Slashdot Mirror
Fighting UCITA
On Oct. 1, UCITA will become law in Maryland (Virginia passed a version of UCITA too, but delayed the effective date of the law until July 1, 2001). Infoworld has an article about Iowa considering "bomb-shelter" legislation to protect Iowans from UCITA-based laws passed in other states, and offers a few helpful hints for software purchasers. My suggestion is this: don't buy software from any UCITA-state company, or any national company whose licensing says you are bound by the laws of a UCITA-state. There's simply no reason to take risks like that.
My suggestion is this: don't buy software from any UCITA-state company, or any national company whose licensing says you are bound by the laws of a UCITA-state. There's simply no reason to take risks like that.
Let me take that one farther. Don't _buy_ software. Support and use open source projects.
Is there anything that residents of VA or MD can do? Will buying software from a company in a state that has not passed UCITA protect us if the purchaser of the software lives in a state that has passed it?
The simple way to avoid falling victim to UCITA is don't buy software! Use Free Software that is covered by the GPL or some similar license (by similar license, I mean BSDish or Larry Wall's Artistic License).
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Nah, that won't work... I buy games.
Mind you, UCITA doesn't affect us foreigners in other countries...
BlackNova Traders
I guess Slashdot only cares about BAD news nowadays. What about a "Good job, Iowa!" for not only not passing UCITA, but actively trying to work against it?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Couldn't a UCITA base license keep you from knowing that it's UCITA based until it was too late?
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
..to fear Big Corporations. And Big Government. Because through them, comes Big Brother. Laws like this, or the DMCA are great examples. They are drafted by Big Corporations, given to Big (and Unresponsible) Government, who passes these laws as it is Big Corporations that is paying for campaign fees.
It's a great thing that this fair nation that the Founding Fathers made. It's a shame the people don't give a fuck. Passive electorates are the bane of democracy. If the electorates were active, this would never have become law. See where you get when you just think it'll fix itself in the courts?
If you could convince them to arrest you, you could take it up the courts as a protest...
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Can your IM do this?
Just buy on line form a Canadian company. Not only is the exchange good for you, you can still get the 128 bit crypto stuff.
When someone yells "Stop" or goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over.
Don't buy stuff from UCITA bound companies eh? Good luck! The advantages that using UCITA laws give are so great that we're going to be lucky if companies don't at least try to release their software under UCITA provisions. Are best bet is to hope that for comercial software some companies will recognise a market for non-UCITA software and provide for that market. But with the current state of the computer industry that seems unlikly. There just aren't that many software companies for critical stuff.
All the more reason to use OpenSource... Maybe this could end up being a big boost to OpenSource? Lets hope so...
see subj
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
That does seem to be part of the point of the thing, I agree.
What we need to start working toward is a "UCITA-Free" symbol that could be certified and awarded by something like the EFF, letting consumers know that no consumer-rights-destroying license provisions exist for the software.
Information wants to be free -- but informants want to be paid.
But there's something interesting about UCITA, the idea that someone can be held to a "clickwrap", or "shrinkwrap" when the usual contractual element of "meeting of minds" may in fact not be present.
Send a 6 year old into a s/w store to buy a copy of "Learning to Read v1.0". If they have the cash, the store will certainly sell the s/w, but did the kid read the shrinkwrap? What if (obvious in this hypothetical) they can't read?. Were they *legally competent* to agree to the terms? Can the store clerk make those determinations?
I suggest that many of us who operate web sites put up notices: "by entering this web site (beyond the main page) you agree ..."
If a "clickwrap" agreement can be made to stick, then stick it to them!. We have a lot more of the web than they do, they must agree to our terms to access it.
And our terms should be to make UCITA onerous, so that it's tossed out.
My understanding of the law is that you don't need to be here in Virginia, or up in Maryland, in order to distribute software using that license. So the mere presence of a company in this state, such as mine, really shouldn't be criteria for boycott. Otherwise, I'd have to boycott myself. :)
However, Michael's point regarding companies that say that you're bound to UCITA regulations should definitely be boycotted. Hell, boycott might be too weak of a word. I will not only boycott these products -- I will actively encourage others to stay the hell away from them.
But please, let us Virginians (and Marylanders) be. We don't like the law either!
-Waldo
The sooner the US has a software community instead of a software industry the better! I want free beer! :-) :-) The EPA would probably kick our asses for the hydrocarbon release though...
However, apart from the dangerous implications for commercial software, I'm worried about the effect on micro-programmers. I believe there was some question of liability if a programmer released software as "freeware" or some similarly badly-defined software. I'm pretty sure GPL is safe, but how many single-weekend programs have an agreement at all? People will stop releasing these often-useful programs if they have to go through the hassle of licensing each one.
If we're going to hold a demonstration, I vote we get 1000s of copies of boxed software and burn the shrinkwrap off them!
VA Linux is in California
If at first you don't UCITA, buy, buy again...
A brief discussion occured on the bill after its Maryland passage at TECHNOCRAT.NET. People might also be interested on what Del. Kumar Barve, chair of the House subcommitee that examined the bill, had to say:
I'm not saying that the Maryland law is perfect, just that you ought to know what your talking about before you express an opinion.
Bob Kopp
IANAL, but that sounds suspiciously like an infringement of states' rights. Much as I hate this law, I do not believe a state has a right to automatically assume jurisdiction of a case simply because the laws of the other state involved seem unfair.
Or does it? Someone comment, one way or the other...
- Software developers
- Every consumer advocacy organization that has looked at it
- Large software customers
- Librarians
- Other independent information content developers (writers, photographers)
- Entertainment industry
- Magazine and newspaper publishers
- Many lawyers and law professors
- UCITA has been sharply criticized by the United States' Federal Trade Commission.
erm...who is for it then?--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
That is no solution. The only reason I purchased a computer is so i could do tasks on it. I *need* to do tasks on it. I have to agree to licencing terms to do so(whether the licence is GPL, commercial, anal, BSD, whatever). I am not alone.
Would any move offshore to regain profits?
Why not write a virus that randomly adds the line "You agree to sell your soul" to anything that has a paragraph written in all caps on a computer? :)
The resulting explosion of religious people screaming murder would be more than enough political controversy to kill the bill.
The notion here where i am, Europe, is that all these "You just agree to these terms before installing" or whatever, are not in themselves LEGAL. ie, they can put all kinds of crap in there, it doesn't absolve them from the real law, nor does it put any additional burdens on you the clickee.
But who is reading this? Even in the US? Is it 1% of people who actually read those acres of mumbo jumbo. (Even Carmack in a post on slashdot indicated his belief that nobody really read that stuff). Can a company in good conscience claim they have a "deal" with their customers when said customers don't read it because they believe it is their property since they have payed money for it.
Some people then say, that you don't buy the program, you "license" it - that i also think is slightly suspect. Hell no, i don't license it - I BUY A COPY. Its mine - go away!
Hmm..i wonder if it would work with other products You don't buy a car, you license it.. and agree never to run a red light, speed or look at girls while in the car! (You break the rules they come and take it back)
Or the license agreement for this DVD says you must behave properly infront of the TV while you watch it, so no fondling the wife!
Hmmm, i wonder if there is a future in being a "i agree" clicker. Ie, Person A has shelled out hard earned cash for a new program, he then calls person B. Person B comes over, installs the program and click on the "I agree" button and leaves again. Person A now runs the program without having agreed to anything, eh? *G*
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I'm about 15 miles from Iowa.
With the Iowa law, would I have any protection by making software purchases in Iowa (and saving my receipt, you can just bet!)? Or would I need to have an address in Iowa for my protection?
One advantage to the first situation is that retailers in surrounding states would then have some (perhaps slight, but non-zero) pressure to have such 'bomb shelter' legislation in their own states. Retailers just hate losing customers. And legislatures hate losing "revenue" to surrounding states. This is a mobile society. Being 60 miles from the state border would be a mere nuisance, not an insurmountable problem.
I'm just one person. Insignificant. But the cumulative effect of many people can be noticeable. And then there's the real attention-getter: "Our (software) purchasing department is in Iowa" or "moving to Iowa". This could easily happen with some companies. Who benefits? Iowa. Folks may joke about the state, but passing this law would be one (more) smart move on Iowa's part.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
Hypothetically, if every single Slashdot user boycotts UCITA software, most likely no one will give a damn. We're a huge crowd of people, but in the software market we are insignificant. The answer to "What can we do?" is not "Don't buy UCITA software."
What we need to do is find an effective means of persuading the rest of the software purchasing community, and yes, that means clueless consumers, that UCITA software is evil. I hate to quote from Mein Kampf here, but we need simple slogans that simple people can understand that we can get people to repeat over and over again.
You can say what you want about Iowa (Idiots Out Wandering Around, etc. etc. etc) but we do have a pretty forward thinking state government.
Iowa has the Iowa Communications Network, a state-owned OC-192 fiber that is primarily used for distance learning, but also hooks all the small, country schools into the internet. I believe that it is the largest state owned fiber-optic network in the US. (Oklahoma has something like it, but not on as big a scale).
Some time back there was an aritcle about the CAVE. Well, Dr. Carolina Cruz-Neira, one of the founding "mothers" if you will, of the CAVE is now at Iowa State University, preparing for the opening of the next generation of CAVE-like technologies - The C6 .
Maybe we have nothing to do but pick corn and dink with computers, but I sure love this state!
I just sent an email with the story link and some impacts to some key legislators who know me, expressing my viewpoint on this.
If everyone does this, slashdotting their city, county, and state reps (remember, city and county are elected and buy software), you too can make a difference! I know that by talking directly with some of the State Senators and State Reps, we kept UCITA from being passed in WA state.
Fight the good fight! They can disable our software remotely, but they can't take our Freedom!
Will in Seattle
I don't expect the UCITA laws to last very long.
We mostly portray UCITA as software companies vs. consumers. But when it comes down to it, it's a way for big software companies to shaft other companies, including smaller software companies.
Further, my limited experience with jury duty leads me to believe that the vast majority of lawsuits in the USA are suits between two companies, rather than a suit between a consumer and a company.
The net result is that a few very powerful software companies have set themselves up to shaft all but the largest companies in the state (who will exempt themselves by buying under a non-shrinkwrap contract). Small businesses cannot afford to operate under the conditions imposed by UCITA, and it happens that small businesses have enormous political clout in the USA.
I suspect that we'll soon see some suits against UCITA companies from small businesses, at which point either the UCITA will be found unconstitutional and struck down, or else the small businesses will be told that the law requires them to bend over and learn to enjoy it, at which point a sort of grass roots movement with much more clout than we geeks have will come into play, and state legislators will earn a spot in Guiness for their astonishing speed at backpedaling.
States are smart to want to appeal to big high tech industries. But what will they gain if the rest of their businesses move to Iowa? Someone in Iowa deserves kudos for figuring this out.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Cool idea! Let's all buy our mail order or electronic purchases of computer software from Iowa companies!
Will in Seattle
Normally, I would not support such a call for illegal activity. (And yes, regardless of moral/ethical justifications, it would be illegal to hack into a company's computers to disable their software [unless of course you're the software author and you have your UCITA license BS on your side].) However, given the long and impressive list of groups opposed to UCITA, and the fact that states are passing this biased legislation anyway, it is so incredibly obvious that our elected officials have passed the point of even caring about public accountability that something must be done!
You can bet that after a few high profile lawsuits by big guns like GM most software companies would think twice about backdoor timebombs and the like. And if a part of the US Government suddenly ground to halt because their software was "accidentally" disabled? Holy cow, I can't imagine that company being allowed to do business in the United States after that. (I can imagine the ATF/FBI/NSA/etc raiding the executives' homes looking for pr0n and the like -- nothing like embarassing the execs in public to make a point.)
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Specifically it violates the Commerce Clause.
A transaction between parties in 2 states is by definition commerce and therefore falls squarely in the jurisdiction of Congress. For more on this, search for "Commerce" in this article on tactics against spam.
Cheers,
Ben
PS IANAL and all that.
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
...isn't the idea of calling something "Uniform" and adopting a national standard to follow the standard and expect that every state which adopts the uniform standard use the same meaning for "UCITA"? That way companies can know they are dealing with the same law everywhere.
If Maryland adopted a better version and then gave it a name which implies it follows a bad standard, doesn't that leave them vulnerable to justifiable confusion by those who might assume they were actually adopting the standard they were pretending to adopt?
How about a "UCITA-free" sticker on software found to be free of absurd legal incumbrances?
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
What if we start sticking our necks out, and provide warranties with our software? Consumers still tend to choose products with good warranties over those that basically say "it's not my fault".
If companies can't sell UCITA protected products then it will become a dead issue.
Oh, I know the arguments: "We can't control the so-and-so...", "The users might blah blah blah...". I'm sure those same arguments came up when warranties were suggested for just about any industry. But, they did it anyway, and now a good warranty is necessary to do business.
It's time for the change.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
OK, major concept here:
...
If you have a website with click licensing which states (in 1 point font) that by clicking the consumer hereby revokes all current and future software purchases to the GPL licensing, couldn't we virally hitchhike onto commercial software?
Under UCITA it would be legal. We just hide the terms on a page on the website and do a Gotcha! after the fact. Then all their software that isn't GPL would be GPL
Will in Seattle
If anybody's looking for a good day to protest UCITA (or even out-of-control intellectual property rights in general), I would recommend May Day, on May 1, 2000. Chances are, if you're near a relatively large city, they're going to be having a May Day celebration.
The focus of May Day is going to be anti-globalisation/anti-corporate rule, with an emphasis on labor rights. UCITA ties in with this because most of these bills are meant to help out a few corporate interests despite screwing people (I refuse to call people "consumers").
I, personally, would love to see an anti-copyright contingent at one of the mayday celebrations.
Here's a couple links for you:
http://www.mayday2k.org - Has a list of which cities have celebrations planned, as well as links to the history of May Day and contact information.
http://mayday.indymedia.org - The same autonomous collective that brought you independant coverage of the Seattle and Washington D.C. anti-globalization protests will be helping to cover May Day around the world.
Even if you're not interested in protesting, I'd recommend you check May Day out anyways, since it should be just an all around fun time.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
As a programmer for a small company in Maryland, I feel like I'm in an awkward position. I will still continue to write the best bug free code I can. I will not be negligent. I will fix bugs as I find them, or as they are reported to me. My customers are very valueable to me. Just because my state passed a dumb law, does not mean the code I write is crap, or that it will become crap. We were incorperated in '85, in Maryland. I don't really feel like moving the company and all of its employees because of the dumb law and the bad press. Like you, I really hope this thing gets repealed!
Go up to the blurb. Cut the part that says "Good job, Iowa". Paste it in a response to this comment.
I know the word "Iowa" appears in the blurb. My point is "why have we only heard about states that support UCITA and nothing about those opposed". And why, when it is mentioned, is it only in passing?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Hey! This is great news! I just love when the US passes laws that help bolster the software industry here in Canada. Like your crypto laws. They were the best thing that ever happened to cryptography software. I can run down the estreet and buy 4092 byte encryption software and the best you can do is 128 bit! I could sure use the work programming for all these new Canadian startups that are going to take advantage of this new law! Wow, just think of all the new websites this will spawn! US customers accepted! Buy your software here and avoid stupid laws! Get real support for your product, buy it in Canada! he he
Later . . . . . . WebBug
"live with it or change it. You Slashheads freak out when someone violates the GPL, but you will gladly flaunt this law. A bunch of phonies."
If the law is unjust, the right thing to do is break the law.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
AOL is in VA. Would that mean that Netscape is UCITA software?
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
"By Friday afternoon [today], state officials had laid varying plans to present their opinions. Attorney General Tom Miller of Iowa, who has spoken throughout the case on behalf of several states and who advocates breaking up the company, scheduled a 5:15 p.m. EDT news conference. Meanwhile, Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. of Maryland, who has publicly expressed doubts about breaking up the company, planned to discuss a separate opinion around 5 p.m. EDT."
Bob Kopp posts an article (#35) detailing the facts of the Maryland UCITA bill.
The Maryland UCITA bill incorporates virtually every good suggestion made by consumer advocacy groups, so much so, in fact, that I hope that every state passes a law like theirs.BR>
Slashdotters still have their panties in a wad about boycotting UCITA software, or in extreme cases just blatantly pirating it.
Hmmm...is it just me, or does no one here ever read other posts anymore before giving out their half-assed opinions? I'm wondering if half the people calling for a boycott even know what UCITA's effects are, other than their "online w4r3z BuDd13z" saying it's the spawn of Satan.
Before anyone else passes judgement, why don't you find out what Virginia's actual UCITA text is, so at least you can make a judgement that's not completely ignorant.
telnet://bbs.ufies.org
Trade Wars Lives
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
A community was formed to fight DiVX and was successful in its goal to protect consumers. If a similar organization could be made to educate people and prevent them from buying UCITA software, we could put stop to this kind of insane law making. Perhaps a Ribbon campaign to start with, to get the word out and drum up some support. If we can defeat the corporations anti-consumerism (DiVX) the government anti-consumerism (UCITA) should be easy.
Tyranny = Government choosing how much power to give the people.
This seems to be rather interesting, since it's based in Virginia - home of both UUNet & AOL. So how does AOL feel about their home state passing a law making their open source based Netscape liable? Particulary when they're still handing out AOL disks with IE on them. Just how long does that damn contract hold for?
perhaps we should just blame Canada
- passion
...on a regular enough basis over the last 14 years, I know that legistlation follows the cash in this state. Delegate Kumar Barve isn't fooling anyone who happens to have dealt with legislators on topics dealing with childbirth choice and other matters where personal rights have been trampled into the mud by powerful special interests.
UTICA is going to screw over the people of Maryland and frankly, I'll join the boycott. Someone put up the website with the software list. I'll tell my family what not to buy and start raising awareness so that we can vote the schmucks out of office.
UTICA can't limit my right to free speech, nor can it prevent me from voting for sensible representatives in November. At least not until the morons in Annapolis make amendments to regulate -that- too.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Why?
Simple: UCITA enables all sorts of nasty remote-disable provisions in software. The idea is that a vendor should be able to remotely turn off your software if they want to. As you'd probably expect, many US software vendors are excited about this sort of thing. And if they install those features in their products for the US market, they'll probably leave them in for all versions of their product.
That affects foreign software users, because those same "backdoors" will probably be in YOUR copy of the software as well.
. . . which doesn't mean that a US software company will remotely turn off the software used by a French customer.
. . . but a French cracker might.
I have no
For one, the Maryland UCITA only has protections for consumers. Which means that I, as a business user, am screwed. Now, I'm sure that lots of you folks don't care about business users (what with us being the spawn of Satan and all that), but we do pay your salaries. If we get screwed, we're taking you down with us.
Second, a goodly portion of the Maryland UCITA protections hinge on the flaky definition of "mass-market". Now, what the heck is that? Some legal folks have said that, possibly, no transaction conducted over the Internet would qualify as "mass-market" for the purposes of UCITA.
Certainly it's not the end of the world. But just because you saw protections in the Maryland UCITA, that doesn't mean that those protections will actually protect you in any way.
I have no
What is more likely is that vendors will include backdoors and time bombs for anti-piracy or other purposes. Should a customer discover that the remote disabling capability is there -- perhaps after suffering a disaster due to it being triggered accidentally -- UCITA protects the vendor from liability.
If this is true I am going to write a small shareware program and at end of the 10 day trail it will demand 1 BILLION DOLLARS and if it is not paid it will "lock" the user from their computer and dial up to a sex chat line in Brazil for $12398.75 per minute to their phone line (convently enough I own the chat line)
But lets think about this (assuming it just isn't FUD) Micro..uh.. Microhard sells a text edtior
user installs text edtior
text editor ask user for serial number
user enters the serial number on the box
text editor says it is the wrong serial number
user learns that they mistyped the serial number (had caps lock on)
To late, text editor deletes entire hard drive and then plays a wav "You Suck user"
user has lost all data and his feelings hurt
judge says "you suck user, that is legal for them to do"
user switches to GNU/Linux
user is happy...
Ahh so this is a good idea after all, we could use more GNU/Linux users in our quest for Total World Domination, so this works quite well.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Just because my state's legislature has sold out to Microsoft doesn't mean that our software companies have.
Eh...
Next time I see him, I intend to discuss UCITA laws (and the anti-consumer behavior of the software giants) and nudge him towards LINUX and open source tools. Not because of the Free Beer (he can afford to buy software), and not because of the stability (he doesn't push his system very hard, and rarely crashes), but because software that makes _all_ source code available to the customer is subjected to peer review and scrutiny. If Red Hat or Debian were to put a "back door" in one of their distros, it would probably be found and posted to places like /. in short order. M$, Apple, and other closed-source companies don't have that kind of accountability (although props to Apple for putting part of OS X out there... not all of what I want to see but a good first step).
I also live near Iowa, and plan on using this news to pressure my legislators (and a certain former pro wrestler in the governor's mansion) to model a similar bomb-shelter law after Iowa's.
So... thank you, Iowa. I might hate driving through your state (nothing to see but corn for miles), but you obviously have some leaders with a Clue.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
With all the obvious opposition to laws such as the UCITA and the DMCA so evident in places like Slashdot, it's a wonder to me that people haven't stormed the Washington Mall demanding that their rights cease to be trampled on. Perhaps the reason for it is the same that made the Clinton Impeachment trial so much of a non-issue. America's economy is better than it's ever been, and no law maker wants to take responsibility for a crash by making the wrong decision.
In this case, Maryland wants to keep software companies happy and ensure that their economic success continues even more. Consumers are apathetic to a blatant loss of their rights because they too are blinded by economic boom. Americans have become content with the status quo, and see little reason to protest "business as usual" in their state capitals when everything has so far been working out so well.
The only way the American people will become concerned enough about this and other loss of rights will be for them to lose their contentment and realize what's actually going on. Until then, these grevious errors in our lawmakers' judgement will continue to go relatively unopposed by the general public.
Here it is straight from the source.
Laws in the USA DO affect "foreigners in other countries".
Just ask the teen (or his father) who created the decss program. He is a citizen of (and resides in) a country that specifically allows reverse engineering for compatibility by their law. And even then he was arrested, and his equipment confiscated at the behest of a United States corporation, for violation of a United States Law.
Even if the case is eventually dropped, incarceration (for any amount of time), and the disruption of the family livelihood is a BIG EFFECT!
We all should be concerned and active.
The fact that no two snowflakes are identical should tell you something important about God's will.
The good news is that this merely sets the contractual defaults for shrink-wrap licenses (which have mostly been validated without UCITA). Software companies with some integrity, or at least within some reach of market forces, will opt out of the more harmful defaults. The bad news is, most people don't pay enough attention to the licenses on the theory that we are pretty much stuck with whatever the software companies want to write, and the more draconian the licenses get, the less we care.
The real focus should be education. Small companies and government entities MUST begin paying very close attention to licenses, and ignore the fine print at their peril. Sadly, these over-reaching licenses also tend to encourage a flout-law attitude among society at large. Can't say I'm surprised on either count. We have the best law money can buy! :-)
And yes, this is one of the best things to happen to open source in a long time. They have just vastly increased the cost of using shrink-wrap software. Talk about cost of ownership! Think of all those attorneys getting paid to read these @#$% licenses. Commercial folks should start adhering to one standardized license or another. They choose UCITA (generally, not some states bastardization) and yes, we boycott. Better yet, spend a few minutes scaring your PHB!
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
...if I'm reading the text of the law properly. UCITA makes licences holding the author/provider harmless INVALID.
The implication is that the GPL and many other licences are INVALID in these states, and the AUTHOR can be held liable for the software!
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Anybody get really scared anytime any form of government starts making laws. It seems as though most laws are half-assed. How can these people really pass laws on technology. It took the US Government years upon years and a couple hundred million dollars to figure out that M$ was using unfair business practices. Now our local governments belive they can legislate software. I never knew there was a problem with current software purchase laws. Oh well gotta love the government fsck it all up, then fix the fsck up.
[see subject]
Well, if the 'bomb-shelter' law passes here, I won't have to worry about it. I guess there are some advantages to being in a small state where the legislators actualy give a damn... Its to bad the artical's slashdoted and I won't be able to read exactly what's going on....
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Most software license agreements I know of explicitly state the governing law (and exclusions) associated with the agreement. So, depending on this statement, you may have some protection by purchasing software created in a non-UCITA state.
You need to consider it on a license-by-license basis. For example, the SGI license I'm looking at right now stipulates:
This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the law of the State of California, excluding its choice of law rules.
The excluding its choice of law rules is their out for allowing them to choose which the law, your state or California, that's the most favorable to SGI. So, in the case of SGI's license, a resident of a UCITA state can expect to have their license restrictions and remedies interpretted relative to the UCITA restrictions (which are presumably more favorable to SGI).
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
The GPL does not "Modify" an implied warranty or disclaimer, it simply states that there is no warranty. To modify would be to change it after the release.
I can say Nike sucks without violating their trademark. I can also write a newspaper article that says Nike spams, and sell that. Similarly, I can write a list of people that spam, including Nike, and sell that. It doesn't try to change the meaning of Nike, so it's not a trademark violation.
My spirit guides inform me that this law is the speediest method yet for the bloatware companies to self-destruct.
As long as our pals in the Open Source movement still move, the greed of the commercial software thugs will only help our cause.
I cannot stress the importance of the continued growth or warez... Free your mind, folks.
Blessings,
Master Bait
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Actually, the Constitution indicates that interstate commerce can be regulated by Congress, but is certainly not required to do so in any given instance.
Furthermore, a judgement levied by a state court of one state against an individual residing in another state may not be enforceable, particularly if the laws of the state of residence provides a shield. That's why extradition agreements apply to state criminal cases.
However, the sticky point has to do with interstate commerce and shrink-wrapped license agreements, which imply contractural agreements between parties. Failure to honor contracts between parties in different states is clearly an interstate commerce issue.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
I fail to see how your comment relates to its parent, and am therefore modding you down as "Offtopic". In the future, please post your comments to relevant threads. If there does not exist a thread in which your comment is relevant, create a new thread. (See up there, by the "Threshold"? There's a "Reply" button. It makes a new thread).
Sincerely,
Your moderator for the evening.
Goodbye +1 bonus... this is completely off-topic.
I hate driving through Chicago, nothing but glass and steel and concrete for miles (and hours, depending on traffic)!
The real interesting sights, natural formations, etc., are in eastern Iowa. But if you can't get off I-80 to go looking around, consider taking US 6 instead. It's a much more interesting drive, since you get to see actual towns every so often...then again, if you're driving 90, you won't be in Iowa long anyway. :)
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
I cannot understand how can US of A be so persistent in driving software development beyond its borders!
:)
With laws that are so harmful to the users, I feel many companies will simply move to countries that don't suffer from the idiocy of DMCA, UCITA, and encryption export regulations. Maybe we should take a hint from THGTTG and build a giant spaceship, board all lawyers into it, and fire it into an unknown direction
Maybe then we could get down to some decent hacking...
Some clever software company (Black Helmet Software) with good lawyers needs to write a software package called "Vote Getter 2000" (or something like that). The marketing blurbs need to say that this is the best software since pork barrels for ensuring the electability of politicians.
The EULA must say the following:
1: The user agrees to pay $5000 a month forever. Once the user accepts the license, this maintenance fee cannot be terminated, reduced, or renegotiated. If the end user dies, his estate will continue to pay. Forever.
2: The end user must not say anything negative about this software to anyone. In fact, the end user must hype the software to everyone he knows.
3: The end user has no recourse if the software fails to function as advertised. (this means that the "software" can actually be a copy of Spacewar for the PDP-1.)
4: The end user agrees to vote according to the the software owner's instructions.
5: etc. etc. with every over-the-top licensing clause they can get away with.
Then they need to get at least one person to buy the software and click on the EULA (Which Black Helmet conveniently displays in yellow-on-white extra-tiny text). Then whenever that person fails to comply with one of the EULA clauses, Black Helmet needs to sue them under the UCITA. The resulting publicity and court case will effectively torpedo the UCITA in short order.
Remember, for this to work, the politicians need to be *personally* targetted to the fullest extent of the UCITA. As long as it's only their subjects^Wconstituents being targetted, they'll just listen to the software companies that are lining their pockets.
Geez. Fifteen years and we still haven't taken over the world.
And hey, when all is said and done, if people despise the provisions, they'll demand better. Perhaps open source. And that's where this gets interesting -- the software industry UCITA push is more anti-piracy. If people don't like the terms, where will they turn for software?
At least you'll never hear that Alan Cox accidentally turned off every copy of linux in the world -- I wouldn't trust certain companies to not make that mistake.
RMS wrote a paper on why we must fight UCITA. He writes that free software cannot disclaim warranty because its license is not a shrinkwrap license.
I do see a way around this: the first time a user runs the program (during the install phase, or when it's creating it's .ini file or dot-folder), present the "ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY" section of the GNU GPL and add "In using this software, you agree to so-and-so clause of the GNU GPL; if you do not agree, uninstall this software."
Will I retire or break 10K?
Emigrate to a state that isn't completely run by big software interests.
... Microsoft .... which is our largest company.
...
You mean like Washington State? We don't have UCITA, and I've got a lot of State Senators and State Reps lined up on the Technology and Commerce committees looking out for it, but we have a teensy company called
But, we also value privacy and small business, so maybe that's why it's not even made it through one committee here
Will in Seattle
-Militant Elf (A PFY for a BOFH)
(remove the sos from the UIOWA address for deliverable flames)
I don't particularly like UCITA myself. I'm not strongly opposed to the Maryland version, in the same way that I am to the original version. I think the primary reason Maryland decided to implement UCITA this year was because the General Assembly Leadership felt it was necessary to attract software companies as well as No. VA; I tend to doubt it will have this effect.
Nevertheless, it is not a valid conclusion that anybody who supports UCITA is either a self-serving megacorp, a moron or a crook. I don't like all the leadership in Annapolis, but I know a fair number of General Assembly members myself, and all the members I know honestly want to do what's best for the constituencies.
You aren't going to get anywhere in trying to win legislators on to your side if you assume that the only reason they disagree with you is because they've been bought out.
Bob Kopp
As I browse this bill, one thing seems to occur to me. At many points along the way, that bill was changed, so that motion pictures were not excluded from the law, whereas a sound recording, musical work, or phonorecord still does not have the law apply to them. Lobbying anyone?
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
you need to find a copy of degps.c
this will break the encryption on your P III's GPS Unit.
Then you will be able to run any software regardless of Location codes.
Way off topic, but may be of intrest to those of you who live in/near Iowa. In iowa, we have this little known "right"... the right to speed. If the speed limit is 65, you can go 75 without much worry. Why you ask? Because if the cop writes you up at 75 in a 65 (or 65 in a 55) or any 10 over the limit or less... (8 over, 6 over...) its a NON-MOVING violation. This means its like a seat belt fine, or a parking ticket. 11 over is bad news though... but cops rarely write an 11 over. Why? because they know they'll get a call from the state/county/city and will have to talk to a judge when you dispute it. Always dispute anything 10+ or over, you wont regret it. Just another reason why Iowa rocks, even if you're trying to fly through at the speed of light. (besides the ICN.... my ethernet Inet access is great too...) Oh, for a 10 over the limit, your ticket will most likely be $40... if you get stopped at all. Also, US 30 is a great road if you want a more scenic travel through Iowa. Imagine what a Beowulf cluster of Iowa's would do. Heck, we'd have a president that could think and a government that wouldn't suck! I also agree with the click agreement idea... if only we could make it work for MP3's as well....
the gpl might need to be ammended to say something like: this software my not be used in any place that doesn't allow the waiving of the author's liability. That way all they're unix boxen wont be able to run gpl'ed sw and stuff will be hell for them ;)
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
It means death for fractal diversity and therefore calling a halt to evolution.
Also, being born in Iowa, I just wanted to point out that Iowa has been accused of being one of the least "diverse" states in the US. If counted as a separate country it has one of the highest standards of academic excellence in the world(although that holds for most of the northern midwest breadbasket states). Iowa's "lack of diversity" is exactly the sort of thing that is required for fractal diversity to exist.
States Rights keeps "the laboratory of the states" evolving fresh insights into human nature and human potential.
It is possible to increase the popular conception of "diversity" by infecting yourself with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, so be careful which kind of "diversity" you promote.
Seastead this.
Who buys software? I can get everything I want from the net. I'm a Virginian but I have to admit we are probably the most ass-backwards state in the country for everything. We're the largest state without a professional sports franchise. We are one of the worst at protecting the environment and we never know what the weathers going to be like.
BTW, looks like it's passed both the House and Senate and is ready for the Gov's signature.
From the Iowa General Assembly web site:
A transaction that is subject to a computer information contract which provides that the contract is to be interpreted pursuant to the laws of a state that has enacted the uniform computer information transactions Act, as proposed by the national conference of commissioners on uniform state laws, or any substantially similar law, is null and void and the contract shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of this state if at least one party to the contract is a resident or has its principal place of business located in this state.
For purposes of this subsection, a "computer information contract" means a contract that would be governed by the uniform computer information transactions Act or substantially similar law as enacted in the state of residence of the other person to the contract if that state's law were applied to the contract.
It says so explicitly in the bill (see my note below). After all, you're not agreeing to the license when you purchase the product; you're agreeing to it when you load it and click the "yes" button.
It is perfectly within the rights of the state of Iowa to pass laws that affect people (and companies) within its jurisdiction. For example, say that I purchased a license for a faulty program, and I went to an Iowa court to sue the company that authored the program. In this case it's the business of no other state but Iowa.
Were the company to sue me under the terms of the license, I could tell the court (in whatever state) that I'm a citizen of Iowa, the contract was agreed to in the state of Iowa and is subject to its laws, and the law in Iowa is yadda yadda yadda. The case could then be appealed to a Federal court (as they have jurisdiction over "controversies...between citizens of different states"). In that case, the court would merely be balancing the rights of the state of Iowa versus the other state.
Regarding Congress and interstate commerce, this is something that has been strictly a state issue (as most contract disputes are). If the federal government would get involved at all, it would be the courts that would get involved (as mentioned earlier).
This is more an issue of contract law. A federal court would probably find that it does not unduly burden interstate commerce, and it provides a legitimate local benefit, so it would pass constitutional muster.
If it's at all helpful, just think of those warranty notices that state that your rights under the warranty may vary depending on the state where you live.
Imagine what would happen if users could sue software makers for faulty code.
"It crashed. It cost me time. It cost me money. I want my lost money and time back. Plus punitive damages for mental anguish."
Imagine software makers having to produce erroer free code or face a lawsuit. Sorta like what aircraft or car companies have to do.
One lawsuit against Microsoft about faulty code would sink this law.
GPL does not depend on shrinkwrap licenses at all. It does not restrict how one may 'use' or even copy an (unmodified) program. So thus, it does not depend on the pseudolegal idea of shrinkwrap contracts, unlike most commercial software.
A program distributed under the GPL gives you additional rights in COPYING that are normally forbidden by copyright law. It lets one distribute a program distributed under the GPL in an unmodified form.
The GPL does not take 'ownership' of any patches. If you patch a GPL program, the patches are yours. What you cannot do is to distribute the patched program. IE: you can license your patches under whatever license you want, but you cannot distribute the PATCHED program (the one that includes code you did NOT write.) without conforming to the terms of the GPL.
If you think about this, this is like an artist who says ``you can take my paintings and do anything you want, except to modify them. If you want to distribute modified copies, you can't remove my name from it and you have to send me $10 and a free sample.'' Here, the artist grants the explicit right to copy, but reserves the right to distribute modified version. This is all under copyright law. UCITA doesn't affect this transaction.
So, the GPL is something [that when applied to source code] grants you additional rights you would not otherwise have had. Shrinkwrap 'contracts', on the other hand, take away rights that are normally granted by law.
UCITA does not alter or affect GPL license in any fashion, other than potentially make it illegal to reverse-engineer code to see if it is illegally including GPL software.
netscape is under the mozilla public license and NOT the GPL. its a shrinkwrap license (although not a closed source one) and since its released by a company it actually benefits from the UCITA.
The United States Congress in fact grants federal charters to corporations. Do a search on "corporation" at http://thomas.loc.gov/ for some examples. 'Course, corporations much more typically get charters from individual states (and sometimes they get a charter from the Feds and from a state).
The UCITA as enacted in Maryland provides, in sections 21-401 et seq., for five warranties:
21-401: implied warranty of noninterference with the licensee's enjoyment of the licensed information and of noninfringement of third party copyrights, patent rights, or other rights;
21-402: express warranties created by advertising claims, samples, and the like; this is essentially a truth in advertising provision;
21-403: implied warranty of merchantability of a computer program;
21-404: implied warranty of accuracy of informational content;
21-405: implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and of system integration.
The implied warranty in 21-401 can be disclaimed, in accordance with subsection 21-401 (D), with conspicuous language such as "THERE IS NO WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE INFORMATION OR AGAINST INFRINGEMENT."
Section 21-406 provides the conditions for disclaiming the warranties in sections 21-402 through 21-405. Here are the shoals that providers of free software need to steer around. Subsections (A) through (G) provide language that may be used to disclaim the warranties. Subsections (H) through (J), which are present only in the Maryland version, bar the disclaimer of the warranties of merchantability (21-403) and fitness (21-405) in "consumer contracts."
Sections (H) through (J) are the killers; but there's a safe harbor. Subsection (K) provides that "The provisions of [sections] 21-403 and 21-405 do not apply to...an information/computer program provided for no fee, unless [it] is provided with the sale/lease of goods, services, or another information/program." So the creator of free-as-in-beer software need not worry about 21-403 and 21-405.
Furthermore, 21-803(A)(1) provides that "an agreement may provide for remedies...in substitution for those provided in this title and may limit or alter the damages recoverable, such as by...limiting remedies to returning or delivering copies and repayment of the contract fee." This clause, which is present in the unmodified UCITA, may be the salvation of free software in UCITA states.
Here, then, are my proposals to modify free software licenses such as the GPL:
Include language such as "THERE IS NO WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE INFORMATION OR AGAINST INFRINGEMENT," as provided in 21-401;
To cover the other implied warranties insofar as they apply to licenses that are not "consumer contracts", include the language given in 21-406(B)(2): "EXCEPT FOR EXPRESS WARRANTIES STATED IN THIS CONTRACT, IF ANY, THIS `INFORMATION'/`COMPUTER PROGRAM' IS PROVIDED WITH ALL FAULTS, AND THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY, AND EFFORT IS WITH THE USER" (the GPL already has similar language);
Include a provision that any damages arising from breach of express or implied warranty be limited to refund of the purchase price, if any.
--
So many "first post" idjits...so few moderator points.... | Delenda est Windoze
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
The focus of May Day is going to be anti globalisation/anti-corporate rule, with an emphasis on labor rights. UCITA ties in with this because most of these bills are meant to help out a few corporate interests despite screwing people (I refuse to call people "consumers").
Sounds like something Michael Moore would be very interested in. (For those of you who don't know who he is, he has long been against large corporations and their practices among other things - perhaps you've seen his film Roger and me.)
There is a mailing-list setup over there, gosh I don't think I could think of a better target audience to discuss something like this and help raise awareness on this serious and important issue.
Fuck Ajit Pai
...at the price of supporting a government that sucks. It's the same reason why we have so many talented "foreigners" (the ones that aren't spies or plants, anyway). Not that a U.S. governemnt at any level is that much better nowadays, but if their actions gall you enough, take your mind and your pay (and associated tax contributions) with you. Think of all the numbers of citizens of a country that are decended from people who immigrated because their original governments sucked.
Problem is, in the U.S, we individuals are just cows for milking. So I don't think moving to another state would help.
OK. I might have had the location wrong, but still this is to prove a point, it is not offtopic! You're saying, don't buy software from UCITA states. I can't help that my legislature decided to screw us over, but it doesn't mean that a software company in my state is trying to too.
Eh...
Also not flamebait, I was saying that VA Linux doesn't hit me as a group trying to screw its users over. Quite frankly, you should read the comments before moderating.
Eh...
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Can your IM do this?