primary driver of the legislation, abandoned its efforts to get it enacted in other states. Further information here (Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions) if you interested.

BUT bad people are trying to change all that. They've come up with a proposed law, called the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, or UCITA. UCITA would, among other things, explicitly make shrinkwrap licenses fully enforceable. This would be a very bad thing.

UCITA is already the law in Maryland and Virginia. If you live in those states, move!

For more information on why UCITA is bad, click here. Find your state representatives here. Tell them what you think.

The software purchased would no longer belong to the buyer.

UCITA allows consumers to become licensees who are bound to the terms of the contract provided in "shrink-wrap" products or "click-on" agreements.

UCITA allows restrictions on use to be revealed after purchase.

UCITA allows restrictions that prohibit users from criticizing or publicly commenting on software they purchased.

UCITA puts consumers at the mercy of software publishers to "blackmail" users for more fees by their unhindered ability to disable or remove their product for unspecified "license violations."

How the fuck that law was even thought up in the first place is beyond me, let alone taken seriously and implemented in two states (Maryland and Virginia). This is a severe intrusion into consumer rights and privacy and as far as I can see trys to restrict what, when and where you can do with software as much as possible.

+4 Funny? Go ahead and laugh. Ever heard of UCITA? Shrinkwrap licenses are already enforceable in Virginia and Maryland. More info from the EFF and Avert.

True, UCITA is most commonly thought of in terms of software licensing, but it can apply to other digital works.

I like how their license agreement on the download page is in a text area in a form. I erased all of the text and wrote "ATI will give me one BILLION dollars," and submitted it. And they accepted it! Thanks to UCITA, that's valid, too. (I think. OTOH, who the hell can figure out UCITA?)

Ooh, I submitted it again and now they owe me a monkey. Pay up, ATI!

-Waldo Jaquith

When is the security end-user community going to come together and fight this as a united front? Make the repurcussions for releasing exploit code so financially devastating, that companies will tremble in fear of releasing -anything- without following proper disclosure [vulnwatch.org].
Perhaps litigation and financial awards would be a good start.

UCITA allows software publishers to sell their products "as is" and to disclaim liability for product shortcomings.

Have somebody heard of anyone that have tried to sue Microsoft for loss of profit (or whatever) due to faulty products? Do Microsoft have some kind of protection from this?

The EULA distributed with Office 2000 specifically disclaims liability for "loss of profit":

"To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall Microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the provision of or failure to provide Support Services, even if Microsoft has been advised of the possibility of such damages."

Under the USA's Uniform Commercial Code, there is by default an implied warranty that any product sold is "merchantable", meaning fit for the customary use that the product is put to. Unless the terms of sale change that implied warranty, a buyer could sue over dysfunctional software.

Software licenses generally disclaim those implied warranties, an innovation that began with VisiCalc's "as is" license. If you read the fine print of Microsoft EULAs, you will find a capitalized sentence like "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT, AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES."

Whether the EULA has any legal weight is questionable. Software licenses are rarely presented at the time of sale. Installation programs try to impose them after the fact by demanding your agreement before installing the program on your computer.

Like many click-wrap agreements, Microsoft's EULAs are very one-sided, offering you nothing in return for restricting you from installing the software more than one computer, from making more than one backup copy, from lending the software to anyone else, from reverse-engineering the software, and sometimes even from reselling the software or from criticizing the product. Such "agreements" may not constitute valid contracts, and even if they were, may be invalid as "contracts of adhesion".

So, Microsoft and other software corporations lobby for UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act) laws giving software the special ability to impose terms and restrictions after purchase. UCITA has already passed in Maryland and Virginia and has been introduced in the legislatures of many other states.

read the EULA, Microsoft can recall any piece of software they want...

In the absence of an evil piece of crap like UCITA (or a particularly corrupt judge), EULAs that don't show up until after you've paid for the software are usually considered meaningless. This is just one of the reasons why the fight against UCITA is so important. UCITA would make all the evil crap in EULAS legally binding. See www.4cite.org.

--

Although I do notice both VA and TX are republican states also....

I probably ought not respond to this troll, but Maryland has also passed UCITA. Quoting from AFFECT's history-of-UCITA page:

Maryland's law went into effect in October 2000. The Information Technology Board's UCITA Committee is evaluating the need for further legislation. None is planned in 2001.

Virginia is refining its law to go into effect July 1, 2001.

Last time I checked, Maryland is a Democrat-controlled state, and it was the first state to pass UCITA and have it take effect. So much for that idiotic notion that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad...

The article here asks for a list of companies supporting this. Top of the list is Microsoft. One of their stooges actually helped write this evil piece of crap. For this, if nothing else, they are damned. Check out the affect (formerly 4cite.org) website

Also useful is this interesting coverage of the exact aims of AFFECT, and their issues with UCITA, which I also found to be useful, and so I cited it.
--
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,

The critical thing about online activism is to make it simple to participate. IW goes part of the way but doesn't itself mobilize opponents... maybe a "Fight DMCA" slashbox would be a good way to start.

sulli

Does anyone know exactly what this means? In particular, how strong is the "will not"?

-y

I don't know much about the Senate bill, but the sponsors of House Bill 19 are the members of the House leadership. Few of them know much about the bill yet. There are a few exceptions: Delegate Sandy Rosenberg and Delegate Nancy Kopp are both members of the House leadership who did not sign on to the bill -- they apparently have some vague idea of some disconcerting going on.

Bob Kopp
(Yes, I am related to one of the above.)