Slashdot Mirror
Comments To FTC On UCITA Due Soon
Luyseyal writes "Comments to the FTC regarding the Warranty Protection for High-Tech Products and Services forum are due by September 11. This was originally mentioned here on Slashdot in June. I've submitted my 2 cents to the FTC on UCITA. Have you?"
1. Be polite. The last thing we need is for representatives' mailboxes to overflow with hundreds of YOU SUCK FOR VOTING FOR UCITA!!! messages.
:)
2. Speling counts (pun intended). We want to present the impression of responsible, concerned people who are worried about how this law may affect them. a bunch of peoplz riting like this wil get no responses. We don't want to make the impression that the opposition consists only of crackers and 14-year-olds.
3. Almost without a doubt, someone will post an example letter showing the correct way of showing your opposition. Use this, but don't copy it word for word. Hundreds of identical letters will inevitably be dismissed as a campaign. Be unique and your voice will count.
4. State the facts. Using plain english, explain why this bill is bad. No technical terms, no hyperbole, and no distortion of the facts. We have enough evidence that there is no need to make something up, and the negative results from that could be devastating.
5. And again, be polite. I've said it once before but I'm saying it again, in order to get it thoroughly drilled into people's heads. I cannot stress this enough.
thanks harmless
bzrp
I met with Senator Emily Couric along with two other folks from the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council on June 6th. I posted a report to the peacefire-technical list afterwards. Here's what I wrote, verbatim:
From: Waldo L. Jaquith <waldo@waldo.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2000 3:59 PM
To: peacefire-technical@iain.com
Subject: Results of Meeting With Senator Emily Couric Re: UCITA
I thought you'd be interested to know how my meeting with VA Senator Emily Couric went. I sat down with her and Josh Chernila of the VPTC and Colin Learmonth from BNSI and talked for about an hour this afternoon.
Essentially, Emily was wholly unfamiliar with UCITA. This is not a criticism -- she has 3,000 bills put before her every year. This is a fairly esoteric one, although it obviously impacts all of us strongly.
She'd done her homework the previous night, and had a thick packet of pages she'd printed out from various UCITA-related websites. We explained to her some of UCITA's impacts, but tried to keep things simple. Our message was basic: UCITA makes digital contracts binding while offering no real limitations as to what the contents of that contract can be. It forces consumers to become attorneys. Almost everything else that UCITA does is a by-product of that portion of UCITA.
Another important message to get across is that UCITA is not an incentive for software companies to move to Virginia. They can take advantage of UCITA from any state, possible other countries, if they specify that in the contract.
Those two main points (bad for consumers and businesses, not beneficial to Virginia) were the ones worth driving home. Although you and I may live and breathe OS software, that's not a useful topic when talking to a senator. (In fact, it's confusing.)
Emily felt strongly, at the end of our meeting, that UCITA is bad for consumers. She suggested that we get more people to talk to their representatives, and suggested that we start some sort of an awareness campaign to get people in Central Virginia, and even beyond, to know more about what UCITA could do.
She's right: that would be the most effective path. It also happens to be the one that requires the most work. She promised to keep her eyes open for UCITA-related news and bills, and asked that we keep her informed. But her conclusion was telling: UCITA isn't going anywhere. No matter what we do, it's not going to go away. We need to assemble a list of amendments that can be introduced as a bill to modify the way that UCITA works. Complaining that we don't want to have our computer hijacked by Microsoft works on a publicity front, but it doesn't get far in the legal world.
I'm hoping that the VPTC will adopt this project, because I know that I don't have the energy or the time to make this happen. Now that the geeks of the world are opposed to UCITA, we have to get businesses and everyday Virginians. It'll be a lot of work, but I think that we can pull it off.
Best,
Waldo
-------------------
I quote:
7. What developments are underway by private or public entities at the international, national, state, or local levels that would have an impact on consumers's rights in the context of transactions involving software or other computer information products and services?
a. How would the proposed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) affect consumers?
In other words, ONE part of this (7a, out of 16) is requesting comments of UCITA.
If your comment only talks on of subquestion, then it's worth is 'obviously' less than one that address most of the points they will comments on.
READ the article. (That goes for Taco too)
I haven't really followed UCITA much farther than knowing that it would bolster clickwrap licences, which alone is enough to make me detest it.
Can anybody post links to a good summary of what's wrong with the law? I'm looking for bullet-points, not a novel.
1. VISIBILITY OF WARRANTY MARKINGS
[1.1] Hidden disclaimers of warranty have been a widespread problem in the computer software industry. It has become almost a standard business practice to conceal such disclaimers to the greatest extent permissable by law, and in many cases, further. Usually, warranty terms are not disclosed on the outside of packaging, and disclosure is sometimes deferred until after the software is actually installed. The facts in this area are beyond dispute. The question is what should be required by law.
[1.2] The FTC has dealt with this issue before, in the used car arena. It would be appropriate to apply many of the labelling standards of the FTC's Used Car Rule to software packaging. Placement on the outside of consumer packaging should be required. The large type and black color requirements of the Used Car Rule should be required for at least the words "AS-IS" or "LIMITED WARRANTY". Such high prominience of the markings is needed to establish clearly to consumers that simple, clear, understandable warranty rules do apply to software. Failure to apply the required marking should of course imply a full warranty as defined in the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.
[1.3] Used cars have borne large, highly visible warranty markings since 1985, and this has not seriously impacted the used car industry. The FTC, in 1995 re-examination of the used car rule, chose to retain the Rule by a 5-0 vote. The auto industry has generally accepted the rule and the minor costs involved. Thus, objections from the computer software industry that such labelling requirements are unreasonable should be viewed as self-serving and disregarded.
[1.4] Rather than mandating warranties, this marking requirement makes it a consumer choice whether to buy software with reasonable warranties or products marked "AS-IS". It simply makes it an informed choice. This is consistent with the aims and history of Magnusson-Moss and with FTC policy in other areas.
2. MASS-MARKET SOFTWARE IS "GOODS IN COMMERCE"
[2.1] The software industry has tried to evade the usual regulations on goods in commerce by claiming that software is something else. In reference to the Commission's question 13A, "Is it appropriate that software be treated as a "consumer product" subject to the Act?", the answer is "Of course it is." Any other answer is a clear attempt to evade the legal obligations of a manufacturer. The FTC should act to clarify this point. Software has to be brought squarely under Magnusson-Moss, assuming it's not there already. It's time for the industry to grow up and accept the obligations of a consumer-products industry.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
John Nagle
Animats
Menlo Park, California
For most products, either the vendor warrents that it was built by craftsmen to specification, or the persons building it meet minimal standards of education and professionalism. Software is neither, which is a shame, because people's lives and money often do depend on the correct operation of the program. The software industry has become mature enough that some sort of warrenty protection is now appropriate.