Virginia House Passes UCITA

Keith Kris writes, "Looks like Virginia [its House of Representatives] has passed the UCITA, got it through unanimously, too. This needs to be stopped quickly. Many people don't even know what this act is. Spread the word." Microsoft, AOL and the Business Software Alliance are pushing this heavily. Virginians, you need to call your state senators immediately since they're still considering the bill. Tell them who you are, tell them you're a constituent, tell them you oppose passage of UCITA because it will destroy consumer rights.

Comments

Re:Unanimous?

[Anonymous Coward]

To the person who posted the link to microsoft I suggest reading the following http://www.debian.org/OpenSource/halloween.html as for UCITA the following articles have helped me tremendously in understanding the threat that this law is to consumer rights http://www.badsoftware.com/oppose.htm Thanks -W

Re:Plan of attack.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again for those who really want to know what this law is about and how it limits the freedoms that most of us hold dear. I will post this link
again . Please read it, no one who values freedom
to any degree, whether they use open source software or not could support this law-

http://www.badsoftware.com/oppose.htm

Re:UCITA and the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an article by Richard Stallman outlining
why even those who support the GPL should fight
the UCITA

http://linuxtoday.com/stories/15948.html

Re:This is incorrect (and InfoWorld is not reputab

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears that everyone is right. UCITA passed both the Va house and senate in near identical forms. The legislation was subsequently referred to the Joint Commission on Technology and Science for further study and amendment where it must, of course, be amended and reconciled prior to presentment to the Governor (near identical bills, not *identical* bills passed). This is not law in Va today, but they are much further down the road than anyone else. (see InfoWorld Follow up: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ec/xml/00/02/16/ 000216ecnewucita.xml)

Re:Unanimous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess how long Samba gets to stay legal if UCITA passes?

Is there some provision against someone using specs openly published by a company? Take a look at http://msdn.microsof t.com/workshop/networking/cifs/default.asp. Quoting from the page: "Microsoft is making sure that CIFS technology is open, published, and widely available for all computer users." I linked the link back to the Samba project along with mention of Linux's smbfs and the several other non-MS CIFS providers.

As far as the law goes, wouldn't this be a huge chance for Linux and other OSS platforms to come in and specifically state that they do not adhere to the law? At least to me, this is the same as Honda or someone doubling the price on their cars. Of course nobody would buy their cars, right? Maybe I'm just an evil capitalist bastard and can't see the conspiracy...

Re:User Numbers

[Mongr]

ummm.....hehe...I probably got everybody in this thread beat. User Info

All newbies would stop using Slashdot at all.

[DunbarTheInept]

You said:

• 1) People should get a rating based on the TIME they have been a Slashdot, not just this "karma". New members posts start at -1, no exceptions. After three months, they start at 0. After three more months, they start at 1. This means that if a troll wants to troll, he'll have to put in his dues for six months. If he then wants to blow it all on a single, grand, troll parade...fine. He can start all over.

Congratulations! You've just discovered a way to ensure that nobody new will ever bother becoming a regular Slashdot participant, and the only participants will be the current crop of people. Was this your intent? Nobody new is going to bother posting anything if they are handed this newbie discrimination by an automated system. No matter how insightful their post might be, a computer decides that it isn't worthwhile based purely on this artificial metric. This may have been your intent, but did you realize that this means they won't bother sticking around for the required year it takes to finally have a real voice?

Re:All newbies would stop using Slashdot at all.

[bran880]

I think you're missing the point that the core group here is becoming completely dissatisfied with the quality of articles (which is excusable) and the quality of posts (which is inexcusable). You may see this as elitist or unfair, but people who have been here a long time and who post a lot of quality (high karma) are likely in the future to post quality. These ideas about a seniority system are entirely correct and right on the mark.

The current state of Slashdot is completely disappointing. It's come to the point that trolls and nekkid Natalie Portman links are generally funnier, and more insightful than the redundant "don't you know that copying DVD's bit by bit is possible without DeCSS" tripe that seems to dominate every other article. Although I certainly speak for no one, it's clear that the core community here is going to leave if nothing is done as it relates to karma, senior and ac.

So, Congratulations yourself. While worrying if new people will join Slashdot, you will lose the basic community here that bothers to continually make >4 line, entertaining posts.

Re:All newbies would stop using Slashdot at all.

[JoeShmoe]

This is a principle that has existed on Usenet and in MUU/MUDS for years. The idea is that you WATCH and LISTEN and LEARN before you participate. I posted for months as an AC before I registered. Most of my intial posts were marked down as offtopic and the like. Eventually I started hitting the mark, and saw that some of my AC posts were hitting +5 (usually the funnier ones). Eventually I got tired of seeing karma go to waste and that is why I registered.

If they have something to contribute...it will get moderated up. I have enough faith in the moderators to know that. When I moderate, I browse at -1 and if there is a truly worthwhile post, it will not stay -1 for long.

It's not you don't have a voice unless you stick it out for a year (I'm not saying NO POSTING for newbies, although that is the attitude that Usenet takes) I'm saying pay your dues. If you are just a casual viewer and get bored with Slashdot then fine...walk away. But if you are like me...you'll put in the time to contribute and be rewarded with ever-increasing voice.

- JoeShmoe

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re:All newbies would stop using Slashdot at all.

[link2NULL]

Agree. BTW, my first post as a newbie here last year (under a previous user name that I changed, so my karma's starting over) got a +2 for its informativeness. I love the freewheeling environment here and the preference tools can filter out junk if you want. I don't mind it... it's part of the community IMHO. If something's ticking people off and it results in ACs, grits, and Ms. Portman, so what?

Re:All newbies would stop using Slashdot at all.

[Stary]

This is a principle that has existed on Usenet and in MUU/MUDS for years. The idea is that you WATCH and LISTEN and LEARN before you participate

Yes, that's what I've done too. Now I just recently signed up, but before that I'd been reading /. for a few months. Now... how would I have felt if I when I signed up after reading /. for a few months find out that noone's gonna see my posts the coming 6 months? No thank you.

How about you? When you started posting as AC, would you have liked it if your post had been marked down because you were new, instead of your posting offtopic? Your +5 funny posts wouldve been marked ad -1 or 0, because you hadnt been on /. for 3 months yet.

If someone doesn't bother to WATCH, LISTEN and LEARN before they start posting, thats their loss, and they should be moderated down too. The soloution is not automaticly moderating everyone new down though...

some animals are more equal than others

[Wansu]

These pigs seek the right to violate rights.

Re:User Numbers

[sterwill]

Old at 7681? What does that make me? I remember back when slashdot didn't have any trolls, back before "lite mode" (which is the only way I can stand to view slashdot), and even back before accounts (I was late in getting one).

--

Shrinked-wrap software...

[pb]

First... oh darn, I have to stop using shrink-wrapped software... :)

This might have an impact for most users, but some of us are just weird.

Second... hey, we can enforce the GPL now, in the box.

This should be interesting. I don't mind if license agreements are binding, as long as they aren't the "Microsoft-style license agreement"...

"We don't claim that this is even software. It might be an old toaster that we just boxed up. But don't blame us when... um... if it doesn't work right..."

If they expect that to be seriously enforced, they can expect a lawsuit in a matter of nanoseconds.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Oh come on

[crayz]

It's funny, laugh. You really didn't have to moderate that down.

Re:Unanimous?

[BVD]

The fact that this passed hands down in VA does not surprise me one bit. I used to work in a law firm based in Maryland with offices in VA. One of the reoccuring themes that the lawyers would bring up is how consumer unfriendly VA is.

Case in point. You walk into a jewelry store in VA. You buy a diamond for your wife. You sign a lease to buy the diamond. The lease has in its fine print that in case of forfeiture you wave all rights to trial by jury, trial in the state of VA ( in case of a jewelry chain that is based in another state ), and allow them to garnish your wages to reclaim lost income. If you sign it, you are bound to it.
If you sign the exact same form in MD, none of the above clauses are legally binding. In MD you are not allowed to wave any of your rights in a non-negotiated contract.

I will be really upset and worried when and if this passes in Maryland.

Re:Unanimous?

[kshapar]

The problem is that once UCITA is passed in even one state, the dam's been broken -- for instance, companies can insist that all complaints be adjudicated in the first state to pass UCITA.

We can't afford to wait!

Re:Unanimous?

[kshapar]

The problem is that once UCITA is passed in even one state, the dam's been broken -- for instance, companies can insist that all complaints be adjudicated in the first state to pass UCITA.

We can't afford to wait!

News? Not really.

[miniver]

It was news Sunday night when I wrote here about it. On Tuesday morning it's just history.

The most telling point about this article is that the posts about the moderation (or lack thereof) score consistently higher than the posts about the UCITA and what to do about it.

Now for an off-topic rant ... about off-topic posts: Enough with the "my number is lower than your number" nonsense. Longevity doesn't matter if you don't make good posts; neither does Karma.

That said, now here's my suggestion: Modify slashdot so that the editors have the option to move a higly-rated, but obviously off-topic, post to it's own article, along with all of its' own responses. If an off-topic post gets moderated up to 5, then it's obviously worth discussing, but it shouldn't be cluttering up the main threads discussing an article. For that matter, I think that "Off-Topic" should be split into two seperate moderations: OT Good and OT Bad. "OT Good" would be used to indicate that a post is off-topic from the original discussion, but worth discussing on its own merits. "OT Bad" would have the same connotations that the current "Off Topic" rating has: a post that doesn't add anything to the discussion at hand, and isn't worth discussing on its own merits.

I'd also like to see moderation of articles -- but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Phillip Birmingham]

Use the system -- browse with threshold set to one. It really works.

I didn't even realize what you were talking about at all until I set my threshold lower.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Phillip Birmingham]

Yeah, sometimes a really good one can slip through the cracks, but the times I've browsed at -1 have never convinced me I was missing much.

Re:Cease and Disist

[mikpos]

Um most GPL'd software has and probably always will be commercial software. Perhaps you've blocked out of your memory the time when RMS charged 150USD for a copy of Emacs on tape? In fact the FSF is still charging quite a bit for software -- 70USD for the latest GNU Source Code CD-ROM set (for individuals). Mind you a lot of GPL'd software isn't commercial, but I'd wager that most of it is being sold in one form or another.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[jonabbey]

Of course, browsing at threshold 2 makes it impossible for moderators to catch any improperly lowered posts.

Which, it seems, is how the moderation system is biased. Moderators are instructed to concentrate on boosting good articles and wade through the crap to catch stuff that has been unjustly lowered. Unfortunately, there are so many AC trolls now (Don Knotts in Takedown! Woohoo!) that this is a rather unrealistic thing to ask of anyone. And if everyone browsed at 2, good AC posts would remain permanently invisible.

Something needs to be done.

Re:User Numbers

[troc]

Yeah, I'm only 3606 :) I've been here for bloody ages and I don't have any weird bonuses etc.

What annoys me are people moderating things incorrectly, such as funny posts marked as trolls when the obviously aren't just because the person moderating disagrees with the humour. This applies equally to people moderating things down because they disagree with the politics, OS, fizzy drink choice, sexual orientation etc of the poster. Moderation HAS to be done objectively to work well.

I think some form of seniority-related bonus might stop the run of recent trolling users, but maybe all we need is a week or two at 0 for new users?

Troc

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Peter La Casse]

1.*NO* AC posts at all for the first ten minutes
2.*NO* AC replies directly to the article (root posts) for the first twenty minutes
3.New users are subject to AC rule for the first week of their account (and must make five posts not moderated down before they lose their Newbie status)

I like these suggestions a lot. Moderate that post up! :)

Moderation accumulation

[spitzak]

Notification of current moderation status of a post should be given before moderation points are committed

Absolutely. It's a wonder this hasn't been implemented yet! Although you realize it's not a complete solution -- there will still be a window of time where people can submit duplicate moderations -- it'd just be a smaller one.

Much simpler: let the moderators pick a number (they can pick any number). When they submit the moderation, the value is moved by 1 toward the chosen number. If it is already equal to the chosen number it does not move at all, and the moderator is not charged for any points.

Also, make the "funny, insightful," etc seperate from the points. Let moderators pick one, and whatever one has been picked the most is displayed in the topic line.

It might also be nice if moderating an AC post from 0 to -1 used up zero points.

THIS TROLL IS A DOS ATTACK AGAINST SLASHDOT

[Drake42]

What do you want to bet that someone an MS is trying to stifle discussion about this bill and so is mounting a DOS against the message system by spamming it with useless bullshit.

Does this law specifically deny the right to speak out against the product or is that merely an extrapolation?

Drake42

Re:THIS TROLL IS A DOS ATTACK AGAINST SLASHDOT

[bentonsmith]

I should think that less conspiracy theory is in order. Indeed, please review the definition of a Denial of Service attack, and then get back to us with the appropriate amount of egg on your face.

That aside...

I do not think this law can stand for long. A law of its type in any other field of commerce would be unthinkable, but to some people computers and their software are still magical mystery devices. With sufficent pressure in the form of letter writing campaigns and petition signing I think that you do have the opportunity to make educate your member of legislature.

I do know that the encryption and privacy enthusiasts in the UK have worked on a program where they send letters to their MPs on the merits and deficencies of various bills that deal with those issues. From my understanding, there had been a degree of success in such efforts.

It is common for legislators to ask experts in a particular field for a greater insight into issues that they may not have full comprehension of. I do not think that many of our elected officials have full comprehension of the magnitude of this type of legislation.

Re:THIS TROLL IS A DOS ATTACK AGAINST SLASHDOT

[link2NULL]

No, the troll attack has been warned about for several days... that this would be "troll tuesday." No MS conspiracy at work today.

Re:sid=moderation

[Neph]

Comments get caught in a vicious cycle of failing to be moderated up once an article topic has reached a hundred posts or more

Yes. This, obviously, is a consequence of people's reading habits: moderators tend to be those who read stories within a few minutes of their being posted, thereby diminishing the chances of later posts being moderated.

Since changing that pattern would seem to be pretty much impossible, I'd suggest separating the pattern from moderation instead. Thus, we'd have something like M2: You have to go to a separate page and get a random selection of posts to moderate. Unfortunately, this would make moderation substantially more work -- which may or may not be a bad thing. Who knows, it could even reduce abuses. On the other hand, you'd probably want a bigger moderators pool to compensate for those who won't bother.

I'm not sure how bad that problem is, though. How heavily is M2 used? I know I never use it (but I hardly ever use my moderator points when I get them either.)

Anonymous coward posting needs to be seriously rethought. CmdrTaco will insist on it being allowed. I'd propose a "Yale Wall" solution

Mmmmph. I don't know about this. Is it substantially different from using a +1 score threshold if you don't want to see the "unvetted" AC comments? I suppose one might miss less with your solution, but instructing moderators to focus on raising good AC posts above 0 and increasing the number of points + moderators available might alleviate that.

Notification of current moderation status of a post should be given before moderation points are committed

Absolutely. It's a wonder this hasn't been implemented yet! Although you realize it's not a complete solution -- there will still be a window of time where people can submit duplicate moderations -- it'd just be a smaller one.

Score based filters are limited. [...] allow filtering out posts according to criterion.

Also agreed. Along those same lines, and somewhat aside, I'd like to see stories be assigned more than one topic (eg a story about SGI supporting Linux doesn't just get in the "Linux" category or just the "SGI" category.) Along with which users should be granted more flexibility in filtering what stories they see on the main page.

Let's see, it's been 11 hours since the story was posted. No moderation for me!

Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty

Stemming the tide: Yes, you can!

[CoffeeNowDammit]

Just a message to y'all: you CAN fight the power, so to speak, by expending little effort -- just enough to write your state or federal representatives.

When a similar bill was considered by the Feds, and we were urged to write them, I did just that. An email (not snail mail, curiously enough) to my congressman (Rep. David Price, 4th District, NC) caused a prompt, informed snail-mail reply to appear in my mailbox.

Essentially, Reps. Price and Coble (another NC rep) inserted language into the federal version to permit reverse engineering of software by-products (i.e. data files such as Word documents) that did not constitute the executable product itself, among other things.

Kinda spiffy.

So, for you folks in VA and MD: Write and call your representatives and don't forget to be informative and courteous when doing so. It does make a difference.

For the rest of us: If anyone has a template of such a letter that we can send to our governors and state representatives to keep this shit off our state lawbooks, I'd not only appreciate it, I'd use it. An intelligent, courteous pre-emptive tactical strike would be most appropriate.
-----

Has anyone actually *read* the UCITA?

[Headius]

Has anyone read the full text of the UCITA? I'm certainly not going to trust mailing lists, slashdot, and other media to do interpretation for me. All I have seen is extremely enflamed postings and emails about the UCITA that put it in such an unfavorable light that *anyone* would dislike it. Anyone have a link to the actual text itself? I'm tired of wading through the sea of anti-UCITA propaganda to find the whole truth.

Re:This is incorrect (and InfoWorld is not reputab

[TimeHorse]

AFICT, Todd is correct! I am a Virginian and was all ready to write my Senator. But I tried to do some research as to why this bill is so bad. First off, Why is it so bad!? I mean, if it prevents OS Licences that's something I can use. If it locks consumers into a licence like current ones, that basically sound more like a slum-lord rental agreement (no guarantee of service, and you don't own it either, and if you [your computer] gets sick because of it, it ain't their problem) then that's an argument I can make. If all it does it prevent the "warez kiddies" from their little pirate cottage industry, as said elsewhere, then how can you be against that. Sure, some software may seem overpriced, but it is the right of the company to charge what they want for it, and it is your right not to install it. If you did without paying it, UCITA or not, you just broke the law. If all the UCITA does is make that law easier to enforce, it's not the UCITA that we need to fight, it's copyright law and licensing of software. If the free market is not working, keeping prices down through competition, it is not the fault of the UCITA, is it? That's why we have the Sherman Anti-Trust laws of the Taft administration, and why Microsoft is in court today.

In any case, if I'm to write my Senator, I have to at least read the text of the legislation I'm supposedly against, otherwise what can I possibly argue against? "I don't like it because it's bad for consumers." "Why is it bad?" "I don't know, but they said so on /. and they're pretty reputable over there." >Click< >Bzzzzz<. You're going to get nowhere with that attitude and thanks to another /. reader for pointing that out already. So what do I do, I search the entire 2000 legislative record for the bill in question. Nada! At best, the legislator made a legal definition of a "Computer Network", but nothing UCITA-related what so ever. The only thing there is the before-mentioned resolution to for a joint committee to study the UCITA, because as the comment above points out, the issue is indeed a very complicated one. Don't get mad at the legislature for passing a bill to open the committee, thank them for allowing this opportunity to discuss this issue publicly before legislation is passed! Now is the time to write the Committee lucid descriptions as to why this is harmful to consumers, and focus especially on the Senator chosen to represent the consumers' view in the discussions. The Virginia Legislature is not full of space cadets in the back pocket of big business, they do try to listen to what their constituents, all their constituents, have to say. It is a right we should not abuse with frivolous campaigns in which we are not aware of the facts. And that brings me back to my first point, as there is no way I can truthfully be against the UCITA unless I know why it is bad. You'd think at least one post with this information would have been moderated up to at least 3, but I could find no such post, alas! I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but this has to be IMHO and all I can ask is that people keep this in mind the next time a hot-button issue with a mysterious acronym comes up here.

Be Seeing You,

Jeffrey.

Re:Default = highest scores first

[Mandi Walls]

I definately agree with you. I happen to be female and have a 4 digit member number. In the beginning, i used to read /. constantly. Now i may not even check it every day.

And the decrease in performance of the site is a huge turn-off as well. Sometimes I can't even get here.

So, is it time for a splinter group? My roommates and I have been around for a couple years here, and the prediction at the house it that /. has less than a year left in its life. it's already on the downward spiral.

Anyone know of another place to hang out?

--
mandi
mandi AT linuxchick DOT org

Software vs Data Ownership

[pimp]

Can we draw and comparisons to the real world in comparing software ownership to the data it operates on (with?)

If I do not pay my car loan, and Emilo Estevez comes and reposses it, can I recover my backpack which I left in the trunk?

If I do not may my home loan and the Bank comes to take it back, can I remove my "Precious Moments" figurine collection before being kicked out?

I'm not sure about either, but based purely on TV knowledge and with the working presumption of if it is on a TV drama series, it HAS to be true; I think you get at least a nominal amount of time to get stuff out of your house, before the sherrif throws your sorry butt out.

Are companies obligated to let you recover your data from the software of whose license you have violated? If not, isn't this extortion?

Re:This is incorrect (and InfoWorld is not reputab

[kcbrown]

It appears Infoworld may be right:

There appear to be two separate things: one is a resolution to study the UCITA, the other is the UCITA itself.

The resolution to study the UCITA, HJ277, was stricken from the docket by the Rules Committee.

The UCITA itself, HB561, appears to have passed the House 95:2 with almost no modification and has been communicated to the Senate.

So not only does the House appear to have passed the bill, it would appear that they aren't even interested in its implications!!

What a surprise...(not...)

Sigh...


--

Re:The state of House Joint Resolution 277, etc.

[kcbrown]

Perhaps you should read it a bit more carefully.

What was stricken from the docket was a resolution to study the UCITA. Check this out if you don't believe me.

The UCITA itself is HB561, here, and was passed with a 95 to 2 vote. Not quite unanimous, but damned close. It was passed today, 2/15.


--

Re:Back to the matter at hand

[kcbrown]

The House version of the UCITA is HB561, and it passed today (2/15) with a 95 to 2 vote.

SJ239 and HJ277 are Senate and House resolutions to STUDY the UCITA. The House version was stricken from the docket a few days before they passed the UCITA itself.

Thankfully, the Senate version of the measure to study the UCITA was agreed to by a voice vote today (2/15), though that might not make any difference in the long run... :-(


--

Re:A glance at the UCITA

[kcbrown]

• Section 59.1-508.16. This section deals with electronic means to exercise the software publisher's rights to possession of the software and prevention of use due to a breach of contract. It specifically disallows the use of electronic methods for this unless you, as the end user, has specifically and separately (separate from the license) agreed to the use of these methods. Which means that once again, they can't reach in and delete or disable the software unless you told them that they could. And even if you have agreed to this, they have to notify you before they do using a means that you both agreed on beforehand (whether it be email, phone, in writing, etc.). And if they misuse these electronic means, this section provides you with a recourse against them for damages.
  

Hmm...let's see...so the software, during the installation process, pops up a dialog box with the overall license -- "Do you agree (Y/N)?" -- and says goodbye if you don't say "Y". If you agree, it pops up a second dialog box that says, buried in the middle of a lot of other legal mumbo-jumbo, "Licensee shall allow the Licensor to access Licensee's computer or computers to disable the Software and all related components. Failure to allow such access is grounds for immediate termination of the License and Licensee will return all copies of the Software to the Licensor in addition to a 10% restocking fee" ... "Do you agree (Y/N)?" -- and immediately exits if the response is "N".

So now the user has to click "OK" on two dialog boxes, not one. Please tell us how this is any different than just burying the bit about remote control in the license itself? Especially since they can bury it in a bunch of other legal mumbo-jumbo?

It wouldn't surprise me if the UCITA would apply to safety-critical software just as much as it would apply to normal software...



--

User Numbers

[SEE]

Gosh, I'm amazed at these five- and six-digit user numbers. I've got a four-digit number (7681) -- never realized that I'm now an "old hand"...
Steven E. Ehrbar

Re:User Numbers

[SEE]

Well, that's really my point. I consistently thought of myself as a newbie, but then I saw people with numbers in the 40k range talking about how /. has degenerated since they were new.


Steven E. Ehrbar

Re:Isn't this bill good for OpenSource?

[thingy]

I haven't read the bill but this is what I have picked up on it in some places. This bill will make reverse engineering a little bit harder. Which means if some linux office suit wants to be able to save as ms format tough. I think this is the type of thing that people are worried about or at least one of the many things.

damn!

[Zen]

Okay, I actually read that 'story'. Happy Valentine's Day I guess :P Anybody have a nice list of email addresses we can harvest & send out nice & quick? I did a quick once-over on that site, and didn't find the addresses. I don't live in Virginia, but I don't have to tell them that, now, do I? :P

Re:damn! - try these URL's

[Zen]

In other words, no. They don't have easily harvestable email addresses. Thanks anyway tho.

Zen

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[PD]

I don't agree that a time basis should be used to automoderate a message. Everyone, myself included, should start at 1 by default. Anonymous cowards should start at -1 with no hope of ever moderating up unless they have a registered account. Hell, unless you have an account there should be no guarentee that your message will even be saved. Who wants to waste a backup tape on Jackie Chan ASCII art? This is the principle that the truth of a statement does *not* depend on who says it. Truth is a value independent of the person saying it.

On the other hand, I like your idea of unlimited moderation points for people who have over 100 karma. I myself do not at this point, but if someone has over 100 karma, they are intelligent enough to write good posts, or else are good enough to fake it. Either way, when it comes to judgement ability, it would be reasonable to give high karma people permanent moderation. However, they should be subject to the meta-moderators in higher proportion. If a several meta-moderators agree that a moderation was unjust, double karma should be lost for the bad moderation. That should weed out the bad moderators very quickly.

Back to the anonymous coward problem. Postings made by anonymous cowards should never have the hope of being moderated up. Also, there should be a limit. Maybe 50 anonymous cowards with no login allowed to post per article, then everyone else MUST have a logged in account (anonymity optional).

Doing my Part

[kanaka]

Okay, so I'm trying to think what I can do to fight this silly bill. So I'm thinking that I should e-mail as many people as I can that are related. Even better, I complie a list and post it on slashdot so that people can easily e-mail as many people as possible.

So here it is (if you do it all at once, at least use the Bcc field so it looks a little more personal):

Senators:
wbarry@erols.com, colgan@erols.com, Johnchich@aol.com, emilycouric@rlc.net, ehouck@fls.infi.net, SenHowell@aol.com, YBMiller@aol.com, bmims@sov.state.va.us, snewman@inmind.com, tpuller@sov.state.va.us, VASEN08@aol.com, patsy@tidalwave.net, jnwatkins@aol.com, SenDist01@aol.com

Others:
ltgov@ltgov.state.va.usveddings@ltgov.state.va.usk waddell@ltgov.state.va.uspgiesen@ltgov.s tate.va.usrwilliams@ltgov.state.va.usrpayne@ltgov. state.va.usjatkinson@sov.state.va.us, gbailey@sov.state.va.us, jabennett@sov.state.va.us, jbrock@sov.state.va.us, scarr@sov.state.va.us, bcarter@sov.state.va.us, jfarley@sov.state.va.us, jgarrett@sov.state.va.us, tgilman@sov.state.va.us, tgilman@sov.state.va.us, ggutting@sov.state.va.us, plung@sov.state.va.us, tmadel@sov.state.va.us, cmary@sov.state.va.us, jmoore@sov.state.va.us, tobrion@sov.state.va.us, jpalmore@sov.state.va.us, jparker@sov.state.va.us, tperkinson@sov.state.va.us, rramsey@sov.state.va.us, bsherrill@sov.state.va.us, btaylor@sov.state.va.us, ltorrey@sov.state.va.us, dwhitaker@sov.state.va.us, mwright@sov.state.va.us

Re:Ouch!

[ccchips]

Right.

There's such a thing as an agent provocateur, I believe. Sometimes, I wonder if the people who work in the technology area understand this.

Actually, there's very clear evidence that political/military organizations like the CIA and the FBI hire people to incite such behavior. Members of the American communist and socialist movements are quite familiar with such people (e.g. "If you want to get somewhere, why don't we blow up some bridges?")

Don't listen to people like that, and don't do what they suggest. If you must engage in demonstrations of opposition to UCITA, find some other way. If you hack Virginia, the politicians will surely blame their problems on you, not the guy who incites you. They may even have hired him.

Ouch!

[haakon]

Looks like I won't be buying any software licenced under Virginia state law any time soon.

Re:Ouch!

[qyuxq]

Are you nuts? You want to get a law revoked you resort to illegal action? Oh yeah, *that* will convince them senators to we're the Good Guys in this issue.

UCITA in the Virginia Senate

[hypnotik]

A friend and I took time out last Sunday and stopped down to the Virginia Senate Committee on Courts and Justice.

The process was very informative, as well as downright scary. The person that summerized the bill for the commitee was from AOL. That should give you some sort of idea of who is behind this sucker.

Also, I have been spreading news of this bill around campus here at VCU. The head of the Computer Science and Mathematics department had not even heard of the bill. It is getting very little lip service in traditional news media. Here at slashdot we know about it, but there are thousands that don't know about for each one who does.

A little bit about the bill that is being proposed in Virigina -

It has a delayed enactment time. It will not go into effect until June, 2001. During that time the implications will be study and amendments may be made.

The self-help section of the bill has been changed. Licensee's must seperately agree to the self-help clause in any license, and then be able to specify the contact person, address, and method of delivery of notification for failure to comply with the license. (this is the repossesion that the orginal article was talking about)

It is not clear whether federal copyright law superceeds the UCITA when it comes to fair use of a product, as well as reviews of that product. There were some questions raised about this during the session, but there was no satisfactory answer given.

The good news is that the people that got up and spoke out against the bill changed at least on Senator's mind. However, the rest of the Senators voted to introduce the bill to the general Senate.

We need help to change these peoples minds. Tell your parents, your friends, your teachers about this bill. The more people we can get to contact the Senators, the more chance we have of defeating this bill.

Plan of attack.

[Skulker303]

We have NO choice. We must stop UCITA.

It will not be easy...for the entities that were are dealing with have vast fortunes at their disposal. Their goal is to use the very technology that we helped in creating to enslave ourselves to their oppressive corporate hegemony.

I for one will not stand idle as this government of the people, for the people, and by the people perishes from the Earth.

We must start with our local Linux Users Groups (LUG's). Locally, LUG's must bring the battle angainst UCITA to the attention of the local mass media. In most cases this means Newspapers and Broadcast Telvision News agencies. UCITA scrutiny from the public in general, not just us geeks who are in the know. Peaceful demonstrations should be encouraged locally.

Colleges and universities are abound with those who are trying to educate and axpand thier minds. These same institutions have a vast dependancy on technology. We must bring UCITA to the attention of all colleges and universities in the states that we reside. Students that will probably be most interested will be those enrolled in Computer/Engineering fields. I could not imagine any Computer Sciences division at ANY educational institution to support UCITA.

Local and Statewide petitions must be organized and presented before state legislatures in all fifty states. Demostrations and protests will be key to this. In two days the largest peice of "floatware" will be launced. This is very short notice... but the 17th would be a great day to contact news organizations and let them know how Microsoft feels about maintaining personal freedoms and liberties.

We must hit them hard and hit them fast. We will NOT get a second chance. Goodluck and Godspeed.

Skulker

Re:Plan of attack.

[Cy Burdock]

> We have NO choice. We must stop UCITA. Why? What's the big deal?

Re:Plan of attack.

[Cy Burdock]

That should have read:

> We have NO choice. We must stop UCITA.

Why? What's the big deal?

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Neuracnu Coyote]

You bring up some great ideas there, but the only problem that I can foresee is a possible karma gap emerging. With more and more folks browsing comments at +3, what's a lowly guy like me, with (at last count) 8 karma points, who spends most of his time lurking through the comments on /. but occasionally have something interesting to say?

Now, I admit, I would at least be able to post at +1 status, thanks to my status as a registered user for over 6 months (I think). But regardless, there has to be a better way than to hold the tongues of new users for the first three months. And that's what a -1 does to most comments - who here routinely goes through all the -1 messages, looking for the diamonds in the rough? Doubtful that you'll find enough who are willing to pick through the boobies and naked Jackie Chan ASCII.

One could ask /. to instate a kill-file system specific to the whims of each user, but keeping up on it would be a royal pain for it to do any good. I honestly don't know.

--
Neuracnu Coyote

Re:sid=moderation

[Hammer]

This is one of the most well thought post on /. in a long time.
I am starting to give up on /. Lately when I log on most articles have well over 100 posts, most of them by AC and most of the AC posts are troll.
Stop AC posts immediately!

Re:High Karmas

[Hammer]

This post proves that there has bo be a process to remove karma.

One crap post like this removes 50% of your karma, 2 removes 80% and 3 sets your karma to -2.

Re:This *may* be good

[Hammer]

Problem is...
The copyright owner of the Open Source software will suddenly (possibly) be liable for a lot. That is currently taken away with the copyright notice. Under UCITA anyone but the big corporations with shrinkwrap license is responsible for the quality and usability of their product...
This will hurt OSS and small business tremendously

Re:sid=moderation

[blibbler]

I am not sure if it was the original posters intention, but I think the better method would to be based on the number of posts each individual posts.
ie if someone posts 5 comments per year, but each of them get moderated up to 4, they would be automatically given a bonus, while if another person posts 30 messages per week, but only one or two of these were moderated up, they would not get a bonus.

Hogwash

[Mynok]

Citizens who do not vote, and who do not make their ideas known to their representatives are not going to make a difference, by choice. Sure, corporations can spend a lot of money, but they can't vote. They spend all that money, by the way, in an attempt to influence voters.

Hooey. They spend money first to influence who gets on the ballot, then they spend money to determine who on the ballot gets the most propaganda. You do realize that the two political parties control who gets on the ballot? That this gives them defacto control over who gets into office? Of course these can be gotten around with the right amount of cash, but it is not an accident that Jesse Ventura's election is called an 'anomaly'.

After the official is elected, they then spend money to influence how he votes on laws--which are the votes that truly count in this country. You see, your vote as a citizen only matters if *who* gets elected affects the voting on laws in Congress. With the advent of the PAC, this is no longer true in any effective sense. That is the great evil of our two party system, and that is why businesses spend so much money on political parties.

Re:Hogwash

[Mynok]

You seem to be under a serious delusion about primaries. Do you understand how people get on the ballot for a primary? By paying a fee to a political party. Political parties run the polling booths, thus they control who gets on the ballot. Yes, law requires them to allow write-in names, but to get an official position on a primary ballot, you are at the mercy of a party's rules.

GPL and UCITA

[The Mad Hawk]

IANAL, but,

I think there are two clauses of the GPL everyone is overlooking here... Version 2, clauses 11 and 12, state:

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

Now, UCITA sets default liabilities. But the GPL overrides them (no warranty "to the extent permitted by applicable law"; where UCITA is applicable, it permits override of those default liabilities). So UCITA cannot interfere with the disclaimer of warranty in the GPL.

Don't get me wrong. Anybody representing me who has this placed on their desk will get a letter and a phone call from me explaining why it's a horrible idea. Anybody representing me who votes for it will not get my vote the following election. UCITA is a limit to the natural rights of consumers, but the GPL has nothing to fear in it.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Roundeye]

Well, you can check my number too :-) But I agree with the observations you've made. At threshold==1 the main page shows an obscene difference between the posts at my threshold and the total posts. This is a pretty recent phenomenon (on the order "42 of 328 posts" -- this wasn't happening even two weeks ago) in a sense, but has been coming on for quite some time now. I guess it's always September on /., but some change in the moderation or posting system is definitely in order. Just my opinion.

Virginia

[wakko]

I always knew virginia was a communist state
--

Re:Heres the constituents line

[Slothy]

CALL THAT NUMBER, VIRGINIANS!

Guys, you don't need to prepare anything, it will take no more than 3 minutes. I just called, and really there are enough people calling that you can just tell them you'd like to oppose the UCITA bill. They'll get your name and address, and that's it. You don't need to prepare any inspiring rant or anything. They just count your vote, essentially.

GO DO IT!

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Audin]

But my point is that is a moderator has to stare at a post that has 1000 spam messages...he or she is going to skip it and not moderate anything at all. Then, no moderation gets done and all we can see is trolls.

I've been reading slashdot for maybe a year and a half now (my num is 17000something...but I read for many months before creating an account)... Ever since the original moderation system (with the static moderators) I've always browsed at -1. Even now, I'm still at -1. But I fear I am now going to be forced to bump that up to 1...over the last three weeks or so there have invariably been three or four pages of crap at the top of each discussion...it's ridiculous.

I still feed that the ultimate solution would just be to disallow anonymous posting. Make people log in. If they want to post anonymously, thats fine, but make them log in first. But, since Rob doesn't like that idea.....sooo...

How about a percentage setting for viewing -1 posts? With this a moderator could configure things so that they would only see 10 or 20% (or anything else) of all -1 posts. The posts would be displayed randomly, so each moderator would (hopefully) see a different group of likely-crap messages. This would allow a moderator to actually work through a decent number of -1 posts. This would make it much easier to be both a good moderator (ie: promoting) and not be drowned under all the crap.

Re:Your Rant

[Shadow Knight]

Correction: If we take power away from the federal government, we will give power to the States. And the States are traditionally felt to be "closer to the people" being as the seat of power is physically closer, and the government answers more directly.

Explain, then, why the Commonwealth of Virginia (my home) is passing this horrible legislation that gives power to corporations at the expense of the individual. Can you? I'll explain it for you: state governments need money more than the federal government does. They're poorer. This makes them even more open to direct control by the corporations. Virginia is controlled by AOL... the federal government is only influenced by them. Now. People like you want to change that. Believe me, the state governments are no more your friend than the national government. Individuals are powerless... we must realize that! The only exceptions are CEO's and the like. And even they are powerless: they are required to screw me whether they want to or not. The Corporate mindset demands it. Only by voicing ourselves in government can we hope to have any rights at all. Only by using our right to vote can we defend ourselves from the corporations. And yet you would take even that away, by making the government powerless to defend us. I think I'll move to Mars asap...

Re:Buh-bye US from the Global Software Economy

[Black Parrot]

> Better get ready to update your .sig

I have it on my calendar for Wednesday. Do remind me if I forget.

--

Re:More info on UTICA

[acomj]

INFOWORLD also has its own UCITA page.

check out http://www.infoworld.com/ucita for more details on UCITA.

Its going to be a national fight and its been around since the fall..

Good greif

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[ChadN]

I FINALLY had to start browsing at 1, after just too much wasted time. I had hoped it wouldn't happen.

I'd like to have the option of marking the topicality of my own post. There are times when I want to post a Troll, or Flamebait, etc. just for fun. It would be nice, as a net citizen, to be able to mark my post as such for those who want to auto-avoid. This basic premise could be made more robust. Maybe there could be a default "First Post" thread for EVERY article, where posts can't be moderated. Then give people the option to avoid ever seeing this thread, if they want. Kind of like the old "crash" program on timeshare systems, or a "grafitti wall" in cities; it deters (somewhat) the malicious forms of these activities.

it appears to have passed...

[greenplato]

Searching for Senate Bill 372 shows that the bill passed the senate side on Feb 15.

http://leg1.s tate.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=001&typ=bil&val =sb372

Ugh.

Re:sid=moderation

[litlnemo]

(I hate to comment in this off-topic thread, but it's clearly developed a life of its own.)

My concern with the "karma fading" idea is that some of us are less prolific posters than others. I don't post much, but many of the posts I have made *have* been moderated up, so I have a positive (but rather low) karma rating. When I get moderator points, I try to use them as responsibly as possible, and I take it very seriously.

If my karma were to fade away, it would be very difficult for me to build it back up with my lower frequency of posting. But I do read and participate, and I think there's a place for those of us who are less verbose.

I understand your concerns; I just don't agree with your solution.

Re:Don't Whirl That Perl!

[Runna^Muck]

And if I understand it right the software company has no obligation to guarantee that their product will work. So if it doesn't work, or somehow screws up your system and you don't pay because their software doesn't perform the way they said it would, you're still screwed.
The way I understand this "law" is that all the burden is on the consumer and none on the software company. And as a consumer you have absolutely no avenue to pursue if software is shitty or doesn't work or crashes or has bugs or....whatever.
Plain and simple this law sucks.

The best description

[matija]

The bet description of UCITA that I've heard (I wish it was mine, but it isn't) is "Grand theft shrinkwrap".

Re:Cease and Disist

[tragedy]

Um most GPL'd software has and probably always will be commercial software. Perhaps you've blocked out of your memory the time when RMS charged 150USD for a copy of Emacs on tape? In fact the FSF is still charging quite a bit for software -- 70USD for the latest GNU Source Code CD-ROM set (for individuals).

That's an interesting perspective on things. Of course, you're essentially ignoring the fact that, since it's GPL'd, the same software can be obtained from another source at any price all the way down to completely free of charge. Or just obtained via ftp or what have you. The only reason anyone buys this stuff from the FSF is if they happen to want to financially support the FSF. In many other cases where GPL'd software is sold, it's usually sold value-added. This means that what you pay for is the price of media/distribution/etc. plus the price for the value-added part. You are right that GPL'd software can be commercial software, but it's one of those things where you have to be very narrow in your definition of what commercial software encompasses. Anyway, your argument has been seen before, usually in conjunction with personal or philosophical attacks against RMS himself. It doesn't seem all that relevant here.

Re:This sucks ass.

[tragedy]

mr wrote:

You have the freedom to NOT use the products.

And, you have the freedom to write your own code that functions just like it.

That's actually one of the things that people are worried about with the UCITA. I admit that I have not read the full text of this bill, but from what I've heard, it strengthens the legal power of shrinkwrap software licenses considerably. Now, picture a software license which prohibits the use of the software for the purpose of creating a workalike and similarly prohibits passing on details to someone else so that they can create a workalike. So, anyone who wanted to make a true workalike wouldn't be able to without opening themselves or an "accomplice" up to the possibility of legal action.

Not that all free software has to be a copy of a piece of proprietary software. Free software creators are perfectly capable of doing their own design work. But, on the other hand, people often want bits and pieces in free software to be like a package they're already familiar with. Also, there's the matter of convergent evolution, often two people will choose the same solution to the same problem because it's a good solution. So, what happens when lawyer X for company Y says: "This feature in your software is exactly like ours, you must have violated our license agreement to copy it."

Ok, sure, my example is somewhat beyond the pale, but things like the UCITA lay the groundwork for just such situations. That's why people object to them. Because it _is_ possible to see the future. Or, at least, it's possible to see the future that some people and organizations would like to create. So, we object now rather than wait until the UCITA is used to set precedent to create even more laws that we feel tread on our rights.

Re:Unanimous?

[bfk]

Copyright licences such as the GPL are not EULAs, so UCITA does not effect them.

(IIRC)

This has been said lots of times, but the GPL...

[LocalH]

...does not have any clauses stating what you can do with the software, unless you are distributing that software. You can use GPL'ed software anyhow you like as long as you don't distribute it.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Game Show Fan / C64 Coder

How will a company disable their software

[JBird]

How does a company disable their software in practice? I assume that if your machine is internet connected then this would be relatively simple (firewalls, etc notwithstanding), but what if you use said software on a machine that has no internet connection? Expect a visit from the local police SWAT team maybe?

Re:How will a company disable their software

[CBravo]

I, and many people on campusses have permanent 100 KB/s connections. I think there's no firewall between my compu and the TechUni. Costs $5 a month :-)

Shutting it of would be difficult. Especially because I'm hardware interested, and don't care about my (windhoos) OS :-) Maybe it's time to get interested finally.

Re:Buh-bye US from the Global Software Economy

[macsforever2001]

Actually, I really don't get it.. Is Virginia one of the states also sueing Microsoft for Anti-Trust violations? If so, it just gets better and better.

No they aren't. Virginia is willing to kiss any large company's a**. They completely support corporate welfare by giving the largest companies huge tax breaks to move there. It really puts the small ones at a disadvantage. The state motto should be "Virginia - where the rich get richer and the poor can pay all the taxes"

I work but do not live in VA.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Score Whore]

Unless you are willing to devote time to constructing magic killfiles on a per thread basis, they won't be useful for clearing out all the hoser ACs. Ideally slashdot would include ip addresses/dns names for all ACs. That way you could develop killfiles based on "geographical" information that would be somewhat useful across threads. If someone wants to be anonymous, they should have to create an account that has a posting history and all that baggage so that people can discriminate on that basis.

Re:I, for one, will keep reading Slashdot

[Score Whore]

Not that I'm really in favor of an old boys system here on slashdot, the idea that lurking for a year and then having to sit through another period of being a "newbie" is a bit of a strawman. There's nothing that says you can't lurk with an account.

Re:Unanimous?

[Another MacHack]

Why is it good that shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable? Contract terms should be negotiated -before- purchase. If you want to sell me something, and want me to agree to terms, show me a contract, let me sign it, and -then- sell it to me.

On the other hand, if the UCITA does let you return it for a refund if you disagree, and you have to open the shrinkwrap to see the license, then casual pirating of games will go way up. Many retail game shops won't let you return an opened box, but now they have to?

This is a commercial software killer?

[eyepeepackets]

I suspect the end result of this type of market
control via repressive laws would actually harm
the commercial software folks far more than it
might annoy free programmers: The free programmer
can simply say in his docs, "This software will
do harm to your system" and be free of potential
liability since the user has made the choice to
use the software knowing it can/may do harm.

The commercial software folks would probably see
their customers flock to free software whilst
hoping to avoid such heavy-handed legal control
of their businesses.

Personally, I doubt this type of legislation will
get past the lawyers/legislators in any state.

it's all about cash

[Slimbob]

I'm not at all surprised that this got by unanimously. After all, Maryland and Virginia are competing viciously to attract large tech companies. I live in Baltimore, and I know that the quality of tech life goes way up as soon as you cross the border into Northern VA, and I'm sure that Maryland is lusting after the revenues that Virginia is acquiring from their hi-tech center.

Maryland and Virginia are both trying to bend over as far as they can to kiss high-tech corporate ass, because they both know that the boom in Northern Virginia could easily move to Southern Maryland, if the environment becomes more favorable. So, Virginia signs UCITA into law before Maryland can (and I'm pretty sure that Maryland would take advantage of an opportunity to become more tech corp-friendly if Virginia gave an opening), thereby securing itself as the dot-commiest state around.

The outcome, I think, will be that UCITA will be signed into law by states that want high-tech business growth. The rationale is: even legislators that are able to grasp how wrong UCITA is will still pass it into law, and assume that it will be struck down later by consumer groups. The end result will be that the state will have a record of being friendly to <$$$> high-tech corporate growth </$$$>.

Re:Trolling

[Junta]

You evidently misunderstand the nature of moderation. It's not that certain people are nominated to be moderators, it is that points are dsitributed among people with accounts that read commetns, influenced by karma, etc.. The reason why so many stay at zero is simply the volume of posts that need moderation down and the lack of points to do it with.

Re:If UCITA is passed in all states...

[Junta]

I'd say it could be flawed :) The GPL would *not* be considered a 'shrinkwrap' license (at least according to the information on www.gnu.org, and I would think they would know). Basically, the Bill is, as GNU points out, trying to make it so that makers of freely distributed software more and more liabel and within reach of being sued, while leaving the big, commercial companies a way to weasel out of this liability. At least that is the way It's been explained to me.

Re:If UCITA is passed in all states...

[infodragon]

From the GPL...

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

Under the UCITA this would absolve the author of any liability(SP?). I'm looking at this from a logical point of view. To use GPL software you have to agree to the license which is a shrinkwrap license hence the software would fall under the UCITA. I'm not saying that I'm right but from my point of view this could be the biggest boon for open source development.

If UCITA is passed in all states...

[infodragon]

Here is an article that pretty sums up what the UCITA is all about
htt p://archive.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl? /features/990531ucita3.htm

A couple of points from the article which would help the Open Source movement.

One-sided shrinkwrap terms
The GPL could be considered a shrinkwrap license. This would strengthen the GPL.

Cost of negotiated contracts
If dealing with GPL software the only contract is the support contract which wouldn't be covered under the UCITA.

Software industry competitiveness
Opensource software by nature isn't competivite along the same lines as comerical software. The quality wold be the same.

Electronic self help
The ability to reposess software would be impossible. You've got the source code!

Reverse engineering
You've got the source code! By nature the program is reverse engineered for you!

Transfer of ownership
There is no ownership. You can do what you want within the limits of the GPL. Which isn't limiting.

Bug disclosure
For open source development to work there needs to be a decient bug tracking system open to everybody.

From this point of view the UCITA would benifit the open source community greatly. But this point of view may be flawed.

Re:If UCITA is passed in all states...

[Junta]

Ah, but from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html

... It makes individuals, amateurs, and good samaritans liable, but not big companies.

You see, UCITA says that by default a software developer or distributor is completely liable for flaws in a program; but it also allows a shrink-wrap license to override the default. Sophisticated software companies that make proprietary software will use shrink-wrap licenses to avoid liability entirely. But amateurs, and self-employed contractors who develop software for others, will be often be shafted because they didn't know about this problem. And we free software developers won't have any reliable way to avoid the problem.

What could we do about this? We could try to change our licenses to avoid it. But since we don't use shrink-wrap licenses, we cannot override the UCITA default. Perhaps we can prohibit distribution in the states that adopt UCITA. That might solve the problem--for the software we release in the future. But we can't do this retroactively for software we have already released. Those versions are already available, people are already licensed to distribute them in these states--and when they do so, under UCITA, they would make us liable. We are powerless to change this situation by changing our licenses now; we will have to make complex legal arguments that may or may not work.

End quote. This was written by Richard Stallman and I assume he has made himself well-versed in the nature of the law and what it defines "shrink-wrap" licenses as. Evidently, at least if I interpret what he is saying correctly, is that the GPL will be, in effect, officially unenforceable, as it is not a shrink wrap license by the UCITA. Seems contradictory to me too, but it seems to be interpreted in that way.

Correct!

[ErichTheRed]

Any company with an office in a state is affected by that state's laws. Ever wonder why so many credit card companies are based in South Dakota or Delaware? These states have looser lending laws than most other states, allowing these companies to do things they wouldn't otherwise be able to.

my idea

[Pentagram]

Have a 2-level moderation system. Moderator points work like they do at the moment, but /. should also allow any logged-in user to select "agree" or "disagree" with a post. This would cut down the number of "me 2!"/"u suck" posts, but also allow /.ers to disagree with a post even though it adds to the debate.

Here are the House and Senate Bills

[BoLean]

Senate:
href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe? 001+sum+SB372">SB 372 Computer Information Transactions Act.

Bill Patron:
Senator Edward L. Schrock (R) - Senate District 7
In-session address: ,br> General Assembly Building, Room 307
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7507
Mailing address:
P. O. Box 62996
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23466-2996
(757) 460-3777

House:
href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe? 001+sum+HB561">SB 372 Computer Information Transactions Act.

Bill Patron:
Delegate Joe T. May (R) - House District 33 In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 514
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-1033

email: del_May@House.state.va.us
Mailing address:

P.O. Box 4104
Leesburg, Virginia 20177
(703) 777-1191

Oops

[BoLean]

Sorry about that. The lesiglative search tools online suck. The newer bills don't even come up at the main virginia site when I searched for UCITA but I stumbled across the Secretary of Technology site and got overexcited. Add to that that there seems to be some sort of bug in slashdot that automatically "extrans" all my posts. What idiot chose that as the default for all new users? I set my prefs to HTML but the problem still persists. Annoying ass hell when all your posts look like garbledegook. Thanks.

the letter I sent -to a bunch of them

[BoLean]

Before even considering the passage of UCITA please read the following discussion that is happening online (or just go to WWW.Slashdot.org):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/14/2221 203&mode=thread

This bill would turn the State of Virginia into a pariah for a great many consumers considering buying a software product from a Virginia company.

UCITA will stop companies and consumers from telling the truth about poor products, lock companies into business software- they will be unable to switch to another product because a competitors attempt at building a solution to port data to their application will be considered reverse engineering and thus illegal, and allow the software vendor to reach into your computer system and turn off your software. Scary!

The only reason that the big software companies are pushing UCITA is that for the first time since the computer revolution started the tools for developing applications are inexpensive and accessible. They are being forced to compete with the little guys. The only way they can ensure their stranglehold on the software market is by locking the customer into their product. UCITA is completely unnecessary since existing commercial code and contract law already protects both the consumer and vendor.

Here is good general overview of what will happen if this legislation is not stopped (from WWW.Slashdot.org):

Step 1: Advertise a brand-new program for handling taxes, personal finance, e-banking, secure e-commerce, speech recognition/synthesis and private e-mail.

Step 2: Write a EULA, which indemnifies you if the program fails to do anything at all, and which absolutely prohibits any reviews of the product without prior permission.

Step 3: Write a cruddy application which gives a basic spreadsheet and an e-mail form.

Step 4: SHRINK-WRAP the box, and make it clear on the outside that opening the box is accepting the terms of the EULA.

Step 5: Charge $150 a throw for the box. Under the UCITA, nobody is permitted to review the product, without permission, and this is doubly ensured by the EULA, preventing anyone online or in the press from commenting on the scam.

Step 6: Wait until the fur starts to fly. And it will! Something like this'll end up in court before the week is out.

Re:LinuxOne

[svallarian]

Shhhhh!!!!

Don't give LinuxOne any ideas!!

Steven V>

Trolls are funny

[Snoobs]

If I feel like reading intelligent conversation I browse at +3.

If I want to read Trolls (which are often times quite humourous) I browse at -1.

I have no problems with the moderation system, but I would like to moderate more. I have only done it once and I have been here for 8 months.

snoobs

Back to the matter at hand

[biomech]

I'm a Virginian that's already emailed my state senator opposing UCITA. If you're a Virginian and haven't taken a stand yet, you should reference SJ239 as the senate resolution and HJ277 as the house resolution.

BTW, as of 2/14/2000, it wasn't clear as to the status of UCITA through the Virginia legislature's web site and it's not clear how easy it would have been to follow the twists and turns of the process electronically.

In the course of all this, I discovered that while my state senator at least has an email address, my state representative has only a kluge web slot on the legislature's site with some snail mail addresses and telephone numbers for local and capital offices. Just how connected other people find their state representatives might be interesting to know.

Anyway, regardless of your location, UCITA is coming your way and it's time to take action NOW!!

Re:Hey! Moderator!

[drivers]

Don't tell the moderators what to do. There is no single "moderator" as your Title seems to imply. What happens is that if you are a registered user, you are randomly selected, according to some criteria (e.g. how often you visit: not too often, not too rarely), and you get a grand total of FIVE points to use as you see fit. A point only counts as a +1 or a -1. Moderators don't set the score directly, so it takes several moderators over time to push a good post up. There is no point in posting "moderate this up!" messages. The posts will speak for themselves. They are all over the place. Maybe the message you are referring to hasn't been around long enough for several different people to moderate it up. By now, your post is obsolete and pure noise; I believe its parent is at a 4 as I write this. If you think posts are getting unfairly moderated down, then make it a point to Meta-Moderate each day.

Thank you.

(Sorry this is offtopic, I'll post at Score:1 instead of 2.)

Here's the letter I sent Senator Newman.

[Starselbrg]

Dear Senator Newman,

I am not a constituent of the State of Virginia, but I am a citizen of
the United States of America. So, your upcoming decision on the UCITA may
affect me as much as anyone in Virginia. Please, for the sake of consumers,
citizens, living and breathing people everywhere, do not allow this law to be
ratified. Turn it down.

I'm sure that the voters of Virginia, when they voted for you, expected you to
be the one to represent them and protect their rights. Ask yourself for a
moment who's advocate you wish to play. It seems that the House of
Representatives for the State of Virginia are unanimously in the pocket of big
business in your state. No doubt the lobbying of AOL and others have blinded
them from the truth.

As you can imagine, I do not normally write to state senators in other states.
But this particular case is too important. The UCITA, if enacted, will destroy
any rights that citizens may claim to in the coming of the information age. It
grants companies the power to digitally paralyze anyone they wish with little
fear of retaliation. It's not just possible to sign one's rights away anymore.
The UCITA would make it possible to unknowingly click one's rights away.

People everywhere, not just in Virginia, and not just in the US, will be held
hostage by technology companies granted this power by the UCITA. We will
be forced to succumb to the will and liscenses of large technology companies or
not become a member of the digital age. We will essentially be forced to
sacrifice our rights for a chance to even look upon any technology. If you
don't understand why this is, I have web-site I would like you to visit. I have
written it to describe my feelings on this terrible law:
Please go read it.

Please do not let this happen. Do not let yourself be bought out by big
business. Remember what real human beings will have to go through because of
this. Vote down the UCITA.

Citizen of Arizona, of the United States of America, of the Planet Earth
Peter Thatcher, peterthatcher@asu.edu

Re:This is normal.

[Beer Monster]

"No congresscritter wants to vote to support the warez kiddies. No matter what rights have to be tossed into the dumpster... these evil pirates and "hackers" must be stop and businesses protected."

Well this is most definitely not the way to do it. It won't matter to warez crackers, they will just crack the software to disable the programs remote disabling feature. So if you don't want your software disabled you will need the warez copy/patch.

I agree that the warez kiddies/crackers need to be stopped but this just is not going to do it. It will just encourage them.

Cheers

Even Worse Yet

[greenrd]

Good point. But put UCITA, and the fact that a company with strong ties to the evil "Church" of Scientology is supplying a defrag utility supplied with W2K, together - and you can dream up some even more scary scenarios.

Re:Default = highest scores first

[digitalwanderer]

Woo-hoo! There's a job description for me, get paid to read /. and kill off trolls!

I WANT TO BE A PAID TROLL ASSASIN!!!

Re:Spare a thought....

[Betcour]

Using polls to rule a country is not as good as you think it is : it is sad but true that 90% of citizens don't have a clue about politics, so their opinions are highly changing and mostly reflex, not real opinions. Sure, everyone wants lower taxes, but is lowering taxes always the best policy ? Plus, what to do about issues nobody knows about (like the UCITA for example). Because nobody cares exept the megacorpo lobby, the megacorpo wins...

Re:Spare a thought....

[Betcour]

This sounds much like the US ! Republican or Democrats, both of them are highly tuned electing machine, where it is not what ideas you have but what groups you get support from get you elected.

Re:This is a Very Bad Thing.

[Dwonis]

That mass doesn't exist.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Myddrin]

I set my threshold at -1, but
my index spill at 1 post.
So if there is even 1 post, only the title is displayed for posts lest than 1. This works really well for me, I still get to at least see the titles that slip through the cracks, and usually end up reading three or four per article....

Just an idea,

Re:sid=moderation

[Myddrin]

Here Here!

I'm a fairly prolific poster (at times my user info will report 50+ postsing usually when there's a whole lot of compiling going on... :))

At anyrate over the last 8 mos, I've gotten a completely undeserved Karma of around 50. (I refuse to use the +1 bonus.) Karma needs to be reworked so that people like me who only contribute something of value once everyother month or so aren't put at the same level as Bruce Perens, Hemos, Signal11, arguably konstant and a few others who constantly post intelligent, well informed or even funny posts.

And can I have a preference to set my No Score +1 Bonus to always be checked, please?

????????

[Myddrin]

Your crap post is my funny post. How do you intend to implement that when there would be so much arguement?

(BTW, it was referring to a post above where someone said that people with karma over 500 must have something to say and should be a "must read.")

Trolling

[Microlith]

I think i speak for most people when I say the downsides outweigh the value of posting anonymously...

For example, the flagrant abuse of it for the past few articles, incessant spamming of everything. I don't know why they do it, shits and giggles? I say that you're going to have to limit Anonymous posting, or give moderators more powers, or Slashdot is going to go to hell.

Re:Trolling

[drnomad]

Putting on threshold 1... I cannot see me own posts anymore lad.

Just because I'm quite new to Slashdot, and some sadistic moderator disagreed with one of my previous posts.

Re:Trolling

[xscarecrowx]

If AC was done away with, all they would have to do is make some stupid fake account, with the only diffrence being they would have a name!
Annonymous Coward is a good thing, we just have to find a solution to these silly trolling posts.

Re:Trolling

[link2NULL]

I think i speak for most people when I say the downsides outweigh the value of posting anonymously...

Count me out, that doesn't speak for me. Anonymous posting is very valuable, and this is the worst the trolls have been. Change the treshold to 1 and go forward I say.

Re:Trolling

[Stary]

Well, track the accounts then. Lessee... this account has posted 165 spam posts the last two months. Send that to the guys ISP then or whatever... most ISPs have usage agreements dictating that people should not spam.

If little Johnny-13-year-old reallizes that his daddy's gonna get a letter from their ISP cause he spammed slashdot with a three-digit number of spam posts, he might think again.

Re:Trolling

[maphew]

Karma should decay. If I haven't posted anything of note, I should lose a point every 3 days.

Nope. I can't agree with this one. People should be encouraged to be thoughtful and only post when they truly have something to say. A karma decay as you've described it would encourage continous posting simply to keep your slashdot account "alive".

Re:Trolling

[mcc]

> I don't know why they do it

because they can.

the problem in the last week is not related to quality of anonymous posting. it is related to volume. the moderation system was set up to deal with people writing comments for the purpose of discussion, and for this it works rather well. It was not designed to deal with people specifically attempting to destroy the converstion. (people attempting to disrupt the conversation, it can deal with. destroy, no. MEEPT!!)

therefore if someone wishes to prevent slashdot from being used for legitimate purposes, they very easily can, because nothing is in place to check them. if a moderator sees one or two garbage posts he/she will probably spend the mod points to take at least one of them off the map so that others will have a better time reading /.
if the moderator sees 15 in a row, probably they aren't going to moderate any of them. The sheer volume is so overwhelming they will probably not even attempt to do something about it, and instead just hit pgdn until they don't see the problem anymore. The system simply doesn't deal with that kind of problem.

blatantly offtopic posting for the sheer purpose of preventing people from actually using slashdot to discuss things isn't something that began until Segfault shut off their comments, thus shutting off these people's playpen and forcing them to find a new one. (why is this called "troll" posting so often? that isn't the real definition of troll, right? i mean, a troll by the definition i've always used wants to hijack the conversation, not keep conversation from taking place) Bulk blatant offtopic posting really isn't something that's appeared until the last two weeks or so. You shouldn't shut down all anonymous posting after however many years because of a really extremely small group of people abusing it at unheard of levels for two weeks. instead you should take measures to control that small group of people.

anonymous posting is really rather important to slashdot. if you silence the voice of the lurker, you silence.. well, everyone but the karma whores. You silence the people who don't care if they get to feed their ego by seeing ooh, look, i have score:92, i must be a worthful person. You especially silence the people who refuse to enable the cookies in their browser just because one single site on the entire internet uses them. Actually, reading slashdot with cookies disabled is something the slashdot sysops have always tried their hardest to prevent; after all, even after all this time you __STILL__ can't click "preview" and then "submit" without it forgetting what you logged in as at the time of clicking preview. And i don't see any point in frequently forcing everyone without a cookie to switch from the hell that is Flat to threaded other than harrassing them into activating cookies and getting a login. I of course would want a login anyway just because i want to have the score:3 thread breakout so badly, but i still can't come up with a good reason or making the non-logged-in comment things Flat. I've gotten way offtopic here haven't i?

ANYWAY. I don't care so much about allowing people to post without fear of retribution; i just know that a lot of people out there are unwilling to either deal with cookies or sign up for an account and remember a password if they aren't going to be posting regularly, yet once, at least once, in all the time they read slashdot intermittently they will hit something they know a lot about, post, and you'll have a real gem. and i really wouldn't trade missing that one gem a week for not having to look at ten NATALIE PORTMAN posts an article.

if you do not agree with me, and would rather not look at the ten portman posts even if you don't get to see the one gem a week, remember that THIS IS THE ENTIRE REASON THE MODERATION SYSTEM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. You see that little "threshold" thing? USE IT. Go to score:1 and you will probably never see another Anonymous Coward post again unless the post deserves to be seen.

In the meantime, i hope cdmrtaco thinks of something that can deal with people posting mass amounts of "troll" stuff in an attempt to keep people from carrying on an intelligent discussion. If for no other reason than that the moderation system cannot work if the moderators cannot use threshold:0. I'm sure Taco can come up with something; he's getting paid to do this shit now anyway.

-mcc
nobody will read this post, i know it.

Re:Trolling

[wowbagger]

Nope. I can't agree with this one. People should be encouraged to be thoughtful and only post when they truly have something to say. A karma decay as you've described it would encourage continous posting simply to keep your slashdot account "alive".

Consider: If you keep posting and have something worthy of moderation, then my suggestion is working: it is encouraging discussion. If you keep posting blather and not getting moderated up, then your karma decays. My point was that your karma decays no matter what, just posting is not enough to prevent it. You have to earn karma, and keep earning it.

And as for the point another person made that "people have enemies" and that they might lose karma due to bad moderators: You down-moderate me and people feel you were unfair, you get nuked in meta-moderation. That's why I said that being metamoderated as unfair should cost you BIGTIME karma.

As for meta-mod nuking your karma: Remember, a single "unfair" in metamoderation means nothing: a large number of the metamoderators who review your moderation have to agree you were unfair.

After I posted the origonal message, I thought further about it, and would also make the following suggestion: If you lose karma due to a downmod, and the downmod is later found unfair in metamod, you should get your karma back (and your post should lose the downmod).

Now, the question is, "Is anyone at /. reading these comments." Perhaps we, the /. public, need to get a petition together, and ask Rob et. al. to review our suggestions and debate them in an open forum. Perhaps this would be a good "Friday Q&A" article?

Re:Trolling

[wowbagger]

Allowing unlimited down moderation would make it too easy for trollers. Log in, play along, get moderation, drop ALL posts down to -1. I could see that happening (through the use of a script or something). Not what we want.

Remember though, that when you have moderation access, you can moderate a given comment only once. If I had moderator access, I can raise or lower your comment by 1 point only, and then I'm locked out.

If I may ask, do you have /. account? Have you ever moderated? If not, may I suggest you get an account? You sound like a person I'd like to see get moderator access.

Re:Trolling

[wowbagger]

Allowing unlimited down moderation would make it too easy for trollers. Log in, play along, get moderation, drop ALL posts down to -1. I could see that happening (through the use of a script or something). Not what we want.

Remember though, that when you have moderation access, you can moderate a given comment only once. If I had moderator access, I can raise or lower your comment by 1 point only, and then I'm locked out.

If I may ask, do you have /. account? Have you ever moderated? If not, may I suggest you get an account? You sound like a person I'd like to see get moderator access.

Re:Trolling

[wowbagger]

Go to score:1 and you will probably never see another Anonymous Coward post again unless the post deserves to be seen.

Sorry, but wrong. I ALWAYS read at 2, unless I am moderating. However, too many ACs get moderated up for no good reason. Additionally, too many people with high karma post junk at 2. I feel this is the real problem: people with high karma abusing it. In theory, the moderation system should fix this, since a person who posts junk gets moderated down and the poster loses karma, however this does not happen.

My analysis of the problems with the moderation system is that plus points need to be a scarce resource, and they are not. People like me, who have moderately high karma, have an unlimited number of plus points (because they post at 2). There are too many moderators moderating junk up.

My suggestions are:

1. People with high karma get a limited number of "plus tokens". For example, I would get 7 "plus tokens" a day (since my karma is currently 79). That way, I would be motivated to think seriously "Does this post deserve a +1?".
2. Any down-moderation costs you 10% of your karma. Consider: if I get a "-1: offtopic" on this post, it really doesn't effect me greatly: so my karma goes to 78. How does that effect me? However, if a down-moderation dropped me to 60, that might just get my attention. Even if it didn't, I'd quickly lose my automatic +1.
3. Karma should decay. If I haven't posted anything of note, I should lose a point every 3 days.
4. Bad moderation should cost BIGTIME karma: If I moderate junk up, and get nailed in metamoderation, I should lose 50% of my karma. Make the moderators think about moderation!
5. Down-moderating should cost less than up-moderating: again, the goal here is to keep plus points scarce. Trolling works because it costs as much to down-moderate a "grits" post as to up moderate a good post. Make down-moderation free. However, make abuse of the down-moderation cost 75% of the abuser's karma.
6. Don't let moderators access their points unless they are in "newest first, threshold=-1".
7. Keep the ACs. Really. This is an important part of /.. Yes, 90% of AC posts are crap. Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. But ACs can and do contribute.

IT HAS PASSED BOTH!

[El Rey]

No, you are wrong. If you search a little harder, it looks like it has passed in BOTH the house and senate as of today. They just gave the bills new names.

Look at:

HB499

and

SB372

It makes me sick to be a Virginian because it is in such stark contrast to our history (Patrick Henry et. al.).

According to these pages the house passed it on 2/10/2000 and the senate passed it on 2/15/2000 (today).

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[NtG]

I must agree.. speaking of ratios, this thread screws the ontopic/offtopic ratio.. these posts are just as bad at creating junk in the middle of stories.

Re:UCITA and the GPL

[xsmasher]

Piffle. The GPL gives you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have - even though you haven't paid a cent for the software, the GPL gives you the right to distribute and make changes to it. And if you don't like the GPL, then you don't have to use your new rights.

On the other hand a shrink-wrap licence takes rights away from you that you can't get back. After you've paid good money for a product you may find out that the licence restricts you from reviewing it, reverse engineering it, or even benchmarking it; and once you've broken the shrinkwrap you're bound to those restrictions until the earth burns.

Sure they're both licences, but to equate them is to equate giving a gift to mugging someone.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Greg Merchan]

No, it doesn't work. The servers are apparently overloaded.

When I don't have moderator points I browse at +2, and if there's any story with more than, say, 200 posts among the top 5 stories it is impossible to get through. (And I'm sick of seeing the JunkBuster proxy page when I'm trying to read /.)

When I do have moderator points I go straight to the story with the most posts (unless it's by Katz ;-) and read at -1, newest first, ignore threads. I've only seen one post in the last year that sank to -1 undeservedly (IMO); I push it back up to 0.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Greg Merchan]

I concur. (See my other post in this thread.)

I started read /. over a year ago (check my number) and the rate of quality decline has gone exponential. The differnce between my user number and JoeShmoe's is about 30k, so that's about a 50% increase in readership, if each new /.-er's number is the last's plus one and everyone is still here.

I haven't checked how karma works, but it takes less than 50 to be able to post with the +1 bonus. I can, and my karma is less than 50. Check my user info and you'll see that I am presumptuous enough to moderate myself in this regard. >:-)

I have to agree with the seniority system here; though I usually despise such things. I think the karma bonuses would adjust for bright newcomers supremely, especially if there is more than a +1 bonus for high karma (Is there now?).

Incidently, this thread is offtopic. But the lead post was at +5 before I started writing this. I think this is a clear sign of rebellion in the moderatorship.

Slashdot is dead! Long live Slashdot!

A glance at the UCITA

[signe]

Has anyone actually looked at the UCITA? Now granted, I am by no means a lawyer, and I did not read all of it, but I have skimmed all of it and read the salient parts. And I have to say, this particular piece of legislation doesn't sound that bad. It definitely does not sound as bad as previous posters have been making it out to be.

Here's just a few points that I noticed (this is from the VA state House Bill 561):

• Section 59.1-502.9. This section deals with mass-market licenses (which is pretty much what you run into with mainstream software). It specifically requires the license to be available for review before you are obligated to pay. That means no more of Microsoft's "You accept the license inside by opening this software" licenses. It also provides for refunds if that situation arises, including reimbursement for the costs of returning the software and compensation for changes to your system if reading the license required installing software.
• Section 59.1-504.2. This section deals with express warranties. It provides for the creation of a warranty on the performance of the software through the seller's advertising, demos, etc. So, in essence, it's enforcing truth in advertising and creating avenues for seeking damages if the software doesn't turn out to be what it was purported to be.
• Section 59.1-504.7. This section deals with modification of the software. Let's say that you purchased a piece of software, and then modified it. If your modified copy doesn't work, you don't get any support for that. Makes sense. However, if you then revert to the unmodified copy, and that doesn't work, you do get support. That's what it says here.
• Section 59.1-506.5. This section deals with automatic restraints in the "computer information". It specifically disallows automatic restraints being used to enforce breaches of the license. This means that a software company cannot "reach into your computer and turn off your software" as some posters have suggested.
• Section 59.1-506.8. This section deals with the right to inspect a piece of software before payment, and what happens if payment is required before inspection. It's particularly nice. Basically, it says that in purchasing a piece of software, I have the right to take a reasonable amount of time to inspect it and make sure it complies with the contract. Remember, that contract also includes express warranties from their advertising. It also provides that if I have paid for the software before being able to inspect it, that does not mean that I can't get my money back if it doesn't fulfill the contract. There is a piece of language in here that might cause some hackles to go up, which is "(4) A party's right to inspect is subject to existing obligations of confidentiality," but there is no concern over this. The word "existing" denotes that this does not create any new obligations of confidentiality. So, contrary to popular belief, you can tell your friends all about your tests, unless you signed an NDA beforehand.
• Section 59.1-508.16. This section deals with electronic means to exercise the software publisher's rights to possession of the software and prevention of use due to a breach of contract. It specifically disallows the use of electronic methods for this unless you, as the end user, has specifically and separately (separate from the license) agreed to the use of these methods. Which means that once again, they can't reach in and delete or disable the software unless you told them that they could. And even if you have agreed to this, they have to notify you before they do using a means that you both agreed on beforehand (whether it be email, phone, in writing, etc.). And if they misuse these electronic means, this section provides you with a recourse against them for damages.

Again, that's just what I see for some salient points of the UCITA. So they can't reach into your computer and disable things, even if you break the contract. They can't prevent you from benchmarking the software. Actually, the UCITA provides some nice protections for the consumer. And it spells everything out in a uniform language, so when dealing with transactions across the Internet, there won't be any arguments regarding one state's laws versus another state's laws.

Those people who wish to denounce the UCITA need to start coming up with some specific grievances, and cite the sections of the code that they are complaining about. Shouting at the top of your lungs that something is bad, while at the same time not saying exactly what it is that is bad, is not going to have any effect. How about we have an intelligent discussion on that law for a change, rather than assuming that all laws are bad?

-Todd
---

Re:A glance at the UCITA

[signe]

Hmm...let's see...so the software, during the installation process, pops up a dialog box with the overall license -- "Do you agree (Y/N)?" -- and says goodbye if you don't say "Y". If you agree, it pops up a second dialog box that says, buried in the middle of a lot of other legal mumbo-jumbo, "Licensee shall allow the Licensor to access Licensee's computer or computers to disable the Software and all related components. Failure to allow such access is grounds for immediate termination of the License and Licensee will return all copies of the Software to the Licensor in addition to a 10% restocking fee" ... "Do you agree (Y/N)?" -- and immediately exits if the response is "N".

Well, first off, the part where you agree to the remote control stuff has to have a means to provide the name of the person for notification, and the location and means of notification. So it would strike me, at least for most mainstream installs, it would have to be a little more interactive than clicking "Yes".

Second, they have to provide 45 days notice, via the method you specified, before they use the remote control to remedy a breach of contract. So even if you do agree, you have to receive notice beforehand.

Third, they can't charge you a fee if you don't agree. Remember, because of other sections of the UCITA, they have to allow you access to the license and the software for inspection before you pay. If they require payment first, and you don't agree to the license after you inspect everything, they have to provide a full refund plus reimbursement for your costs in getting the software back to them.

Fourth, there's nothing preventing software companies now, pre-UCITA, from implementing remote controls in their software and using them at will. All the UCITA does is provide some rules for how they can use it and how they can't. In this case, some legislation on the matter is better than none at all. And the UCITA provides for you seeking damages if they don't use the remote controls properly (ie. use them for something other than remedying a breach of contract, or don't give you enough notice, etc.)

As far as the legal mumbo-jumbo goes, you get than anywhere and for anything when it comes to licenses. If you don't read it, then you are accepting the consequences for that. Personally, I don't read every contract and license that I get. However, I try to read a lot of them on the larger items.

-Todd

---

Expect trouble

[casper911]

You can expect alot of trouble as a result of this bill. More cracked sites, hacked PC's, and Doss attacks.. The government knows how to piss off miscreants and put more work on itself. Just another bill passed by the clueless.

Re:Your Rant

[plague3106]

People are not as stupid or evil as you think they are.

Yes they are, they are probably even more stupid and evil then thought. Do you believe in any of the major religions? They all start out with people being evil by nature.

Virginia does not intend for their personal computers to be searched and disabled at will by software manufacturers!

Yes they do, otherwise they would have nixed this bill. It specifically allows for that. Did you read UCITA at all?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[blazer1024]

IANAL, but from what I've heard, isn't this state adoption of this act completely pointless? If you buy a product from a state where it was not manufactured, isn't that governed only by interstate trade laws, and not state laws? Wouldn't you have to buy a Virginia manufactured product *in* Virginia to make that law apply? Even if you lived in a state where they accepted the act, wouldn't only federal trace regulations apply?

this would be interesting..

[IronDragon]

Too bad we cant hold the government to laws similar to what theyre passing in virginia.

Imagine: "Speaking as a representative of your constituency, your vote towards this unfavorable bill has resulted in your immediate impeachment, and a team of arsonists have been dispatched to burn down your office."

Wonder how they would feel about that.

Re:Spare a thought....

[Zach Garner]

Social change and Diversity... first, perhaps?

Re:Spare a thought....

[Zach Garner]

Well.. Democracy in the first place would be nice. I know, i know.. i'm an american, and i cannot complain all too much. But we live in an age where a True Democracy can be implemented. Not a Republic. Something where the Individual is free and the Government is kept on a leash.

Besides, Anarchy is Not a bad thing.
(http://flag.blackened.net)

:wq

ip banning

[pope nihil]

i don't think ip banning will do the trick

Re:How and how not to lobby

[fanatic]

www.4cite.org has information on when this is coming up in other states. However, they did not spell out the difference between what passed today, apparently a decision to study UCITA, and an actual vote to pass UCITA itself.

UCITA: A Net Good?

[sloth jr]

UCITA, from the analyses I've read of it, could very well have the effect of thrusting GPL'ed products and other freeware into the limelight.

Consumers aren't stupid. Heavy handed use of UCITA provisions will encourage customers to shop around for more friendly products (and companies, and non-companies). That "Linux preinstalled" option will start to sound better and better, so long as the GPL holds up against legal challenge.

I think this bill stands a very good chance of hurting the very publishers who are promalgating this "bad" legislation. Three cheers for UCITA. Never mind about competitive threats like Linux or FreeBSD - the publishers will cut off their own hands!

Here's hoping.

Sush, don't tell everyone ...

[threaded]

This is the perfect way to get these corporations off our collective back. Let them do all these pesky back doors and other stupidity, and then WHAM like some sort of modern day Attila go wandering 'bout the internet destroying every single system.

Hey, and we'll all get the decent bandwidth we want overnight.

It's mutualism, and it's sane

[threaded]

I agree. It's mutualism you are describing. This law would definitely encourage it.

Which probably means it will get struck out faster than Cool Papa circled the bases.

Greenham Common

[threaded]

So maybe we ought nod the wink to some of these Greenham Common types ...

There was once a law that pi = 3

[threaded]

To us these sorts of statutes are so obviously stupid. To politicians they make great sense.

Maybe it is because the vast majority of politicians are lawyers.

BTW they're expecting around 30,000 of them to come over to London for some great Lawyer love-in this summer. All I can say is thanks pal, we'll do the same for you one day...

Yes, but, we all fall in behind ...

[threaded]

I agree under that legislation they'd be in trouble, but the UK government has a nasty habit of falling in line with whatever silly ideas cross the pond.

Re:Yes, but, we all fall in behind ...

[Lowther]

The US government's biggest aircraft carrier, that's us ......... :-(

Re:Paradox

[threaded]

Sorry, but say you want to write a utility to convert one file format to another. Working out the formats would probably come under reverse engineering.

UCITA FAQ and Text

[ford42]

The full text of UCITA, as passed by the NCCUSL (Nat'l Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) is available online, as is a FAQ-type document written up by the NCCUSL.

It seems to me that this is once again a case of law being drafted by idiots. It really seems to me like the NCCUSL thinks they're doing the right thing by consumers, that they haven't thought through the implications of things, or how courts would be forced to rule on the issues. They claim that they are giving lots of new rights to consumers, that they are not outlawing reverse engineering or license transfers.

There are a couple of things in the FAQ that it seems to me can be universally agreed upon as being obvious.

• Federal law supercedes state law. This means that if any provision of the UCITA contradicts Federal law, then that provision is invalid.
• Unreasonable terms of a contract cannot be enforced. This means that if a provision of a software contract states that you shall never eat tomatoes again, it can be thrown out. It is up to the courts to determine what is "unreasonable".

After reading through the section on transfers, it seems to me (IANAL) that it does not outlaw transfers of licenses. Rather, it says that such transfers may be outlawed by a term in the license. AFAIK, this has always been the case. In the case of mass-market license, any such transfer-prohibiting term must be "conspicuous" (i.e. one of those annoying SECTIONS IN ALL CAPS).

Reverse engineering: UCITA explicitly states that it does not supercede existing "trade secret" laws. I'm having a hard time finding other areas of UCITA that would apply to reverse engineering (IANAL). Anybody care to help out on this one?

Mostly, I just tend to be a bit wary of things that scream, "THIS LAW IS EVIL!" I like to check them out. It doesn't seem to me that UCITA is as evil as it is cracked up to be. (IANAL) If people would refute this, I would appreciate it.

Re:Unanimous?

[Darth Yoshi]

> Have any of you actually read the UCITA ? I haven't but I wholly support the idea that those
> user agreements are enforceable.

I believe the fundamental issue with "shrinkwrap" and "click through" user agreements is that, generally, the user doesn't have the opportunity to review the agreement before purchasing or installing the software.

I doubt you would argue that someone should buy a car or house without reviewing the purchase contract before signing, yet that is how you buy software. Currently, the user is "protected" because (as I understand it) shrinkwrap agreements (and by extension, click-through agreements (though that hasn't been determined by a court of law to my knowledge)) are unenforceable in court. I, for one, prefer it that way.

what about lurkers?

[ChristTrekker]

I disagree with the idea about karma fade. It sounds ok, until you think about lurkers. A lurker is a guy who sits around most of the time just reading, and infrequently posts. However, if such a person is moved to post, there's a good chance that what he wants to say is going to be very good! He should be allowed to accumulate karma, don't you think?

what _should_ one say?

[ChristTrekker]

So what should a Virginian say to his congressperson? What specific points of UCITA are anti-consumer? What should be changed so that the legitimate interests of both sides are served?

Re:what _should_ one say?

[possible]

How about "I will never vote for you again?"

That's not Funny, it's Insightful!

[TopShelf]

Unfortunately, that's how much of the American legislative system works these days. The government passes a law that they either don't understand very well or just wish to pass to score brownie-points with the electorate, then wait for someone to expose these flaws in a courtroom setting. The court strikes down the law, and the legislators fret and moan about an increasingly activist judiciary, when the real problem lies inside the halls of the legislature.

Software _Developers_ should be afraid

[TheJet]

Am I the only one who sees the affects on software developers in this whole scenario. We are the perverbial "bad guys" with consumers already. It scares me quite badly that a law like this could pass. What are the chances that any small software development house will get started once this law has passed? After all, who is going to buy this new program, which has no guarantees of functionality, when they can purchase a M$ product, that while having numerous bugs, has been proven to work correctly most of the time.

Wake up everyone, companies like M$ don't want this law to pass so they can make crappy software, they want it to pass because it essentially eliminates their competition! As developers, we need to protect our investment (training/experience/etc), we cannot allow laws like this to further marr our reputation with the American public!

Sorry, got a little carried away, but no one seems to look at from a developers prospective...

TheJet

This *may* be good

[jemfinch]

I, personally, don't use commercial software.

This kind of act could spell the end of commercial software's support in business, as no business wants to be stopped at the whim of another company. This could definitely be good for free software, since that will be the only software that aims to *preserve* consumer rights.

UCITA doesn't bother me in the least. It can't touch me.

Jeremy

Re:This *may* be good

[Refrag]

"It doesn't hurt me personally, so I don't care if their rights are being violated."

"I'm next?"

Re:Your Rant

[spyderbyte23]

I have never accepted this argument.

State level politicians get away with ten times as much as national politicians, since they operate out of the eye of the national media.

If Bill Clinton had never been president, neither you nor the people of Arkansas would have ever heard the word Whitewater. Unless of course you went rafting.

Re:This is a Very Bad Thing.

[beagle]

Don't agree to the license agreement. We have alternatives. We should use them and stop using software from these people.

Who knows - this could be a tremendous boost to OSS! People will get so pissed at the limiting licenses that they'll look elsewhere for options.

Re:Your Rant

[beagle]

The only exceptions are CEO's and the like. And even they are powerless: they are required to screw me whether they want to or not. The Corporate mindset demands it.

It'd be nice if this mindset would change. It's evident in other areas as well. Take CDMA vs GSM. The Europeans designed a wonderful system that's good for both the provider and the consumer - GSM. The American version of digital cellular (CDMA) sucks from a consumer perspective when compared to GSM. It's simply not as nice a system.

The beginning of the end of Pax Americana?

[exoduz]

Your congressmen are willing to suck anything corporations dish out to them, your media don't report it and your people don't care. I've seen a few posts here detailing how this law can be circumvented but slowly but surely the corporations behind this law will find ways to abuse this law... perhaps spend their big marketing dollars education the populance wat a wonderful innovation remote disabling of software is... noone can say otherwise cuz its against the law to say negative things about it. Believe me... the corporations behind this law didn't just do it on a whim. They prolly already mapped out their plans for introducing and executing this new *feature* into their next software release. Goodbye software innovation, goodbye productivity while this goes through the courts, costing who knows how many fscking billions of dollars b4 they realize wat a fscking stupid law this is. Good going america... u just shot yourselves in the foot. Here, in the southern colony of the US and the ass end of the computer world Australia... i guess its only a matter of time. Better start making plans to move somewhere soon.

#############################################
# exoduz : escape while you can.
#############################################

Worse Yet

[BlueMonk]

"A Rhode Island hacker today cracked the disable code for the most popularly used operating system in use around the world. Everybody who logged on to check their e-mail this morning lost the use of their computer."

Default = highest scores first

[yuriwho]

I completely agree, I recently directed a scientist friend of mine to /. to see an article that was related to her work. I felt I had to warn her about what to expect so that she wouldn't be immediately turned off by what she saw. I'm sure she waded through countless naked and petrified trolls to find the interesting posts (I forgot she would get oldest first by default).

This also has relevence in regards to attracting female readers/posters to /. and linux/OSS in general. How many women viewing /. for the first time would get past a page or two of reading if they hadn't been convinced by someone they know that it would be worth it? How many women will feel like joining a community that has a significant faction that is openly hostile and abusive toward them??

Something definitely has to be done.

I like the idea of the time delay between posts (10 minutes?) to any given story. If this was combined with some andover/VA paid troll killers who's job it was to remove sexually offensive trolls and regular user moderation for positive moderation we might have a solution that works without forcing someone with moderator status to waste their points killing trolls yet allowing serious posters the opportunity to post as fast as it takes to make a serious post.

Re:Default = highest scores first

[348]

Very Very good. This could work, and not to tough to implement.

the average coporation does not tax me

[NuclearArchaeologist]

Well, I don't think govenment was invented to protect me from corporations, or even snake oil vendors. Govenments are supposed to provide a civil and criminal law system, military defense, regulation of natural monopolies in the public interest, and maybe some good public works.

As it is the federal govenment is getting into much more, and the potential for abuse exists. Protectionism is a good example. This is where my tax dollars go toward keeping cheaper forgein goods from me so that my neigbor can make a profit. Corperations will abuse govenment power just like anyone else if it can. Still, govenments have a unique position to abuse. Ford does not demand 28% of my income, and GM won't send a goon squad to bust down my front door and haul me off to jail if I tell people not to buy their cars. The IRS will put me in jail if I tell people not to pay their income taxes. Their power is predicated on my not being able to fend for myself. I can, and so can you.

My letter to my senator

[ukyoCE]

If you're so lazy you can't write your own letter, here is the one I sent to my senator. Troll me all you want, or use it if you like it. Note that the link to (this) Slashdot discussion is at Threaded and +2, so hopefully my senator won't go there and see a bunch of trolls and trash talk. It appears that the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act has passed the House unanimously, and is now on its way to the state Senate. I, along with the vast majority of experiences computer users, find this Act outrageous. It blatantly disregards consumer rights. It also allows software companies to make actions that are clearly hazard at this time. For instance allowing companies to "turn off" their user's software. For a company to do this, there must be some sort of back door to allow the company to access the machine. If the company can access the machine, hackers can (and WILL) use the same back doors to turn off mission-critical software anywhere they please. There are a great number of ways this would be possible, no matter how a company attempted to guard against it. This is just one of MANY concerns we, the consumer, and your consituents, have about this bill. There may be a time for a bill similar to this, but it is certainly not now, and it is certainly not worth losing consumer rights over. If you would like to see the opinions of experienced computer users, visit http://slashdot.org/ It is a news site targeted specifically at the computer users who understand this act and its implications. With each story, Slashdot also allows anyone to post and discuss thier ideas. You will find the community of the most intelligent technology consultants are unanimously against this Act. A link to the ongoing discussion is here: UCITA Discussion http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00%2F02%2F14%2 F2221203&cid=&pid=0&startat=40&threshold =2&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change

Name Phone Number Address Richmond, VA Zip

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[ooky]

Ok I know this is very off-topic...

I, for one, think that it should be easier to get karma points if a system like this is implemented. From what I understand, karma points are based (loosely? strictly?) on how much you have been moderated up or how many people have responded to your posts. I have been a daily Slashdot visitor for over a year (my user info does not reflect this because I was forced to be an anonymous coward due to the proxy configuration at my work for a long time.) As such, I like the idea proposed of rewards for length of time you have tried "to be a member of the slashdot community".

I don't do trolls, and mostly (present post excluded) I try to stay on topic. But my posts are never moderated up unless I post a frivolous joke about Hemos the Hamster or something that everyone's heard a thousand times before. I feel that a lot of people are rewarded for moderation inertia,or the fact that they have engaged in nasty little back-and-forths, thus capturing the "replies" one needs for karma. There are many users whose names I recognize who seem to always be moderated up, no matter what they write, be it something that's been said a milllion times before, or some strange apology when they've been proved wrong (i.e. I didn't mean to offend you when I said that you probably upload nudie pics of your 9-year old son to jerk off to at night. Score: 2) Maybe I'm just missing something - do people like this have automatic moderation, or what? Occasionally I recieve moderation points - why? I have no idea since my karma is almost always 0. I spend my time trying to find novel ideas being put forth that have a score of 1 and moderating them up, but I feel that most moderation just follows extremely predictable patterns. Maybe if more people had moderation points to begin with, this site would be a much richer place.

Then again, what do I know? I still like reading everyday and posting often. I don't mean to whine either, I'm not asking for "free" moderation. A karma of 0 is fine with me because I know that a few pat posts giving props to Linux or Hemos the Hamster or containing a Simpsons reference will usually get moderated up, and I could also just provoke an angry jerk into a back and forth to get some karma if I really want it. I am just pointing out that the moderation could practically be done by computer program, it is so predictable. Let's be more open to new thoughts and users that aren't as well-known, /.ers! I think it could only make reading the posts more fun for everyone.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Gurlia]

The previous article (Borland/Inprise survey) has a ratio of 111 to 1141 as of this writing. This is ludicrous. The signal-to-noise ratio is now 0.1, or rather, the noise-to-signal ratio is now 10. Based on this alone, I think something had better be done and FAST. A forum with S/N ratio of 0.1 is effectively useless.

Yes, browsing at +1 makes things much better... but my point is, why are we wasting network bandwidth on junk like this, and why are we tolerating Slashdot being overloaded with crap???!?!? Why must we put up with Slashdot being so slow and overloaded just because some freak with way too much time on his hands decided to dedicate his life to trolling Slashdot?!?!?

No wonder people who don't know better think Slashdotters are weird, geeky, blah-blah-blah. Just think for a moment what a newbie would think if one would visit Slashdot right now, with its current default browsing settings. If frequent slashdotters are complaining already, what about someone who never read slashdot before and has no idea what's going on, and he sees hundreds of junk comments? Do you seriously think anyone with a sane mind would stay here if he had to wade through 1000 comments just to read the 100 nontroll comments? With only a handful of really worthwhile ones, and with the occasional zealot flamewar in the rest? Nobody will bother to figure out how to set the threshold thing if their first impression of Slashdot is ~1000 junk pr0n posts plus a handful of squabbling zealots. If this continues any longer, Slashdot is history. The existing, sensible readers will leave, and newbies will be turned off.

[OT] Re:An Ode to Slashdot

[Gurlia]

LOL!!! This Troll shows such talent at writing poetry, he *really* should make a living out of it. Amazing how people hate more work and yet would spend the time and exert the talent to troll Slashdot.

I'm truly amused.

Re:From the horse's mouth

[quasimoto]

That's cool. I am reading Maryland's versions at this time. Here is where I setup a central location for what I have. http://www.charm.net/~dutch/mar yland-gov-notes.html

All 4 of the MD-UCITA bills can be read or downloaded there, and, there are links to the General Assembly.

-d

Re:Hey! Moderator!

[quasimoto]

Just checked the link before calling it quits for the day (0438 EST Oh No). Works fine, I experenced a couple of glitches but all is ok at this time. Look for html soon after I nap.

-d

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[rsborg]

1) People should get a rating based on the TIME they have been a Slashdot, not just this "karma". New members posts start at -1, no exceptions. After three months, they start at 0. After three more months, they start at 1. This means that if a troll wants to troll, he'll have to put in his dues for six months. If he then wants to blow it all on a single, grand, troll parade...fine. He can start all over.

This is rediculous. This situation would be better resolved by allocating more moderator points.

2) Karma needs to weigh much, much more. People with karma over 50 should start posting at 2. People with karma over 100 should start posting at 3. People with karma over 200 should start posting at 4 and people with karma over 500 (if they exist) must be worth reading.

There is no counterbalance already for Karma gaining. Perhaps timing out Karma? Karma should reflect utility of posting person, and not how prolific (s)he is. There should be no reason to "race for karma level4"

3) Each post takes exponentially longer to be posted to the system. First post takes one second to reach the forum. The next takes two seconds. The following takes four. Then eight, sixteen and so forth. In the end, if someone really wants to post more than 20 messages in a single day, they'll have to wait until tomorror for people to see them. That way these floods STOP.

This is a good idea. I believe this would be rather viable idea, given a properly thought-out algorithm.

4) More moderation. I'd much rather see a war of moderation than a war of trolls. Give anyone with karma over 100 permanent moderation status. The only way it gets revoked is if them make a posting, and then it is revoked for twenty-four hours (thought on that article permanently).

Amen, brotha. With the amount of S/N loss recently (slashdot was /.'ed for me, from France, too), we really need to feel part of the community here. I often post messages like "moderate parent post up" because I don't have the capability to bring a 0 or 1 post or unmoderated 2 point post out of the noise. To come back to your earlier point, perhaps we should just let those with more Karma moderate more... but definitely not permanently (consider the abuse of power).

The Halloween papers predicted UCITA

[Rakarra]

Remember back when the Halloween papers came out that at least some Microsoft execs wanted to decommoditize and proprietize protocols? They really couldn't do it before without involving some type of encryption, without someone just reverse engineering it. The next logical step was to make the process easier -- just make it illegal for anyone to reverse engineer your product.

Of course, this was before MS was declared a monopoly, so they might be more careful about using this UCITA stipulation. But if someone else wants to use UCITA to prohibit any type of reverse engineering, what is to stop them?

Changes needed in Congress

[ClubStew]

Okay, the information age is way past us now. This isn't the first legislation to be passed concerning information technology. Something must be done to ensure our freedom online. Several years ago, I had a chance to design a web site for Al Gore (even got to talk to him once, exciting?). It was then while talking with him and conversing with his internist secretary several times a week that I realized the government doesn't know *jack* about technology. We all need to take some serious effort, contact our local government offices, and start voting (if you haven't been already) for people who know something about the Internet and everything else that makes up information technology. I'm not plugging anyone here, but McCain (R) is totally against Internet taxes and putting "stamps" on email. This is just one example. I know that my home state gives laptops to the House, but they don't have a clue how to use them effectively. Are these really the people you want passing bills that covers our futures? Take a stand and let's get some statesmen (and women) who know something about computers before all our futures in info. tech. are shot.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[In-Doge]

Actually, I think it works quite well, switch your threshold to 2, and all of a sudden you have signifigantly less stuff to deal with.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[In-Doge]

Why anyone would moderate up a AC troll is beyond me.

So esentially, a moderator could browse at 1, and mark up and down whatever they see fit.

Only problem with this is that a moderator could abuse thier power, making biased decisions.. I'm assuming that's what the karma system is supposed to prevent. Which makes it not fair.

But you can't have both. I still strongly disagree what the root message of this thread suggests. It's too much of a Nazi approach and personally, one day I'd like my 15 minuites of fame.

Security Issues

[Wolfbaine]

Perhaps Im way off base on this one, however if any company decides to implement a feature that allows remote shutdown/deletion/uninstallation of the software, wouldnt this just open another doorway for script kiddies. Yet by the same token (although this would definitely violate any new EULA) couldnt a packet filtering system or port blocking system protect against this. Also, wouldnt running the software in a non-native system (for instance under WINE instead of Vanilla Windows) disable some of these services (I dont know if windows update services works under wine, but Im guessing it doesnt :) ).

Just my 2c

Virginia Legislature Complaint Line

[forkspoon]

If you live in Virginia and oppose UCTIA, here is the number to call to get your message to your representative or senator: 1-800-889-0229. Call them and say UCITA is bad! Thanks, Travis forkspoon@hotmail.com

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[xscarecrowx]

I like to view with my threshold lower sometimes a really good post can slip through the cracks with a 0. I may just go compltely to 1, the past week has been absolutley a troll fest!!

protest

[ironhorse]

If/when a similar law ends up in congress in my State, I'm sure as hell going to yell and scream. I am a student at a university that has a large and active socialist group. I am not a socialist but I have long been impressed with their tactics and devotion to their cause. As a unified political force /. mebers would wield a mighty stick. It is a shame /. members tend to view the political process with exagerated paranoia or as a mere shideshow. There are times when faces and bodies (e.g. the folks protesting the WTO) can pay huge dividends. Maybe /. needs an unofficial political wing. A meeting-place to organize tradtitional protests and campaigns against tyrants. I hope everyone in Virginia writes/calls and voices his/her anger.

Re:Inaction in action

[cancerboy]

Some of us in Virginia have been active against UCITA. Unfortunately, we live in the state with AOHell and any number of ISVs in the NoVA area.

We can't compete against their wealth and a number are essentially buying legislators. Also, the VA government is controlled primarily by probusiness, profarm factions. NoVA does not have a voice commensurate (sp?) with the wealth we produce.

Many voters in VA don't see how this hurts them (most simply accept EULAs as gospel anyway). I would be hard pressed to get rid of my representatives because of the stupidity of their vote on UCITA, my reps generally do a good job, but they get snowed by all of the crap from the industry. They also seem to think that any "uniform code" is good code (generally true).

I've been calling my state senator (called by delegate yesterday). Hopefully the Senate will be more intelligent.

Re:How and how not to lobby- - -good points here

[monkey # omega 1]

Three cheers for intelligent AC's!

Re:This is a Very Bad Thing.

[alex.wright]

Simple, Don't agree to the license agreement. We have alternatives. We should use them and stop using software from these people.

Re:User Numbers (sadly, off topic)

[tinyuan]

We can't expect Cmdr.Taco and the other /. admins to personally read every post to every article, nor can we expect them to personally interview every potential moderator. The current moderation system is probably about the best we can expect, when you consider the alternitives:
1) No moderation. Need I say more?
2) Automated moderation. Do you really want software to decide what is and isn't worth reading based on length and keywords?
3) A permanent panel of moderators. We would still be subject to having someone else decide what we do and don't want to read, but at least would know what to expect. On the other hand, unless one of you wants to volunteer to spend 10 or 12 hours a day monitoring /. posts and moderating comments...

My point is, yeah, we have to sit through some crap now and then, deal with trollpr0nposts (not hard to spot, they usually have the word "nipple" in the first paragraph), and maybe end up missing the occasional nice/aggreeable/funny post, but in the end, it more or less works. And it also seems true that all of the truly deep, insightful, and meaningful posts have managed to be elevated to the point that it is safe enoughto browse at 1, confident that the best posts won't be lost to you.

-Ma Tin Yuan.
(who feels that this post should never rise above 0, as nowhere in it does he discuss UCITA)

The moderation works. Slashdot need a SPAM filter.

[ratsdliw]

If you read slashdot at Score >= 1 then you'll be fine. You'll never see another troll again.
The problem with slashdot is that there isn't enough good moderation. The only things that seem to get moderated up are "Funny" comments. A Slashdot article used to have 5-10 insightful comments. What we need are more (active) knowledgeable moderators.

It would be nice if Slashdot also implemented some type of spam filter. This would get ride of the anoyances that we have been having. (Not a change to the moderation system)
For example:

Only let in 10 comments from one IP for minute. (If your behind a proxy you might be out of luck) This way it would make in unreasonable for anybody to try spamming slashdot.

Or you could try to prosecute the person who is doing this. And then run a slashdot article on that. I don't think you'd get many more trolls after that. :)

on trolls.

[512k]

/. should make the default threshold 1, and increase the number of moderation points available, moderators should read at 0 and moderate up the a/c's with something important to say.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[Mr Spot]

Perhaps a system where everyone can moderate while they have +ve karma, transferring one of their points to someone else? That might be a better system, but I couldn't be sure.
~~~

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[ozbird]

Why hasn't this thread been moderated "Offtopic"? Sorry, but no matter how true the trolling issue may be, the topic is "Virginia House passes UCITA" and posts that aren't about this (including this message) should be labelled "Offtopic". (Someone not from the US like me could have got the impression that UCITA was about trolling in Slashdot based on the message scores!) As I understand it, non-AC messages automatically get a score of 1. If there are a large number of troll messages getting through with a score of 1, set your message threshold to 2 (as I do) and filter them out. Scores of 2 and above must have been moderated up at least one point, so you can expect them being worthy of that adjustment. This isn't fair in some cases (not all ACs write crap), but isn't it easier to moderate up a few good posts than moderate down a flood of bad ones? (For my sins, this message will probably get moderated "-1, Flamebait", but that's life. :-)

MPAA

[cyax20]

It's kinda ironic to the Free Software community that the MPAA opposes UCITA.

CONTROL-ALT-DELETE

[Jett]

Fascism 2.0 has infected the system.

We need laws too.

[Jett]

Why don't we make a counter-law to this fascist crap illegal? They want to make what we do illegal and take away our rights, why don't we try to make what THEY do illegal and take away their rights? There was a thing about OpenLaw a few days ago, couldn't that work for something like this?

It is not OVER.

[geekoid]

You must fight this now. Yes you. You must contact your local Goverments NOW. whether it is State goverments here in the U.S.A, or a governing body of a different country, you can bet your ASS that an attempt to pass something similiar is going on in your country right now.
MS is a global corporation, and it wants total control of it's product, even after you've paid them money. And even if you do not use MS, other companies will use this law to there advantage, and that means no rights for you.
If you are too late, and this has allready passed, do not despair! fight this on constitutional grounds! tell yor neighbors, friends and co-workers that they are about to lose their right to privacy, their right to have secure data, their right to raise their children how they feel is proper.
This is not paranoia, if they can put anything they want in there EULA, and have it be legally binding, they can control your lives.
For those of you who think this is overblown, let me say one word:
"MacArthyism".
Everybody on this site knows this is bad, but everybody isn't on this site.
Not only must you write to your state goverment a consice, professional letter stating why this is bad. We must also inform the media, and the populace in general. If you know anyone in the media, please try to get them to do a story about the negative aspects of this, and why the public needs to be scared. In this fight, we are all brother and sister, whether software engineer, Slacker, or QUAKE master. We must have one voice, and that voce needs to say "STOP!".
Yes, I know this post has been "American centered", but it applies to you, as well.

Valid point, but..

[geekoid]

It is OFF TOPIC!

Re:Disputed

[geekoid]

It is off topic, because the article was not about Slashdot community issues. That does not mean its wrong, or that it is an ivalid way to make your point about needing a method to discuss Slashdot community issues. It is still offtopic.
I am, of course, defineg offtopic as "posts that have nothing to do with the original article".
When someone loads a page, they generally want to read and/or post messages relating to the article. They do not want to waste the bandwidth downloading non-relivant posts.

Re:I, for one, will keep reading Slashdot

[SkulkCU]

...but I'm afraid that you're right. I saw one story that did not have a SINGLE "3" post after a day.

I think your proposal is a _bit_ unbalanced, though. I read slashdot for over a year before getting a login, because as a mere "power user", I had a feeling that people who post here must really know there stuff (heh). So why should I be punished (yes, thats what it is) with a default "0" comment just because I lurked for a while? A better method (imo) would be more simply to penalize people with negative karma with a lower default.

-- and I'm not sure if making demands is fair to the founders of this site, who probably put up with a lot of @#%%!

The thing that prompted me to join, btw, was that I had a story posted and it gave me a real sense that this was truly a ground-up website...

From the horse's mouth

[crazyeddie]

Here's a reply I got when writing to the legislature (I'm a Virginia citizen).

------------
Thank you for your e-mail to Speaker Wilkins regarding UCITA.

HJ 277 was introduced this year, that, had it not died in committee, would
have established a subcommittee to study UCITA.
The Senate has a bill (SJ 239) which MAY reach the House before cross-over;
however, assuming it does reach the House,
and assuming it is passed, it only establishes a joint subcommittee to
study UCITA and suggest alternatives or amendments to
the UCITA that will assure that interests of both licensors and the
licensees are adequately protected.

In other words, no bill changing UCITA will come before the House this year
(perhaps only a bill establishing a subcommittee to
study UCITA as outlined above).

Once again, thank you for your e-mail informing us of your views on this
subject.

Shirley T. Mays
Executive Assistant
Office of the Speaker
General Assembly Building, Room 635
910 Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-698-1024

Re:How to Abolish the UCITA in One Easy Lesson

[ab762]

Great idea, but do one other thing:

Invite the press.

Obtain an ancient spreadsheet, print your license, maybe staple it to a paper bag, and make a big show of it. Have a friend buy it, and demonstrate the rights you have acquired over his computer. Have a good lawyer vet everything.

Coverage is important.

whereis 'content';

[McFLY]

For those of us too lazy to dig deeper, is it too much to ask that the bill actually be described on the front page before we are asked to oppose it? Come on gang! I don't mean this to sound like a flame, just some constructive criticism. -McFYL

Re:This is a Very Bad Thing.

[TomV]

Is it to be expected that a company will be able to enforce disablement of software where UCITA type laws are not in place

Under the UK's Computer Misuse Act 1990, timebombing software and similar methods of disablement are considered unauthorised access and tampering and are punishable by the courts. There's a lot of case history and precedent, from firms whose software needed keys after pre-specified timeout periods and so on.

Re:Spare a thought....

[r-jae]

The United States, in my view, compared to Australia, is SO PARTISAN! Your elected officials listen to their constituents. In Australia, we elect a party, not a politician. The head of the party (the Prime Minister) says something, and all the members of the party listen. So, in effect, the PM holds such a great power over the country. For example, our PM introduced new tax laws. All the party members, elected of course, completely and automatically agreed with his bill despite the fact that so many people opposed it. Whereas, in the US, if a new bill is introduced, the elected official will gauge the opinion of her constituents before she votes. If her constituents hate it, she won't vote for it. She won't blindly follow her leader. It seems to me, everything is done for the people. This attitude is one I wish was adopted in Australia. The sheer thought of our MP's actually listening to us, (the ones who elect them and pay their income) makes me dizzy. I wish there was something I could do to stop this. Short of moving to the US, nothing. I'm only 16 so my opinion doesn't count anyway.

Spare a thought....

[r-jae]

for us Australians. Our government is becoming a dictatorship. They pass laws whenever the hell they want - since nobody cares who votes for who anymore, both parties are totally pathetic.

The government knows that have a duopoly on the Australian people. Most people don't care who gets in so long as they keep on handing out the welfare checks. Nobody cares about important things: scientific research, computers, internet access, consumer rights.

So spare a thought for us Australians. We have no rights in this country, and it's getting worse. I can see this country, in 10-15 years going the way of most South American countries... a democracy to anarchy.

It can still be blocked in the House of Reps.

[GlitchZ28]

Slashdotters,

Here in MA bills get proposed in the senate modified and voted on (Majority to pass). Then the bill gets sent to the Hosue of Reps., who can modify it further and vote on it (Majority to pass) and then the modified bill gets sent back to the Senate (who don't get to change anything at this point) and they vote a second time to agree with any changes the Hosu made.(Majority to pass). Hence, there are still alot of votes to be swayed.

Paradox

[myshka]

It is a strange situation. As a commercial software developer, I can't really decry UCITA for the obvious reasons. As a consumer, however, I'm indignated by the actions of the oppressive corporate lords that hope establish a new era of servage on the ruins of our democracy (republic, whatever, don't nitpick).

I've personally resolved that issue by increasingly relying on GPL'd software for my personal computing needs, and with projects like Mozilla and KOffice getting fast to the level of full day-to-day usability, a fully GPL'd (or at least following the Open Source guidelines) system is almost palpable reality.

I know this is a limited approach, possibly ignoring the larger ramifications of an increasingly restrictive corporate government, but it does alleviate that pesky cognitive dissonace a little bit.

Re:Paradox

[parcel]

The UCITA affects Open Source/GPL/etc. software as well. Check out this article by Stallman:

http://linuxtoday.com/stories/15948.html

Doesn't "full faith and credit" apply here?

[Sasquach]

Anybody remember the constitutional concept of full faith and credit? What legally allows a 16 year old driver, with a valid Pennsylvania drivers license to drive in New Jersey where the minimum driving age is 17. So if a company is "based" in Virginia, would its the license carry over to other states? Or would such an issue not apply to this.........

Re:It's time for a 4TH branch of government.

[Chazmyrr]

What you are suggesting is interesting and even possible. However, our government is specifically designed to NOT be a democracy. It is, in fact, a republic. The purpose is to prevent tyranny of the masses. A democracy requires that the majority of citizens are willing to put the best interests of the nation before their own. I very much doubt that was true at that time, and I'm quite certain it isn't now. A republic was seen as the best compromise. The masses had some influence but the real decisions were made by men willing to make personal sacrifices in order to guide the nation.

Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. The government has grown to where being a member of the legislature is a full time position with substantial compensation. Further, we allow our legislaters to receive large sums in "campaign contributions", "speaking fees", and so forth from special interest groups in return for voting a particular way on a particular issue. Even if the citizens at large would oppose such a bill, how many of them will even know?

As for a constitutional amendment, the process requires either a 2/3rds majority vote in both the house and senate or a constitutional convention called by 2/3rds of the state legislatures just to propose. It then requires ratification by 3/4ths of the states. I strongly suspect until such time as the citizenry at large is truly ready for democracy, the elected legislators will not allow a proposal that would so reduce their power to pass.

Regards,

Chazmyrr

Isn't this bill good for OpenSource?

[Cy Burdock]

Am I missing something?
Doesn't this apply just to closed source software? I've had a look at the various sites,
read the comments and it just looks like people will get even more annoyed with
closed source software. People will think these are just more bugs in the software
when it suddenly stops functioning.

On the other hand I can't see organisations like Apache, Sendmail, KDE, RedHat,
etc retracting the rights to use their software.
Hmmm ...

If this is true, then who cares about this bill.

Re:Isn't this bill good for OpenSource?

[Cy Burdock]

I'd like to see how reverse engineering would be made tougher. Is there a summary of
the advantages/disadvantages (and why) of this bill floating about?

There ought to be as all I've seen so far has been a load of waffle.

Why should free-software folks care about UCITA?

[puddles]

Someone please explain to me how UCITA is going to impact users of open-source software? The GPL is very benign license. What harm could possibly come to the open-source world?

Pitiful

[Spiff28]

I'm pitiful but I don't deserve the pity. I'm starting to get really depressed about this whole thing. Yeah, I did my part for the UCITA, I called the senate, wrote the e-mails. Blah, I got nothing. I get the feeling that I can't make a difference. Yeah a lot of people can make a difference but I can't. This is the problem. I'm willing to bet there are a number of people like me who don't want to see this happen but once they've done their part and get no gratification, they realize it's a long arduous battle, they despair, they give up. That's the last thing you want your aid to do in a war like this... give up. But I mean christ, of all the issues I've been voicing my opinion on, I've made zilch difference. I have friend, peers and teachers who agree with me, but it doesn't change that fact that we are still getting rapidly losing our rights. Even worse is a large part of this country doesn't care, or is willing to give up the freedom. This, people, is scary.

I apologize for the braindump nature of this, it's built up for a while, and this combined with my reading the latest Adbusters brought it all tumbling down.

Re:Don't Whirl That Perl!

[nick_danger]

And if I understand it right the software company has no obligation to guarantee that their product will work.

Not that I agree with UCITA or anything (I don't), but... what do you think the standard shrinkwrap clause

"...specifically disclaims any warranty with respect to merchantability ... or fitness for a particular purpose..."

means?

IANAL but it sounds to me like UCITA doesn't grant publishers the right to produce crappy software, it extends that right by allowing them to suppress the negative press that goes along with it.

.sig? who needs a .sig?

We need to resit and take action

[Space_Man]

Buddy many people do not have the freedom to not use a product. They are under leagal contracts with the companies stating that they have to use their software and only their software. Also still the true ungeeky mass deos not know about any other choices when it comes to software expect apple and big yelp there. The prob is we should be able to make a choice not because it is a choice to keep our civil liberties but because one is better than the other. They are forcing many people to make a choice now that don't even really know their is one. Many people in this world now a brain washed into thinking that big companies and the government(in the same) are the thing to follow and that they well never steer them wrong. This movenment in the software is starting to spread but we must go beyond software and go into other aneras for us to be successful. We must not think of the easy roas but the hard road because if we want to win the battle the easy road well not be the one travled. Think they are passin laws left and right that are takin our liberties away with no hope of return and all people is do is talk and sign papers saying they don't like it. What we need is a true resit to the ideas they are trying to force upon they are takin everything away while laughing at us. this law spands more than software but everything it well set a rule that well be used for everythiung in our future. If a war is fought by papers all you well get is papercuts and sore fingers waht we need is to stand up and procliam our beliefs and freedoms in life and use all means nesscery to win because if you don't what are u truely fightin for.

Re:This sucks ass.

[Space_Man]

Buddy many people do not have the freedom to not use a product. They are under leagal contracts with the companies stating that they have to use their software and only their software. Also still the true ungeeky mass deos not know about any other choices when it comes to software expect apple and big yelp there. The prob is we should be able to make a choice not because it is a choice to keep our civil liberties but because one is better than the other. They are forcing many people to make a choice now that don't even really know their is one. Many people in this world now a brain washed into thinking that big companies and the government(in the same) are the thing to follow and that they well never steer them wrong. This movenment in the software is starting to spread but we must go beyond software and go into other aneras for us to be successful. We must not think of the easy roas but the hard road because if we want to win the battle the easy road well not be the one travled. Think they are passin laws left and right that are takin our liberties away with no hope of return and all people is do is talk and sign papers saying they don't like it. What we need is a true resisit to the ideas they are trying to force upon they are takin everything away while laughing at us. this law spands more than software but everything it well set a rule that well be used for everythiung in our future. If a war is fought by papers all you well get is papercuts and sore fingers waht we need is to stand up and procliam our beliefs and freedoms in life and use all means nesscery to win because if you don't what are u truely fightin for.

Stupid Politicians.........

[MightyHunter]

Well, we always new politicians had there heads up their asses, and this just proves it!!

Don't get me wrong...

[Stary]

I'm not saying that all trolls are 13-year-old-johnny-kids, I'm trying to say that 13-year-old-johnny would think again... and really with the hoardes of trolls invading lately, how many of these do you think uses proxies or anonymizing services of some other kind? 1%? The bulk of the trolls don't I bet... and the moderation can take care of the rest.

Re:The state of House Joint Resolution 277, etc.

[M-Nute]

I see. Yikes. With 40 Bills on my desk that day, I neglected to check all the numbers. Yes, it was the research committee that was voted down, mostly because the State Senate wasn't willing to shell out $13,500 for something they don't fully understand.

As I understand it, and feel free to correct me here, the law won't go into effect until December 1, 2000; and can be repealed after that, or stricken by Committee before. So we've got about 9 months to lobby and litigate against UCITA, as I see it.

Letter-writing campaigns, calls to Congressmen and Representatives, especially for those living in VA; that's what's needed here to protect the rights of software users. With proper legislation, I'm certain some compromise can be reached.

~Matt Nute

The solution...?

[Green Monkey]

Perhaps the solution to this problem lies in "set-top" boxes like Web TV or the new Dreamcast browser. Since they don't have any software to install, you'd be post whatever you want -- you wouldn't have had to agree to any EULA, so you could say whatever you wanted online. Amazing no one's thought of this...

Green Monkey

I'm not going to bother to moderate this post up

[Green Monkey]

Someone else will have to :)

BSA will grind away - time to stand up and be coun

[knocker]

First post to /. and somehow feel avalanche of flame about to arrive - surprised how little response to this article, OK only read non-zero rated comments, but... Draconian patent/copyrights on software from BSA et al. - they have money, fierce ideas for OS and are well organised - great to be on the moral gigh ground but sitting around watching the corporates gradually claw into what they undoubedtly see as their own territory - do you sit back and watch or act?

There goes my voice

[Kurobara]

Well as a Viginira resedent I go to voice my oppisition to this initial step to the creation of a electronic polieace state and what do I find, my state senitor was actualy the one that sponcred the bill in the senate wonder why I bother caring some times

Re:I, for one, will keep reading Slashdot

[Roblimo]

I am absolutely against a seniority-based posting system - and I say this as registered user #357, as a (moderately) high-karma "automatic +2" poster, and as a Slashdot staff member.

But I'm leaving the whole mess in Rob Malda's hands, and I am sure he will come up with a fair and equitable solution to the spam dilemna - and I am also sure that no matter what he does, he'll get hundreds of e-mails telling him his solution sucks.

;-)

- robin "roblimo" miller

Re:sid=moderation

[KMSelf]

Mmmmph. I don't know about this. Is it substantially different from using a +1 score threshold if you don't want to see the "unvetted" AC comments? I suppose one might miss less with your solution, but instructing moderators to focus on raising good AC posts above 0 and increasing the number of points + moderators available might alleviate that.

Possibly, depending on the implementation.

If AC posts are relegated to "purgatory" rather than the main message board, and access to purgatory were limited to registered users, registered users of sufficient karma, or active moderators, then the positive reinforcement cycle of trolling (look at what I did to the board) is lost. ACs can't see their own trolls, and the larger public doesn't see them either. Not that the AC boards can't be spammed, but the psychological reward of doing so is greatly reduced.

Technical protections (post lockouts, redundancy filters, etc.) may still be required, but the main board problems should be much reduced.

Also agreed. Along those same lines, and somewhat aside, I'd like to see stories be assigned more than one topic (eg a story about SGI supporting Linux doesn't just get in the "Linux" category or just the "SGI" category.) Along with which users should be granted more flexibility in filtering what stories they see on the main page.

That's getting toward keywording rather than departmentalizing stories. IMO it's a good idea, and becomes necessary when either traffic or classification schemes become sufficiently rich. Face it, the world ain't heierarchical.

What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

Subpeona

[KMSelf]

There would be a link between a user and an anonymous post in the database, which would allow that information to be subpeonaed into court, should it be required. That defeats entirely the whole philosophical point behind anonymous postings.

Sorry, I don't follow.

There is no link between the identity of the AC posting, and the comments posted by the AC. There is a link between the Slashdot ID of the person signing the post, and the post, but this implies absolutely nothing WRT origin of content.

What specific legal threats do you see as originating from the signing of anonymous posts to allow general viewing? AFAIK, there is no transitivity of libel from the person writing it to a person who allows it to be generally posted. The original poster's anonymity is preserved.

What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

Disputed

[KMSelf]

There are two reasons I disagree with the "off topic" classification:

1. In this and the prior article, spammage and brokenness of the moderation system are directly reflected in the article follow-ups.

2. Slashdot offers no sanctioned "meta article" for discussiong Slashdot community issues, particularly moderation. This is an issue I've raised with Rob and Jeff several times. The sid=moderation underground forum is an option, but its existence isn't widely known.

I have a serious problem with Slashdot community threads being marked off-topic, as they generally emerge in response to a blatantly evident problem, and no alternatives exist. Moderating these threads down shows an overly literal reading of the moderation guidelines, IMO.

What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

Some info...

[Danse]

If it locks consumers into a licence like current ones, that basically sound more like a slum-lord rental agreement (no guarantee of service, and you don't own it either, and if you [your computer] gets sick because of it, it ain't their problem) then that's an argument I can make.

This is certainly part of it. UCITA would make EULAs much more enforceable. In its current form, it would probably even allow clauses such as those that prohibit criticism or public disclosure of flaws in the software. I would hope that such things would be overturned in court, but why let it get that far if we can fix it before then?

If all it does it prevent the "warez kiddies" from their little pirate cottage industry, as said elsewhere, then how can you be against that.

If that was all it did, then I'd have no problem with it, except that it would be redundant. What "warez kiddies" do is already illegal under current law, so there is no need for further legislation for that purpose. It would only serve to confuse matters.

Sure, some software may seem overpriced, but it is the right of the company to charge what they want for it, and it is your right not to install it. If you did without paying it, UCITA or not, you just broke the law.

The problem is not the price or EULAs in and of themselves, but the fact that UCITA seems to disregard current contract law and current consumer rights. Some of this is explained in the docs I reference below.

There are a bunch of letters and papers written by various lawyers, consumer organizations, industry groups, and others on this site. Might help you out to read through some of them. Most of them seem pretty well thought out and usually emphasize that one of the worst aspects of UCITA is that it is not based on current law and will cause a lot of confusion and expensive litigation. I think this one, this one, this summary, and this article by Lawrence Lessig were some of the most informative.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Danse]

I guess I should have put rational in quotes. I'm not advocating an irrational approach. I'm saying that this needs to become much more public than it currently is. While there are many specific problems that can be pointed out in the UCITA, that isn't what gets news time. We need to claim that it is anti-consumer and that it should be voted down for that very reason. All the problems with UCITA point to it being anti-consumer, so that's not a false claim. Such a claim is more likely to get news time than someone trying to make a point about how UCITA doesn't adhere to current contract law, or some other argument that is likely to contain much legalese. I'm all for people making those arguments and for them being made visible to the public, but we need to generalize a bit so that people start making the association "UCITA == BAD".

Let me get this straight...

[Danse]

Are you saying that there haven't been a ton of people out there already opposing UCITA and offering constructive criticism and alternatives?

Did you read this stuff? If all of this has had no effect, then I'd say the rational approach has indeed failed, and that short of realizing an imminent threat to their reelection, there is probably nothing that will deter the various state governments from passing this legislation. Something must be done to make manifest this threat. Otherwise, this will be quietly passed and most of the country will never realize it until the lawsuits start flying and the initial damage is done. I think that the long-term damage will be much, much worse.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[werdna]

Did you read this stuff? If all of this has had no effect, then I'd say the rational approach has indeed failed

Great, then go ahead with the irrational approach, for all the good it will do you. The nihilism of, "reason failed, let's get rowdy, so the bill won't be quietly passed," is ludicrous on its face. A bad bill that passed raucously or quietly is the same damned bad law.

Make sure the bill isn't passed without notice -- but BE REASONABLE in your opposition. Don't make the same stupid extravagant claims that have made UCC2B and UCITA opposition a laughingstock. Make the few, tighter, good claims that actually win debates and can't be dismissed with a hand-wave, and make sure you have an answer to the question, "so what else do we do about that?"

Or just keep on whining on Slashdot and flaming at me, for all the good it will do.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[werdna]

I'm all for people making those arguments and for them being made visible to the public, but we need to generalize a bit so that people start making the association "UCITA == BAD".

I'm alive to this concern, but I think its a losing strategy. You are not going to win this by sheer populism. Either you form a more powerful constituency, so they don't care, or you convince the legislature that it will be bad for the State at the end of the day.

The latter approach is possible, because UCITA has gone over the edge in many respects. But marginalizing ourselves as overreacting knee-jerkers (without a big populist constituency) only makes it EASIER for folks to adopt the powerful constituency's position.

What you must understand is that these hypertechnical positions are simply never going to be understood. Therefore, whoever can afford more PR will win, as folks decide for themselves which of the experts are prettier. Thus, we need to win in a slightly different way.

Here, its easy to make the kind of advocacy you describe work: most folks are highly sophisticated, and most people are inclined to adopt your view. Outside in the "real world," excellent advocacy is a harder nut to crack, and the strategies for the best execution of that advocacy are often far from obvious.

We can fairly agree to disagree, and that's fine. Just so we understand what each other is saying.

Best,
A

Re:Unanimous?

[Frodo]

But this also allows you favorite S/W maker to write on their license terms "With use of this package you agree to erase all Linux and derived OSes installations from all computers of your pocession or be subject of a fine of $100K daily, paid to the maker of the software". And now imagine someone tricks your boss in using this software, without reading that fine print...

High Karmas

[jd]

I have a karma of 517, and have submitted a news story that got more replies than a Jon Katz article. Therefore, my following comment is worth reading and esposes all the wisdom of the known Universe:

Wibbbbble!!!

Thank you, and good night. :)

Re:Unanimous?

[copito]

You do not have to accept the GPL. However, if you accept it, you are granted rights that you would not have normally because the work is otherwise governed by the default protections of copyright.
--

Re:Unanimous?

[peter hoffman]

There seems to be a pattern developing here. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and it passed the House with an unknown number of votes because it was a "voice vote" where no record is kept of who voted how.

-- OpenSourcerers

Re:sid=moderation

[Evangelion]

Essentially, the idea is that AC posts would require vetting by at least one registered user. The user would face the karmic consequences of any moderation of the post, and would grant the AC post any karmic benefits: If the post is moderated up or down, the signer's karma is increased or reduced, and whatever default posting level the signer has is given to the post. This preserves anonymity while allowing a modicum of control over the AC process.

No, no, no, no, no.

There would be a link between a user and an anonymous post in the database, which would allow that information to be subpeonaed into court, should it be required. That defeats entirely the whole philosophical point behind anonymous postings.

Just lobby for abolition of anonymity and be done with it - subverting the purpose of it is just evil.

Here's the problem...

[Millennium]

If only one state passws UCITA, even if it is the state I call home, it's not so bad. The U in UCITA is for Uniform, and it's hardly that if only one state passes the law. It also can't go into effect if only one state passes it, simply because that causes myriad distribution problems.

The problem is, if one state passes it, more will follow. And companies, realizing they got away with this travesty, will push for more laws, and these will be passed too. I would be ashamed to see my home state be the one which touched off the destruction of consumer rights. I'm already ashammed that no one in the House seems to have heard the people's pleas. Normally I'm politically neutral, but I can't stand by while this happens. This law serves no one but Big Business; it's been universally denounced by every consumer group I know because it's a self-serving law, created by businesses to increase their gluttony on the backs of their customers. Why can legislators not see this? Do businesses really have enough money to bribe every legislator in every state?

Re:Inaction in action

[Ed Avis]

Somebody should point out to the legislators that there are many more businesses that use software, and would be harmed by this legislation, than the small number of software companies that would benefit. So if they want to attract business to their state, they should not pass UCITA.

Even handed?

[pimp]

Now let me get this straight. If I fail to live up to the license, they can remotely disable software on my computer. And to disable that software they will have to minimally use CPU cycles on my computer, without my permission. That sounds an awful lot like one definition of theft used to prosecute hackers (crackers, sorry).

Now if they fail to live up to their end of the deal, by say not providing a new standard of reliability, what can I do? If the bill is really promoting even handed treatment of both the purchaser and the seller of the software, then shouldn't I should get some free cycles on their machines.

I'm sure you can think of something good to do with them.

you anarchists are nuts

[ch-chuck]

draconian license enforcement regulations whipped up into an almost drug-war level frenzy are GREAT for LINUX - it's those 27% unlicensed Msft copies that just perpetuates the Msft Monopoly - if people were afraid that the FBI could, with little more than a suspicion, bust in doors and demand to see licenses/invoices & proof of purchase (wheres youse papers? Dis 'puter got Papers buddy?! All right, your coming wid us) then people WOULD take a serious look at Linux where you CAN say, "Here, have a copy! And I'll help you install and config it too!!"

Zorro

I have contacted Senator Ed Houck's office!

[drwatt]

I just got off the phone with Senator Edward Houck's secretary. She informed me that this was first call they have recieved regarding this matter. This is very disappointing.
I also sent an e-mail opposing UCITA.

Capitol Phone:(804) 698-7517
Ed's E-Mail: ehouck@fls.infi.net

I did my part.

Re:This is a Very Bad Thing.

[ralphclark]

True, but it doesn't save us really. If something like UCITA were passed here in the UK, or in the EU (and in the current climate I bet it would be), all that history of legal precedent would become meaningless.

The rot has already begun to set in here. Only yesterday morning I heard a report on BBC radio 4 news about how piracy of music CD's, videos and software CD-ROMs is on the increase, about how it was ruining media businesses and so on. The figures quoted by industry spokemen in support of these wild claims were so extreme as to be literally unbelievable.

Given the timing and the outrageously Geobbelsian "Big Lie" tactics, it's fairly obvious that this is just the opening salvo in the media industry's campaign to sew up the UK market just as they've done in the US.

But what is really shocking is that the BBC news service would sink so low. I used to believe they had a degree of integrity. I guess I was wrong.

Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction

Re:Your Rant

[arivanov]

Uniform rules for internet sales...That would be great if applied to vinyards.

Just a deja vu:

Wasn't Virjinia the state that tried to push sales tax on Internet goods?

This could be a real test

[grappler]

If this bill actually gets overturned as a result of these phone calls, could we conclude that Slashdot has made a small but significant difference in politics?

I like to think so :-)

--
grappler

"Wholly owned property"

[Zach Frey]

or remotely disable their wholly owned property?

The catch, of course, is that software is not "property" that is "owned" by the customer. As every EULA today already says, the software itself remains owned by the copyright holder, and one has simply executed a contract giving one certains rights of use.

Of course, in your database example, the data within a database would certainly be the property of the database software customer, so if that's the "property" that you meant you are correct.

I wonder, if UCITA really does pass in most states, if part of a normal disaster recovery backup scheme would have to become exporting databases to some open format, in case the vendor decides to exercise "self-help." I can see it now -- the emergency tape of CSV-formatted data, so that one can "Whirl That Perl" without bringing down the wrath of lawyers ...

Re:Your Rant

[Shadow Knight]

Your faith in the supreem court is touching, but misguided. Do you really want to be governed by an apointed board? The power of the federal government, which controls more than 25% of the US GDP, is too great already. Concentrating more power in the hands of the already too powerful Judiciary will only increse the power of the already too powerful federal govenment.

Excuse me? Uh... look, the federal government is all that stands between us and domination by the corporations. Do you seriously believe that you would become more powerful or have more rights if the federal government were less powerful? Of course you wouldn't! Decreasing federal power means increasing coporate power, not increasing individual power. Unless you happen to be a CEO or something. I guess you can ignore this if you are. Now, why, you ask, would I prefer government to rule me instead of the corporations? BECAUSE THAT IS WHY GOVERNMENT EXISTS. I have a vote in the government... a corporation can screw me six ways from Sunday if I need their product and there's nothing I can do about it. Nothing at all. If the government screws me, I don't vote for that person! Maybe one person doesn't make much difference, but at least I have some say! I'll say it again: if we take power away from the federal government, we will give power to the corporations. There is no middle ground. It's us (the people, ie, the government remember? Government of the people, by the people, and for the people) or them (the big corporations, who don't even pay stock dividends!). You decide...

Re:False alarm?

[Arandir]

Oh stop it! We want to believe this story. We want to believe that we are doomed. We want to believe that we are powerless. Stop introducing facts into the topic.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[GregWebb]

Why not browse at highest score first instead? That way you can still see the responses, you just get the decent posts first.

Greg

Re:sid=moderation

[GregWebb]

Whoops, missed this one earlier.

I want to be able to moderate myself DOWN. Not just with the 'No +1 Bonus', I want to be able to remove points I've been given. A while ago I got a 4 for a post I regretted posting at +1 after I submitted - it didn't say anything substantial or add to the discussion and I was emarrassed to have the points for it.

Moderating yourself up should be out, but moderating yourself down hould certainly be in - and permanent. If I don't think I deserve points, I should be able to reject them.

Greg

Re:sid=moderation

[GregWebb]

I've posted a few times to moderation myself and can recommend it for reading. Wish the code would let this sort of thing be more visible - say, as a slashbox or something - so we could choose our own threads for the front page and get this sort of thing!

Anyway...

The main problem we've had recently is the tiny number of points getting used for some reason. Whether we've simply had a week where no-one's been using them or whether the system hasn't been gving them out properly I don't know, but it's not good. Getting better now, fortunately.

But, long-term, we've still got a problem with karma: persistence. Right now I've got reasonable karma - 41 or so. That would give me, what, 20 posts trolling at +1 if I wanted?

Now, imagine some of the others. Signal 11 and Bruce Perens (the legit one...) both had 2-300 points before karma viewing was disabled. Both could troll at +1 for really quite a while if they wanted. But why should they be able to (hypothetically), just because they're a good contributor now?

Karma needs to fade. By making it degrade over time, the user's worth is related to their recent posting record and so their current worth to the community, not their historical worth.

It's also make it almost impossible to get karma in the 100s and make +1 posting a truly rare achievement. Whereas right now it seems almost anyone can get it given enough time.

You're going to want to make the karma fade relative to posting volume as well as time so you don't lose too much while on holiday but could with a large number of banal posts in one day.

The other idea - how about true mass moderation? Everyone rates a post on a scale of (say) 1 to 5, scores are expressed as a percentage? Logged in users post at 50% by default, ACs at whatever we want?

Greg

Re:sid=moderation

[GregWebb]

About halfway between the two, actually - I'd suggest having a (small) time fade component, but having most of it fade relative to posting volume. Time's important as people do change over time, but volume has to be the major one as the whole point about moderation is signal : noise ratios so surely karma should represent your own personal signal : noise ratio?

Anyway, gotta go :)

Playing nice will get you ignored

[jellicle]

Mr. Greenberg's points are usually civil, but often wrong. The reason that UCITA has sailed through its hurdles to date is not that slashdot or any other group has been overreacting; the reason it has sailed through is that the vast, vast majority of the populace has no idea it exists. Rational, reasoned calls for amendments to the draft were met with utter stonewalling; almost none of them were ever accepted, despite many years of effort from the academic and legal communities, with zero hysteria, demagoguery or anything else which Mr. Greenberg wouldn't like. A great many people have worn themselves out arguing for "simple, rational and well-articulated amendments directed to the worst points", and not one of those worst points has changed in the least.

In other words, Mr. Greenberg's suggested method has been a complete failure.

The thing lacking in the above process was substantial involvement from the population. The pro-UCITA forces didn't care to advertise the issue, and the anti-UCITA groups generally felt the issue was too complex to take to the populace and harbored hopes of tempering the draft through their own actions. The DMCA was similarly passed with zero fanfare.

Well, they chose wrongly.

Mr. Greenberg is correct in one thing: the huge amount of money being poured in by the pro-UCITA corporations. Rational, reasoned arguments do not counter large campaign contributions. What does counter them is the threat that a Yea vote will sufficiently piss off a large sector of the population that Politician X will not be re-elected. Politicians ARE afraid of this; thus the voice votes on the DMCA and this vote in the Virginia House which make it difficult to assign blame.

A call-in campaign to stop UCITA is the only thing that has a chance of stopping UCITA right now. If the general population had gotten involved earlier in the process, it might have been corrected at that time. But what the Virginia and other politicians need to hear now is that voting yes on UCITA will cost them votes.

Mr. Greenberg is of course welcome to grovel, write some scholarly papers, or perform some other useless actions as he wishes.

--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org

Re:Playing nice will get you ignored

[hey!]

I dunno. It seems to me that you are necessarily outgunned if you try to slug it out at the legislator level with UCITA proponents, whether you go winner take all, or try sweet reason. Not that in isn't worth trying, but don't expect much success.

When your boss comes to you with today's complicated and tricky problem that's going to a couple of weeks of hard thought and work to get started on, do you get cracking right away?

I thought not. If its easy, you do it. Otherwise you apply the rule of three (do nothing until he asks the third time).

Oh, I'm not saying that legislators don't like to solve problems for their constituents. I like to solve problems for my boss. Simple ones, that make me look brilliant, preferably. The basic problem is that you have a well funded, organized and highly intellgent lobby arrayed against a unfunded, disorganized and highly intelligent mob. You just can't sail into your legislator's office when things start to go bad and expect him to jump up and march. It's way too late. The art of getting elected is in knowing who to really listen to and who to nod agreeably at while taking a mental vacation. You listen to people who have done you favors (not just money), or who can do you favors in the future, or who you can't afford to ignore (most of us are politically expendable), or who are telling you something important to your political future, or who successfully manage to push your hot buttons.

OK, you've never done your legislator favors. It's unlikely that you can do anyting terribly important for him i the future. He certainly can afford to ignore you if you look like enough of a lunatic. So, you have to convince him you're telling him something critical to his political future or you have to push his ideological hot buttons.

Unless your legislator is Joe Consumer Protection, it doesn't look to promising, does it?

What may be a more effective approach is to get some muckracking editor hot and bothered. These are people who, unlike you, he cannot afford to ignore. Any ideas for some newsworthy political theater?

Re:Playing nice will get you ignored

[werdna]

In other words, Mr. Greenberg's suggested method has been a complete failure.

To the contrary, the approach I have suggested, where taken has historically been quite successful. Opponents of patent reform ultimately prevailed (despite the law being passed), not by the wild keening of some independent inventors that the law was "bad, bad, bad," but by the quiet patient logrolling of harmless provisions for the troublesome ones. Ultimately, the radical "independent inventor" lobby was marginalized, and more moderate forces prevailed.

Same with UCC2B, which after years of being unable to work compromises, led the empowered lobbies to simply take their ball home and evolve into UCITA, where they got EVERYTHING they wanted. It is precisely Michael's oppose-it-all strategy that led to the present case of a bill being railroaded through so many legislatures. That strategy was foolish, and there was a chance to make a better bill. It was squandered by left-or-right ideologues who now pretend there is a chance to oppose wholesale the UCITA.

Legislators *WILL* pass a bill, because they need to respond to the constituencies supporting it. If you don't give them an alternative, they will pass the bill you are opposing.

I did not propose ignoring UCITA -- I simply said that acting like a raving lunatic will get you ignored, and offering no meaningful alternative, or acknowledging the reasonable UCITA provisions are reasonable will get your ideas discarded. They are *NOT* afraid of losing the vote of what is perceived to be a minority of ill-informed and unhelpful tech-heads.

THEY WILL RESPOND to well-educated counter-proposals articulated with the force of reason.

This worked for the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Congress, the recent battle over patent reform, and it can work here.

But Michael would rather take the sure loss, comforted the he had fought the good fight.

Re:Unanimous?

[Wah]

Exactly, UCITA makes software authors liable for their software (which is why proponents say it's fair), however EULA are allowed to override this situation and make the software *Installer* legally responsible for the installation. Unless you add a lawyer-researched EULA to your GPLed product you have just become totally liable for anything it does. This also allows another barrier (DMCA) to reverse-engineering (just include a clause in the EULA), which stabs Linux in the heart.

--

Re:Unanimous?

[Wah]

actually it's pretty simple.

UCITA, the DVD-CSS, RIAA. On one side you have large companies dealing in products that the Internet devalues incredibly, since distrubution and reproduction move to zero. These are MS(NBC),AOL/TW,All Movie Companies(including Disney/ABC/UPN(?)),the RIAA (including Sony), etc. If you include iCrave that adds sports franchises and ALL media signal distributors.

Why are these people fighting? Because something has come along to replace them. All of them. This thing is called the Internet. The only way to stop it is to control it. The only way to do that is to legislate it. The only way to do that is to lobby and minimize public awareness.

Do any networks or major media providers have ANY reason to publicize these issues? No, none at all, although any Hacker story helps to stir up anti-Net FUD. Which furthers the goals stated above.

Talk to your friends, your family, your representatives, help them to understand what is happening and why. It's about control, it's about money, it's NOT about the consumer.

--

Re:This is a Very Bad Thing.

[JBird]

I am wondering what the implications are for non-US countries. Is it to be expected that a company will be able to enforce disablement of software where UCITA type laws are not in place?

Re:I wish I had the script ready, but...

[Score Whore]

Creating AC accounts is a bad thing, I think. The hassles involved in maintaining a continously growing AC database would outweigh the work necessary to provide kill file support. I still think that IP addresses provided along with each AC post will allow people to don't want the cookie (and in public labs, etc. can't keep a cookie) but will still allow for some nice control. As I mentioned above regged users can selectively drop out ACs from particular subnets. Slashdot as a whole can identify problem subnets and block those (If a particular troll attempts to get around specific IP banning by hanging up his dialin or moving to another IP on his subnet, statistical methods can identify the presence of said troll based on moderation and the subnet in use. Thus code could be developed to block ACs from posting from a certain part of the network.)

Of course becoming a registered user should be enough to get past any controls on ACs. So if you are on a subnet with an asshole, you can still participate by regging.

Easier Way to do it

[thales]

Most ISPs terms of use forbid making offtopic and spam posts to news groups. Just add a trace to the routine that accepts the post, and does a lookup for who that IP adress is assigned to. When a post reaches -2 the name of the ISP, time of the post, and the IP address get added to the post. All the information that is needed for readers to slashdot the ISP's abuse line with reports. Anonymous Cowards who troll deserve to become Well known cowards.

Re:This sucks ass.

[sugarman]

Forgive my naivete on the subject, but how does Open Source protect against the UCITA? What's to stop a maker of open source software, who shrink wraps their software from pulling the same stunt?

Open Source aside, if RedHat is marketing themselves as a service company, what's to stop them from cutting off the service if the end user breaks the agreement? (using Redhat only for example purposes here)

Does the GPL offer sufficient protection against this, or more importantly, how will the GPL interact with UCITA in general?

(Not trolling, not playing devil's adocate. IANAL, and I just want to know.)

Do more than email

[mbrooks]

Email is too easy to ignore. Place an actual phone call (the 800 number for the state legislature is (800) 889-0229 (thanks, bripeace, for posting it). Or write a paper letter to your senator. Send a telegram. Computer mail, especially on something like this, is far too easy to ignore. Ringing phones get attention in a way email doesn't, especially for politicians.

Except not really.

[cazz]

Yet again this is another show of bad journalism. the above infoworld article got most of the information wrong.

the virginia SENATE has passed it, and the house is still working on it. They are studing it, and deciding if they want to create a committee to look at it.

Check it out for yourself:
HB561,
HJ277,
and SB372 [0]

[0] the last url is sponsered by the senator from my home town :(

Become exposed to the online community

[CoughDropAddict]

I agree wholeheartedly, and in addition I would add one more:

5) PLEASE change the default comment view to "Highest Scores First!" When important issues come along, I want to tell people "Visit Slashdot, and see that there is a group of intelligent, concerned people who exist in an online community to whom these issues are real. See us firsthand."

However, the default view is "oldest first," leaving the un-logged in reader with the "first posts" and "trollmastahz." This is no way to earn a favorable first impression

We have to make it easy for outsiders to become exposed to our world. We have to be understood if we want the support when we really need it.

Moderate up: Even More detailed VA information

[BoLean]

Here is the link to the actual Bill:
Summary: HB 499 Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
Full Text: HB 499

Link to updates to Technology legislation in Virginia:
Virginia Secretary of Technology

This is extremely important. Today is the big day:

Dates to Remember:
January 12 -- General Assembly convenes at noon

January 24 -- All bills and joint resolutions filed by 5 p.m.

February 15 -- Cross-over, each house to consider legislation of the other house (except budget, appropriation debt, revenue and VRS bills)

February 22 -- Amendments on the Budget Bill(s) available by noon

March 11 -- Adjourn Sine die

April 10 -- Last Day for Governor to Act on Legislation.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[xeer0]

IMHO more rules, revising the rules, is not the way to go. At least at this time.

If you read what these people have to say, most of them are pissed off, because they feel they do not have a voice (that they are being unfairly moderated).

Maybe they are?

I think a better start would be for a /. "story" about this very topic. So that we can get a real thread going and see what everyone has to say. Maybe a solution will present itself.

For the first time tonight, I had to bump my comment threshold up to get past the noise. That's a drag. One of the things I enjoy the most about /. is reading what everybody has to say.

Re:Cease and Disist

[Zan Thrax]

This isn't just funny, its a real possibilty for any site that uses any shrinkwrapped software in the near future if the UCITA gets widely adopted. I don't suppose slashdot is using any commercial software, but many other sites are using something, somewhere in their system.

And what if they decide to track down my negative comment on /. to me, and turn off my software?

Re:Unanimous?

[Chalst]

The UCITA introduces two things. Firstly it introduces default
liability for software faults against the author, and then it allows
shrinkwrap licenses to invalidate these software protections.

It isn't too hard to see this as a way to sue the writers of free
software, without being able to sue commercial distributors of
software, as Stallman argued in linux today.

Lastly UCITA doesn't explicitly introduce measures against reverse
engineering, but the kind of clauses UCITA allows manufacturers to
introduce into their software explicitly include restrictions on use,
and so it is feared manufacturers could forbid reverse engineering of
their products. I don't think this would hold: there are federal laws
explicitly permitting reverse engineering of software, which
autmoatically overrides UCITA, but this only increases the ease with
which bullying lawsuits may be made.

Re:Unanimous?

[PurpleBob]

...in a shrink-wrap license, which doesn't mean a thing without the UCITA.
--

Wasn't SMB proprietary and secret?

[Convergence]

Wasn't SMB proprietary and secret, at least until the samba team reverse-engineered enough of it that MS had nothing to lose by releasing the specs for the filesystem protocol? Just because it is open now doesn't mean that they didn't have to reverse-engineer it enough to shame the company into opening it. (Remember RC4 anyone?)

Besides, how many years did it take for domain controller support to be added. I thought that they had to reverse-engineer that too.

Hey! Moderator!

[Greg Merchan]

Here I go again, ready to lose my sacred karma for the moderation revolution. If you haven't spent your last point moderating this up, then spend one on this guy! He's even got a link and a summary of what you'll find! Talk about informative! Did you know about these?

• hb0018f.rtf --> Commercial Law - The Maryland Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
• sb0003f.rtf --> senate version of the House Bill
• hb0019f.rtf --> Maryland Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
• sb0142f.rtf --> senate version of the house bill
• sb0505f.rtf --> Internet Consumers' Bill of Rights (cable access bill)

(The link seems to be down, this index should be a good starting place anyway.)

Re:Inaction in action

[broter]

Although I agree with you sentiment, I doubt there's a thing voters could have done to stop it in this case: the software industry has bribed -er- lobbied the Virginian legislature too hard to make the voters' needs matter much. I seem to remember some experts and a few other organizations giving testimony against it.
(What, you think you're living in a Democracy?)

The best we can do at this point is to make ourselves heard in VA so we can keep it down in other states. The only way to do that is to threaten the law makers' abililty to get reelected... bad press is our only weapon.

However, I *would* be pissed if the voters of VA let any of their representatives last another election. C'mon Slashdotters, if they don't accept the olive branch at least you can beat them over the head with it.

Just my $.02

Re:Exaggeration will get you ignored

[Robert Wilde]

With all due respect to the community, a call-in campaign to say that UCITA is all bad is probably the best way to assure that UCITA will ultimately pass exactly as drafted.

A defeatist attitude can only lead to defeat. Your voice can make a difference, a thousand voices can make as much difference as the the bribes paid to Virginia's legislators (bribes that are only effective because they help secure votes - legislators will flee a truly, widely unpopular position regardless of the cash on the table).

If you doubt your effect, here's a story about the Collection of Information Antipiracy Bill:
http://www.l awnewsnetwork.com/practice/techlaw/news/A15771-200 0Feb9.html

Thanks to efforts in the Open Source community (including Slashdot) and growing consumer opposition, the February vote on this ridiculous bill has been delayed as a somewhat more friendly bill is considered.

Educating the media and state legislators about UCITA can and will have an effect.
Resolve to write one dead-tree letter on the issue ever week from now until it's dead.

UCITA and the GPL

[dirk]

I can't say I disagree with the people who are against the way this bill can obviously be used, but I wonder what affect it will have on the use of the GPL. In essense, the GPL and UCITA are the same thing (yes, they are used in completely different ways, but at their base they are rules/laws used to govern what you can and can't do with software you acquire). If it's ruled that you can't have rules like the UCITA, then that seems like it would greatly impact the GPL and it's enforcement. It seems either you can't place such limitations on what users can do with software (ie distributing source code with software or not reverse engineering), or users are free to do whatever they want with their software once they get it, regardless of any licenses on it.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[mr]

>That would make it more cliquey, less open to interesting newbies and (worst) dominated by the no-life-outside-Slashdot otaku.

Signal 11 has had this theme, and I agree.
Moderation on slashdot has little to do with what you say, but more to do with if you say pro-linux or anti-microsoft stuff.

If I post as an AC, the post will get moderated 1-3. If I post as myself, no moderation.

Why? Because in the past I've responded to the poster and told them what I thought of there idea. And I've been a vocal supported on the BSD licence, as opposed to the pro-linux adjenda. (And yes, you are STILL wacked.)

This place is nothing but one big clique. And there is NO WAY to have moderation solve the clique problem.

There *IS* a way to solve the spammer problem:
1) Deny them the venue. Allow someone to post as much as they want, and, from the IP/browser they are at, the posts are there. The rest of us don't see the posts. (I can suggest #1 because I don't have to write the code to implement it)
2) Delete the spam.
3) Some of the slashdot population is willing to mederated down spam. Give people who want to do this the power to do this.

If [1-3] fails:

4) Track down the spammer and give 'em some Open Sores. A beating with the clue stick should result in some Open Sores.

Re:This sucks ass.

[mr]

You have the freedom to NOT use the products.

And, you have the freedom to write your own code that functions just like it.

This is a great oppertunity for OpenSource. OpenSource advocates can point at the UCITA and mention how, with OpenSource, you can not have the program shut down from outside vendors.

The OpenSource movement might as well take the lemon that UCITA is and make lemon-aide. Send letters to Micro$oft and point out how the heavy handedness of the UCITA will help move people and companies to OpenSource. Be sure to thank Microsoft and the rest of the supporters of the UCITA.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[JoeShmoe]

On the thread previous to this one (the Borland survey) there are over a hundred troll postings that were at the level of 1 because trolls were trolling from news accounts they created.

- JoeShmoe

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[JoeShmoe]

Karma has always been a situation where the rich get richer. If John Carmack posts anything, he is almost guaranteed a 5+ whether he wants it or not.

But I'm not convinced that it wouldn't even out right in the middle. Those people who have a high enough karma to start their posts at 4 or 5 better have something damn important to say or they will start getting marked down as boring or dull or unrelated or anything else. And if they know they don't have any 4 or 5 commentary to make, they will not say anything and gain no karma or mark themselves down to 1 or 2.

If you have things to say occationally, they will occationally get marked up to a higher level. And eventually you'll have a three digit karma. Some will get it faster, but it WONT be because they trolled.

And regarding -1, when I moderate...I browse at -1. I really don't see how any moderator could browse at anything but -1. But my point is that is a moderator has to stare at a post that has 1000 spam messages...he or she is going to skip it and not moderate anything at all. Then, no moderation gets done and all we can see is trolls.

- JoeShmoe

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[dingbat_hp]

General agreement, but I'd want less emphasis on old / voluminous / high karma posters being moderated up. That would make it more cliquey, less open to interesting newbies and (worst) dominated by the no-life-outside-Slashdot otaku.

How about more moderator points, definitely more often ? I'm always finding myself suprised by moderator status and often don't use them in time. Conversely, whenever I see something that deserves upping, I never have the points. How about points that die with time (as now), but leave 1 or 2 points remaining. That should stop troll hoarding, but still allow a reserve.

Re:Inaction in action

[dingbat_hp]

I'm concerned about "reposession" and the analogy between cutting off software and repo'ing cars.

I live in the UK, where it's maybe a little different, but we don't have widespread car repo going on. It's possible, but very complex, to arrange to have a bailiff seize any assets, either those unpaid for, or in settlement of another debt. My concern is that "reposessing" a computer licence is likely to involve pressing one button at Redmond and having Sam Tuttle's copy of Word go up in smoke -- no court order, no independent bailiff, no checks and balances.

Europe also has stringent (sic) laws against "logic bombing" software. Legal precedent is that companies who make software time-expire after 18 months, so as to enforce a 12 month renewable maintenance agreement, are on extremely shaky ground if they're not careful how they phrase the contract.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[guran]

Well, you just made me post instead of moderating in this (offtopic) thread...

You have a point (sadly). But your solution would not work. When I moderate, I browse at -1 (of course) I don't moderate down if I can help it since I rather spend my points pointing out good posts. I'm particulary happy to give a new post that first bonus that will get a newbie (which I btw still consider myself to be even after many posts and a decent karma) read by those who browse at 2.

How the heck can I find the gems when /. is filled with automated spamming? Why would anybody bother to filter the low point posts when 90% of them are pure trash? Moderation can deal with human trolling, but I (or anyone I guess) cannot keep up with a trollscript!!

The solution is not more human filtering, the solution must be a killfile to stop the autotrolls.

I wish I had the script ready, but...

[guran]

Yeah, I know. Saying "Killfile" is much easier that implementing a /. equivalent to it.

Logged in AC's is probably the way to go. Perhaps combined with a "user must wait some time after registration to post"-rule.

Hey how about this:

• AC posts require registration.
• The poster of a AC comment is logged internally
• Moderators (and possibly others) get the option of reporting a poster as a flooder.
• If somebody is reported as a flooder, it is up to the staff to terminate the account.
• After I report someone as a flooder, I don't see posts from that account. Therefore, if I'm moderating, I get the chance to concentrate on other posts.
• If an AC is reported as a flooder, that will not affect non-AC posts by the same person (and vice versa)

This way moderators would have a chance to deal with abuse in bulk. It would (as said) require logged in AC's but that seems like a small cost to keep the discussion going.

Comments anyone?

Infoworld is wrong. Here is what actually passed.

[Brett Glass]

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 277

Offered January 24, 2000
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study the
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.

----------

Patrons-- Baskerville, Christian, Crittenden, Harris, Kilgore, Melvin and Rhodes; Senator: Miller, Y.B.

----------

Referred to Committee on Rules

----------

WHEREAS, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has promulgated the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), and it is now available for consideration for adoption by the several states; and

WHEREAS, the UCITA is major legislation that would govern transactions of computer information, thereby significantly impacting all Virginians who use computers; and

WHEREAS, the UCITA presents a significant policy decision to be made by the General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth may be one of the first states to consider this major legislation and other states may be looking to the Commonwealth for guidance in considering the UCITA; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth is the leader in technology and relevant laws and it must be responsible in leading other states; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. The joint subcommittee shall be composed of twelve members, which shall include seven legislative members and five nonlegislative citizen members as follows: four members of the House of Delegates, to be appointed by the Speaker, one of whom shall be a member of the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Courts of Justice, and one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Corporations, Insurance and Banking; three members of the Senate, to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, one of whom shall be a member of the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, one of whom shall be a member of the Senate Committee on Courts of Justice, and one of whom shall be a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor; one representative of those who would be considered licensors under the UCITA and one representative who would be considered a licensee under the UCITA to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections; and one representative of consumer interests, one member with an expertise in intellectual properties, and one member from the academic legal community who is knowledgeable in the UCITA and the Uniform Commercial Code, to be appointed by the Speaker.

In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall review the UCITA and make a recommendation regarding the appropriateness of using the UCITA as the proper model to govern computer information transactions and shall make suggestions regarding alternatives or amendments to the UCITA that will assure that interests of both the licensors and licensees are adequately protected.

The direct costs of this study shall not exceed $13,500.

The Division of Legislative Services shall provide staff support for the study. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee, upon request.

The joint subcommittee shall complete its work in time to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 2001 Session of the General Assembly as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents.

Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee. The Committee may withhold expenditures or delay the period for the conduct of the study.

#

See http://leg1.state.va.us/c gi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+HJ277.

Gross errors such as the one InfoWorld made in its UCITA coverage were frequently introduced into my column during editing and then printed; I rarely had a chance to review the column and catch those mistakes. The editor I worked with there actually resented it when I complained about such errors being introduced. It is thus no surprise that InfoWorld got it wrong.

--Brett Glass

Careful: Misinformation above

[Brett Glass]

HB 499 is not UCITA; it is the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. It's a law allowing digital signatures. It's a good thing.

HB 561 is UCITA. It was passed by the House but then appears to have been dropped in favor of this resolution to study the issue.

--Brett Glass

I just contacted Yvonne B Miller's Office.

[lordmage]

Yep I registered my complaint on the Bill.

1. It would have helped if I had KNOWN the bill's number for the senate. Instead they will have to look it up.

2. The woman was shocked on the other side when I told her the ramifications of this bill if passed. She had no clue as to the fact I would be AGREEING to a licence I had never seen nor could see.

3. She mentioned the basic warrenties Act. Something to the effect that if something is defective when you purchase it you have the right to return it. Since every COMMERCIAL software product I own has bugs, does this mean I get to ignore this new bill?

4. I contacted the people we were told to contact to volunteer. They are SWAMPED and apparently for at least the house bill I was not contacted in time. Being busy like they are, they need I guess basic help!

I am a viginian on a warpath.

If anyone knows the bill's number in VA for the senate, let me know. I probably can get several other people to call in directly.

Let me know by repling to this with the bill number. User preferences is sweet that it tells you you were replied too.

I gotsta get back to work.

- A Virginian who is getting overridden.

My take on this

[hypergeek]

Kyle: Oh, my god! You've killed our consumers' rights!

Stan: You BASTARDS!

THIS IS OFF-TOPIC!!! MODERATE DOWN!!!

[mangu]

Also redundant, it's a repeat of what you put in the story about the Borland/Inprise survey, where it was off-topic as well!

But, on one thing I must agree with you, this moderation system has some gaping holes. That an off-topic redundant spam as you have sent can be moderated up to "+5, Insightful" twice proves that.

If you want so much to reform slashdot, if you don't want them to get any new users, if you think the old bunch who have been here for years are all the customers they and their advertisers need, why not send in a story about this? Why waste our precious bandwidth here?

Remember, this story is about UCITA. We are supposed to discuss a new law that has been approved by the Virginia state legislature. A law that is relevant and important for everyone who works with computers, which means almost eveyone living on Planet Earth today. I feel UCITA is far more relevant than any petty squabbles about a bunch of kids who try to find gaps in the system. Let's have each discussion on its relevant forum, please!

From the /. moderator guidelines: If you can't be deep, be funny

The UK and the Computer Misuse Act

[Lowther]

There are sections of legislation in the UK under the 'Computer Misuse Act' which may potentially clash with this legislation. If M$ (for instance) were to disable say SQL Server, preventing me from getting access to my data, they have technically breached the Computer Misuse Act in the UK.

I am not saying that this will prevent it happening in the UK, merely that there is scope for a feeding frenzy here once the lawyers get involved.

Re:Heres the constituents line

[parcel]

A friend and I (both of us live in Ashburn) have just created a website to try to get the general public involved:

http://adiemus.org/ucita.html

http://mason.gmu.edu/~cparson/ucita.html

(Both pages are the same)

Any editorial comments are welcome, send to cparson@megapipe.net... aside from that, tell your friends!

Hopefully we can get this nonsense thrown out.

Yes, AOL HQ is right down the street... I'm sure that has something to do with this (all the politicians practically creamed themselves when AOL moved in... ooh, we're SO technologically savvy, we have AOL in our county!) Also with AOL owning CNN and Microsoft owning NBC, its no surprise that this hasn't shown up on mass media.

folks, it's up to us.

The state of House Joint Resolution 277, etc.

[M-Nute]

Working in a law office in Arlington has its advantages. Anyone can back up this information on the bills by going to http://legis.state.va.us , and checking BILL STATUS on HJ277, SJ239, and SJ239S1. Basically, it goes as this: On 1/24, House Joint Resolution 277 was printed and referred to the Committee on Rules, who reviewed the proposed bill. On 2/11, the Committee voted UNANIMOUSLY, 17-0, to have the bill stricken from the docket. That means it was removed from consideration. No go. Taken down, shitcanned, out of the park, ejected, exiled, no longer applicable. Despite Infoworld's reports, UCITA has NOT passed into law, and if the Committee on Rules is any indication, won't for a while. ~Matt

Reverse UCITA

[Fygar Freen]

Counter Proposal: we as the technology industry (from Microsoft to FSF) should be thinking just the opposite of UCITA. More than ever we need to be openning data formats rather than clamping down. If we must legislate anything we should push that all data formats be submitted as RFC open standards. Imagine if all word processor, spreadsheet, scheduling, database, network protocols, etc. were avail. as open standards. People would gravitate to the best, most secure format and that format would evolve into a category killer just as open source competitors do. But even if you had an equal spilt, as sometimes happens, anyone could build both competing formats into their client.

The phenomenon that we see here is that applications then become what they really are, clients to the data.

The only "protection" technology needs is to make it so these open standard formats can't be "embraced and extended" by any single entity or client. Indeed, extending an open standard for personal gain should be criminal.

UCITA is like allowing only the Priests access to the Bible even though Gutenberg's press is in full opperation!

This is normal.

[Anonymous Coward]

No congresscritter wants to vote to support the warez kiddies. No matter what rights have to be tossed into the dumpster... these evil pirates and "hackers" must be stop and businesses protected.

This is the normal process.

The rights of the individual have always been protected by the courts, never by the legislature. Legislators do stupid things by nature. They are motivated by popular opinion, funding by lobby groups, or whatever will get them reelected to another term. And if people's freedom gets in the way of that, them fuck them. How important is joe hacker citizen against big business, congresscritter's own career, and the bulk of voters? We simply do not have the numbers to matter at all.

It's the judges and especially the supreme court justices with no special interests and opinion polls to worry about that protect out freedoms. This is exacly why the constitution appoints the latter to life terms. God help us if they should ever fail us though. because it is risky to have the most important protections deciced by a handful of justices. And do people even know these last defenders of freedom? Thomas, Souter, O'Connor, Renquist, etc.?

Re:This is a Very Bad Thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. That's the reason they have to pass it individually in all 50 states. So that the companies do not have to have different licenses conforming to the laws of each state.

We're working on it...

[Hemos]

the moderation system broke for a couple days - but is catching up now. We've got a couple things - please bear with for just a touch longer.

How to Abolish the UCITA in One Easy Lesson

[jd]

This will not only guarantee the abolition of the UCITA in less than five microseconds, but will also make the person who does this extremely rich.

Step 1: Advertise a brand-new program for handling taxes, personal finance, e-banking, secure e-commerce, speech recognition/synthesis and private e-mail.

Step 2: Write a EULA, which indemnifies you if the program fails to do anything at all, and which absolutely prohibits any reviews of the product without prior permission.

Step 3: Write a cruddy application which gives a basic spreadsheet and an e-mail form.

Step 4: SHRINK-WRAP the box, and make it clear on the outside that opening the box is accepting the terms of the EULA.

Step 5: Charge $150 a throw for the box. Under the UCITA, nobody is permitted to review the product, without permission, and this is doubly ensured by the EULA, preventing anyone online or in the press from commenting on the scam.

Step 6: Wait until the fur starts to fly. And it will! Something like this'll end up in court before the week is out.

Is this ethical? Nope, but there's nothing any court can do, without either placing VERY strict limits on the UCITA or (more likely) declaring it unlawful. Given the choice of allowing someone to publicly humiliate Corporate America, or re-writing a law, I'd put the bet on them getting the quill pens out.

Info

[Amphigory]

The Senate's phone number is 800-889-0229.

The bill is Senate bill 372.

Please call and oppose this! (You can only call if you live in Virginia). It took me less than 2 minutes to call.

--

Don't Whirl That Perl!

[Effugas]

There is nothing new about allowing a company to repossess something it has sold if the buyer fails to pay for it, May added. Electric companies and other utilities end service to people who do not pay their bills, and banks repossess cars if the buyer does not make loan payments, he noted.

A bank cannot repossess your car because you told your friends how high the interest rate was. If I'm not mistaken--and I may very well be, ask your lawyers(ka-ching!)--the moment I breach my contract with the software supplier, they can shut off my software.

I inform my superiors that the database performs only at 50% of the standard rate, in violation of anti-benchmarking clauses in the contract, I can come to work next day and find my database performing at 0%.

Think the story ends here? Oh my, our database is broken and our data is trapped. Tsk, tsk, no reverse engineering, says so right there in the click wrap. So no wading through the propietary database file system to recover your data, and nobody else gets to sell you a tool either--they're just as bound by the No Reverse Engineering clauses as you are.

Forget Don't Copy That Floppy. We're down to Don't Whirl That Perl.

How sad. All the poor schmucks were tryin' to do was be c00l with the e-crowd...

Will somebody please track down the four major candidates and find out what they think about corporations being able to censor the reactions of their customers, or remotely disable their wholly owned property?

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:Buh-bye US from the Global Software Economy

[Black Parrot]

> People from the US - WHERE do you get your politicians?

Big corporations buy them at whorehouses and donate them to the public.

--

The UCITA Compliant click-wrap license agreement

[Rhysling]

That the MPAA wants us all to agree to is here.

Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[DaveHowe]

1) People should get a rating based on the TIME they have been a Slashdot, not just this "karma". New members posts start at -1, no exceptions. After three months, they start at 0. After three more months, they start at 1. This means that if a troll wants to troll, he'll have to put in his dues for six months. If he then wants to blow it all on a single, grand, troll parade...fine. He can start all over.

1. I disagree - if a time-based limit is what you are after, you should consider making it on a per-article basis, as follows:
2. *NO* AC posts at all for the first ten minutes
3. *NO* AC replies directly to the article (root posts) for the first twenty minutes
4. New users are subject to AC rule for the first week of their account (and must make five posts not moderated down before they lose their Newbie status)

--

Hey! Moderator!

[Greg Merchan]

I'm probably sacrificing my karma for this, but the post to which I'm replying sure as hell ought to be higher than this one!

I think it should get points for being informative

Heres the consituents opinion line for both the Virgina House of Delegates and Virgina senate. (800) 889-0229

One thing to note is AOL headquarters is Dulles, VA right over there near ashburn.

and insiteful

Please all virginia voters please call and voice your opinion, Before the senate gets a chance to vote on this.

So instead of letting the big companies like AOL and they're lobbiers deciding this for us pleae let your legislator know.

Now I've been a good boy and reposted the information. Please don't waste points moderating me down, and instead moderate the other guy up. Thanks.

I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot

[JoeShmoe]

...unless this hole is closed and closed quickly.

For the past few days, the amount of moderation done has been practically non-existant. It's not just a case of moderation posts being wasted on trolls...I haven't seen very much positive moderation either.

CmdrTaco, if you have any desire to save Slashdot, here is what you MUST do:

1) People should get a rating based on the TIME they have been a Slashdot, not just this "karma". New members posts start at -1, no exceptions. After three months, they start at 0. After three more months, they start at 1. This means that if a troll wants to troll, he'll have to put in his dues for six months. If he then wants to blow it all on a single, grand, troll parade...fine. He can start all over.

2) Karma needs to weigh much, much more. People with karma over 50 should start posting at 2. People with karma over 100 should start posting at 3. People with karma over 200 should start posting at 4 and people with karma over 500 (if they exist) must be worth reading.

3) Each post takes exponentially longer to be posted to the system. First post takes one second to reach the forum. The next takes two seconds. The following takes four. Then eight, sixteen and so forth. In the end, if someone really wants to post more than 20 messages in a single day, they'll have to wait until tomorror for people to see them. That way these floods STOP.

4) More moderation. I'd much rather see a war of moderation than a war of trolls. Give anyone with karma over 100 permanent moderation status. The only way it gets revoked is if them make a posting, and then it is revoked for twenty-four hours (thought on that article permanently).

The fact is that there aren't enough moderators to keep the trolls in -1 land and put READABLE (I don't care if they suck at this point...so long as they aren't trolls) post at 3 or higher. 90% of the posts in the past few days have been 0 and maybe another 5% are the 1's and 2's that regular folks are awarded.

It has to stop.

- JoeShmoe

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Buh-bye US from the Global Software Economy

[MadKeithV]

Okay so I'm being deliberately virulent here, but the E.U. will not allow agreements like that in under ANY condition.

Over here we have a little saying that goes - "Customer is King". That means none of that ridiculous protection for companies selling stuff they know is shoddy.

Actually, I really don't get it.. Is Virginia one of the states also sueing Microsoft for Anti-Trust violations? If so, it just gets better and better.

People from the US - WHERE do you get your politicians? Actually I'm sure most of you reading this will be cringing at what the great mass of people is voting for in your country. I hope for your sake you get it turned around before they REALLY mess things up badly... Though they seem to be trying hard to do that as fast as possible.

Re:Your Rant

[NuclearArchaeologist]

Your faith in the supreem court is touching, but misguided. Do you really want to be governed by an apointed board? The power of the federal government, which controls more than 25% of the US GDP, is too great already. Concentrating more power in the hands of the already too powerful Judiciary will only increse the power of the already too powerful federal govenment.

Judicial legislation can be just as oppresive as any other kind of legislation, but it is always improper. Your rights are supposed to be protected by the constitution and bill of rights, which were created by the legislature! The interpretation of new laws against these documents by the supreme court is supposed to keep legislatures from oversteping their bounds. This is their proper role, and we should beware of expanding it.

That said, I'm not too worried about this. First, the courts can reasonbly frag the more sinister implications. Second, I'm moving away from comercial software as fast as I can, because certian (MICROSOFT) comercial software makers, already break their softare regularly.

Virginia does not intend for their personal computers to be searched and disabled at will by software manufacturers! Such things will never stand up.

People are not as stupid or evil as you think they are. If their box won't work, they will find another way to get things done. Microsoft will really kill itself if it goes around doing this.

Uniform rules for internet sales...That would be great if applied to vinyards.

_Everyone_ call

[Evro]

I believe it was Martin Luther King who said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," and so I believe we ALL have the right to call this phone number, not just Virginians.

On another note, how could they not have passed this bill? I mean, AOL is based there and I'm sure has its lackeys pushing it like crazy. And after all, Virginia is the dot-com capital of America! Apparently that means they cater to dot-com corporations and care little, if at all, for the rights of their own constituents.

Ahh, the beautiful stench of politics as usual. Don't we elect these people to DEFEND OUR RIGHTS??? Ugh, don't get me started, I will get into my gun-control mania again.

I noticed there is nothing regarding UCITA's passing on CNN.com (as of 9:30 am). I wonder if that's an order from Case himself...
___________________

This is a Very Bad Thing.

[Mister Attack]

IANAL, but I believe that now software companies can just establish an office in Virginia and claim that their shrinkwrap licenses are covered by Virginia state law. They can do this anywhere in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as one state passes UCITA, we're screwed.
--

Here are the Maryland UCITA Bills

[quasimoto]

Maryland House and Senate Bills - UCITA & Cable Access

For anyone who wishes to read the Maryland version of the Bills they can go here and grab the Rich Text Format (.RTF) version. I haven't HTML'd them 'cause WordPerfect does such ... oops no rant -- maybe I'll html them.

So, here is the index;

hb0018f.rtf --> Commercial Law - The Maryland Uniform Electronic Transactions Act

sb0003f.rtf --> senate version of the House Bill

hb0019f.rtf --> Maryland Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act

sb0142f.rtf --> senate version of the house bill

sb0505f.rtf --> Internet Consumers' Bill of Rights (cable access bill)

-d

sid=moderation

[KMSelf]

There is a "hidden" forum at sid=moderation on the topic of moderation. While useful, comments posted to it have the unfortunate tendency to disappear after time.

There are obviously several very broken things about /. which are defeating the moderation system. These include troll posts, the apparent inability to restrict nonsensical or repeated posts, and an serious shortage of moderation points to posts. With karma 44, I've had moderation privileges once this millenium -- prior to December, 1999, it seemed I had mod priv typically once or twice a week. Comments get caught in a vicious cycle of failing to be moderated up once an article topic has reached a hundred posts or more -- for meaningful use, I'm forced to read at score=1, score=2, or higher.

Repeating comments I've made (and have since slipped from) sid=moderation:

1. There need to be far more moderation points. The ratio of points to posts needs to increase at a rate greater than traffic.

2. Anonymous coward posting needs to be seriously rethought. CmdrTaco will insist on it being allowed. I'd propose a "Yale Wall" solution (See Lawrence Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, p79.

   Essentially, the idea is that AC posts would require vetting by at least one registered user. The user would face the karmic consequences of any moderation of the post, and would grant the AC post any karmic benefits: If the post is moderated up or down, the signer's karma is increased or reduced, and whatever default posting level the signer has is given to the post. This preserves anonymity while allowing a modicum of control over the AC process.

   To do this, there would have to be a seperate viewing field for unvetted AC posts. Once vetted, the posts would enter the main forum and be subject to moderation. Only one vetting would be required to transfer the post to the main board.

3. The existing karma/default score system is working fairly well. The main problems are flagrant abuse by a very small number of individuals (whoring points, then spamming), and AC posts. The first problem could be addressed by administrative karmic reduction for spammage. The AC problem would go away with the vetting system, a default score of "unmoderated", and ranked moderation (see below).

4. A distinction must be made between posts which have and have not yet been moderated, and a moderation filter must exist to allow viewing (and moderating) of previously unmoderated posts. It's simply too painful to prowel through posts looking for that which should be moderated, up or down. The best current option is to view newest first w/o threads. It's still a poor proxy.

5. Moderating and posting to a forum should be allowed. CmdrTaco doesn't like it. Fooey. Moderating your own posts should not be allowed. Abuse can be detected in M2.

6. Notification of current moderation status of a post should be given before moderation points are committed. It's often the case when moderating an active forum that several people have moderated the same post(s) simultaneously. A confirmation screen saying "this post is currently moderated at [score], continue?" should be given. Wasting points shooting down crap is plain stupid. Boosting a decent but not brilliant post to +5 is silly.

7. Better filtering options. Score based filters are limited. It should at least be possible to set a ceiling as well as a floor (show all posts between -1 and 1). Better yet would be to allow filtering out posts according to criterion. I'm annoyed frequently by amusing, but otherwise not very interesting posts, which are highly scored. They're often the highest scored in an article.

8. I'd like to see moderation transformed from a voting system to a rating system. Essentially, now, a moderator can score a post up or down, and cumulative score is what counts. IMO, taking a weighted average of point scores -- say -5 to +5 -- for a post, would be a useful system. The number of points which could be voted, both on a single post and within a single moderating session, could be tied to karma. This would allow a moderator to express mild to high approval or disapproval of a post. Some measure of interest or intensity could be derived from the number of ratings, as well as the aggregate (mean) rating, and an inference of controversiality from the standard deviation (for all you stats hounds out there).

There are other problems. Karma whoring, gullibility traps (posts written to look informative but actually false), etc. I believe that as other issues in the moderating system are dealt with, the magnitude of these issues will be diminished. Or they won't <g>. But there are bigger fish to fry first.

What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

Unanimous?

[Effugas]

Are you kidding me?

Not a single legislator dissented?

Not one?

Lemme get this straight. I'm sorry, this verges on the unprecedented:

A highly controversial bill with extremely distrubing implications against every single consumer, small business, and corporation in the country doesn't manage to get a single dissenter in the Virginia House?

Not one?

I don't buy it. I can't buy it. A resolution commemorating the life and work of Charles Schulz wouldn't pass unanimously, yet something that makes Virginia the battleground for hundreds of millions--if not billions--of dollars worth of lawsuits...

Oh. You've gotta be kidding me. You've seriously, truly, really gotta be fucking kidding me. Not even the worst trial lawyer would sink to *that*.

People, grass roots are great, but we need trees right now. Does your school use Samba? Does your company? Guess how long Samba gets to stay legal if UCITA passes?

Managers, do you want to be liable for asking your employees which database would serve your company better? Do you like reading unbiased reports? Maybe you don't. Maybe you're masochistic. Maybe you prefer the lose-lose scenario of years in court vs. solutions you've just been banned from knowing are inferior.

Unfortunately, that's just not your choice. As ever so many are happy to mention, a company's primary obligation is to its shareholders. You've gotta maximimize profit, right? Does UCITA help you to maximize profit? Or does UCITA expose you to a constant stream of risks from which only years of litigation is the possible relief?

Consumers gain nothing. Businesses gain nothing. Software companies get the right to shut down...everything, with the full force of the law behind them.

Managers, whose company is it anyway?

CEO's, ready for hackers to start using those backdoors that software companies are gonna be able to legally put in their software?

Lawyers, ready to start drafting feverish defenses? Treasurers, ready to go for broke?

Virginians, wake up. You're under attack. Under the flag of the geek, you're about to get bit hard by a rattlesnake. Now, you might be able to suck the poison out, but it might be a better idea to whip out a shotgun and give UCITA's tounge a few more forks.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Cease and Disist

[bug_hunter]

Dear Slashdot,
You have used our software in an attempt to encourage others to take a stand against UCITA, and therfore violate your license agreement. A signal shall be sent shortly to disable your software under our regulations.

Thankyou

Exaggeration will get you ignored

[werdna]

Tell them who you are, tell you're a constituent, tell them you oppose passage of UCITA because it will destroy consumer rights.

In case you haven't noticed, this strategy hasn't worked to stop DMCA, Copyright Extension or Dilution. It didn't work to stop the NCCUSL, and it won't likely stop UCITA.

Trying to oppose UCITA on the ground that it is the source of all evil, and devoid of all good will simply get you ignored. While such demagoguery may be a useful way to build up the negatives on issues all the population cares about, it isn't going to raise enough votes to scare a legislator who wants to have a "technology-friendly" state. This is particularly true in the face of an organized, well-monied, lobby of UCITA supporters.

If you *are* interested, you need to get out there with simple, rational and well-articulated amendments directed to what you feel are the worst points, and argue them with somewhat more substance and less sensationalism. To argue that UCITA will "destroy" all "consumer rights" invites a calm, rational rebuttal on the facts by the other side. In the face of specific amendments targeted at specific problems, it would be much harder to defend some of the places where UCITA overreaches.

This was an opportunity to make some changes. To have a think-in as to what changes are needed to actually make life better for the open source community. Instead, we took the role of "antis," and lost our place at the table, and will probably end up with UCITA in two or three dozen states, perhaps more, all with nothing else to show for it. Hopefully, the next time NCCUSL or the government shows an inclination to make wholesale changes to the laws most closely relating to what we do --if that happens again in our lifetime-- we'll be less silly about it.

With all due respect to the community, a call-in campaign to say that UCITA is all bad is probably the best way to assure that UCITA will ultimately pass exactly as drafted.

Moderate up: More detailed VA information

[BoLean]

Here is the contact info for the sponsoring senator:

Senator Stephen D. Newman (R) - Senate District 23

In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 305
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

email:snewman@inmind.com

Mailing address: General Assembly Building, Room 305 Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

Here are links to the bills :
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 277
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239

Member in charge of the study:

Delegate Viola O. Baskerville (D) - House District 71

In-session address: General Assembly Building, Room 525
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-1071

email: del_Baskerville@House.state.va.us

Mailing address:

P. O. Box 406
Richmond, Virginia 23218
(804) 698-1171

This is incorrect (and InfoWorld is not reputable)

[signe]

OK, If you actually bothered to do a little research at the VA state Senate site, you would have found that all that passed the House or Senate was a joint resolution to create a joint subcommittee to study the UCITA and its language. And of course that passed unanimously. All the legislators want to have more information on this, and a technical subcommittee is one of the best ways to get it. The bill was not passed. Not only that, but the report from the subcommittee isn't due until December 1, 2000. So it won't even be voted on until 2001.

Why did they do this? Because, as they say in the resolutions (which, by the way, is both HJ277 and SJ239), "the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding," among other reasons, which are listed in the resolution.

So all I say is shame on Slashdot, michael, Keith Kris, and those prominent people who posted such as Dan Kaminsky. Shame on you for creating yet more sensationalist journalism because you didn't bother to check your references. Any geek with half a brain knows that InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and the like are not very reputable sources.

-Todd

---

Inaction in action

[Agar]

This is really disturbing.

A law that has been universally (except by the sponsors, of course) derided as anti-consumer and potentially dangerous to the industry gets passed unanimously?

I honestly believe that there are a lot of people who assume that "someone else" will be the person that makes the call/writes the letter/publically takes a stand. Everyone looks at eachother, no one does anything, and the law passes.

Don't let this happen! If you need to know more, there's a very accessible and interesting series of articles on the topic by Ed Foster at InfoWorld -- look at the GripeLine column (just ignore Metcalfe, K?)

Seriously. Make a call. Make a difference.
------

Heres the constituents line

[bripeace]

Heres the consituents opinion line for both the Virgina House of Delegates and Virgina senate.
(800) 889-0229
Please all virginia voters please call and voice your opinion, Before the senate gets a chance to vote on this. One thing to note is AOL headquarters is Dulles, VA right over there near ashburn. So instead of letting the big companies like AOL and they're lobbiers deciding this for us pleae let your legislator know.

-Brian Peace