Slashdot Mirror

I'm sorry, but Stallman's piece isn't going to advance the UCITA debate one iota because of his fringe beliefs. I mean, we're talking about a guy who thinks charging for software is immoral and who tacitly endorses software piracy. It's like, "Newsflash: Commercial Software Opponent Complains About Law Which Benefits Commercial Software Vendors But Hurts Consumers!" Well, duh.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

It stands for Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.

Check out www.badsoftware.com or www.2bguide.com. Also, look at the bottom of the article for links. It even gives the e-mail address of someone to contact if you want to help.

Cem Kaner is a lawyer who's spent years fighting this. (He hates me, but I think he's a good guy.) His web site has a good summary of the situation, although it's out of date. Nobody seems to be tracking where this is in each state legislature, and somebody should be. It has to be opposed state by state now, and it may sneak into law in some states when nobody is watching.

On the issue of "fair-use" don't forget the ugly looming spectre of UCITA which governs not only software but most digitally delivered content. DVDs would undoubtedly have a (UCITA legal) shrink-wrap license which would also disallow (legal if UCITA is adopted) resale after use and, most likely, archival copying. Just a few more reasons to dislike UCITA. For more, check out Infoworld's UCITA page.

This whole ordeal just goes to point out the stark contrast between the ethics guiding the hardware and the software industries. Hardware is expected to fix known bugs and it does. Software on the other hand, has virutally all the factors which could reform it removed. You can't sue a software manufacturer due to all those in package liscense agreements (not alwasy enforcable, though if UCITA is passed, they'll be quite a bit more so). MS has gotten the government to agree to make laws protecting them, claiming that software can't be perfect, all the while raving about how secure its products are. So as repulsive as this lawsuit is, I'm glad that we have them. Because so far its lawsuits like this (along with a reasonable level of industry competition) which has kept the industry producing stuff that actually works.

He then proceeds to attack the industry for "abusing" its customers. This is also nonsense. The computer industry has been improving its product faster than any other industry in the history of the universe. So technologically, this is certainly not true.

Second, according to the Bad Software Web site:

• "By the end of 1995, computers and software ranked #8 in the Top 10 list for complaints to the Better Business Bureau, outdoing used car dealers. As sales increased, complaints increased. In 1996, computer-related complaints rose to #7 on the list."
• "The software industry has been one of the worst for leaving callers on hold. A small study by Service Management International indicated that software companies leave callers on hold longer than any other industry studied, worse than government agencies, computer hardware companies, airlines, banks, utility companies, and others."

UCITA also affects writers and photographers, not just consumers of software. Electronic publishing will be covered by UCITA, not the UCC. My understanding is that you will have to negotiate separate agreements with your publisher when publishing in the traditional and electronic mediums. To read Kaner's discussion of this topic, go to //http://www.nwu.org/pic/ucita2.htm.

Kaner's site also contains the letters from the attorneys general to the NCCUSL. Not to mention plenty of other UCITA-related items.

A number of individuals as well as organizations have expressed their opposition to UCITA. This includes industry groups as well as individual law professors.



Attorneys general don't all like UCITA either. For example, California's attorney general has critized and expressed opposition to UCITA. See
an excellent list of organizations and individuals opposing UCITA, including their comments on this page.



The de facto clearinghouse for legal briefs and position papers from all sides in the process is the "Guide to the Proposed Law on Software Transactions" provided by Carol A. Kunze.



Now that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has passed the the UCITA, each state individually has to enact it into law. The best thing to do is to write to the Attorney General in your state, expressing your opposition to this law. Please couch it in terms of economic harm to industry. Remember that rants about free software probably won't win you friends in government.

A number of individuals as well as organizations have expressed their opposition to UCITA. This includes industry groups as well as individual law professors.

Attorneys general don't all like UCITA either. For example, California's attorney general has critized and expressed opposition to UCITA. See an excellent list of organizations and individuals opposing UCITA, including their comments on this page.

The de facto clearinghouse for legal briefs and position papers from all sides in the process is the "Guide to the Proposed Law on Software Transactions" provided by Carol A. Kunze.

Now that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has passed the the UCITA, each state individually has to enact it into law. The best thing to do is to write to the Attorney General in your state, expressing your opposition to this law. Please couch it in terms of economic harm to industry. Remember that rants about free software probably won't win you friends in government.

Attorneys general don't all like UCITA. For example, California's attorney general has critized and expressed opposition to UCITA. See an excellent summary page.
The de facto clearinghouse for legal briefs and position papers from all sides in the process is the "Guide to the Proposed Law on Software Transactions" provided by Carol A. Kunze.
Now that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has passed the the UCITA, each state individually has to enact it into law. The best thing to do is to write to the Attorney General in your state, expressing your opposition to this law. Please couch it in terms of economic harm to industry. Remember that rants about free software probably won't win you friends in government.

I didn't close my link tag :P. The Words "a lot" are a seperate link, to a list of every one who's aganst it (http://www.badsoftware.com/oppose.htm)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

Check it out:
http://www.2BGuide.com/docs/riaa1098.html
I really doubt this will come to pass, at least I hope it doesn't, it seems there are A Lot of people aganst this, including 26 states Attorney Generals, including Iowa, where I live. (thank god :)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

• Allows prohibition against "reverse engineering". This is akin to saying I can buy a car, but opening the hood to see how the engine worked would make me a criminal.
• Allows remotely disabeling software when publisher suspects violation of the terms of the license, without needing a search-warrant. This is akin to saying that if I buy a car that, in the fine print says I'm only allowed to use gasoline from a particular company, and if the car company suspects I used gasoline from a competitor, they could make the car stop working, even in mission-critical situations (like while being on a busy freeway).
• The user isn't necessarily entitled to see the software license contract before agreeing to it. This is like saying that for a car you bought with a "bumper to bumper" warrenty... The warrenty can cover only the paint job (from one bumper to the other), and that you many not find out until you take the car in for repair.
• It is legal for software publishers to prohibit sale or transfer of a software license... Something like saying when you're ready for a new car you need to throw out the old one, because you aren't alowed to sell it.
• The software publisher can limit thier liability to the cost of the software, even if the user has paid for additional services over and above the price of the software. This would be like if (God fobid) if you drove your new car off the auto lot with your family and the car exploded killing everyone except yourself, that the car company would owe you no more than the price of the car, and to collect that, you may be required to call a special refund service that could charge you twice the value of the car for just the phone call... and that even after the car exploded you would still be obligated to pay for the 5-year service contract.

For more information about UCITA and what it will do to the software industry, check out badsoftware.com, run by Cem Kaner, a lawyer and computer programmer. It is very bad, much worse than the press article slashdot linked to described. Imagine if you were a lobbyist for a company and you had complete and total freedom to rewrite the laws your company worked under. You'd write the laws to give you all the power and screw everyone else, right? This is what has happened with UCITA. If you have anything to do with software (and why the hell are you reading slashdot if you don't), you need to pay attention to this.

--
Michael Sims

From www.badsoftware.com, a letter by 14 Attorneys General that are against UCITA.

Another from same site is www.badsoftware.com/debate.htm.

Do check out rest of the site since it has a lot of interesting information about this evil bill.

From www.badsoftware.com, a letter by 14 Attorneys General that are against UCITA.

Another from same site is www.badsoftware.com/debate.htm.

Do check out rest of the site since it has a lot of interesting information about this evil bill.

From www.badsoftware.com, a letter by 14 Attorneys General that are against UCITA.

Another from same site is www.badsoftware.com/debate.htm.

Do check out rest of the site since it has a lot of interesting information about this evil bill.

UCITA is not law yet. The NCCUSL has voted to forward the bill to the states, who must enact it individually. This is, incidentally, how the Uniform Commercial Code works, which governs many commercial transactions. However, it is likely that many states will pass the legislation given the rubber stamp of the NCCUSL.

It goes mostly without saying that UCITA will be bad for the consumer. It gives software makers many broad powers to limit consumer freedom. For example, shrinkwrap licenses don't even have to be on the outside of the box to be enforceable. Goodbye EULA protesters!

I disagree with those who say that UCITA will be good for open source software. Under UCITA, manufacturers may be able to enforce gag clauses that prevent you from discussing the product (including performance, etc) with others. This goes against the very nature of the open source process. Also, explicit provisions against reverse engineering may now be enforceable as well. Think of how the Samba team relies on reverse engineering to make a superior product. UCITA may allow Microsoft to forbid that practice in the future.

Many groups are opposed to UCITA, including librarians, consumer groups, the Attorneys General for almost half the states, and the Federal Trade Commission. Despite this the NCCUSL probably promoted UCITA because they have an interest in preserving states rights over federal. Cem Kaner hosts an excellent web page, Bad Software, which discusses these issues and summarizes the hurtful parts of UCITA.

It is now vitally important that citizens contact their state commissioners, governers, etc. to expresse their opposition to UCITA. It's got to be done on a state-by-state basis now.