Slashdot Mirror
UCITA Debates Trudge Onward
prockcore writes: "CNet is running a story
on a debate involving proposed changes to the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA). Changes include altering Opt-in/Opt-out rules, removing limits on public criticism, removing some limits on reverse engineering, among others."
Hmm, it's about time that legislators actually started thinking when dealing with legislation like this. If they work hard enough, they might even be able to dilude the efforts of RIAA and MPAA enough that they'll get their law, but it will be a law without teeth. Then when they push for bigger legislation we'll be able to stop them cold because we'll have grounds to say "you already have your law. what more do you want?" I see this dilluding of their efforts by congress as a good thing.
The majority of the 50 states do not have significant technology industries and so might be willing to overturn UCITA which would benefit computer users. Unfortunately it is Congress which passed UCITA in the first place. Congress is composed of individuals who are well paid by businesses in general. UCITA is in the interest of companies, who will pay or refuse to pay politicians who would otherwise repeal UCITA.
It might have been a good idea to leave the UCITA alone to be passed. Once passed, it can be thrown out in its entirety on Free Speech violations, by allowing the prohibition of public speech. This way, we'll be rid of the whole UCITA instead of parts of it like some people want...
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
The System works???? Well probably not but I was wondering if this has anything to do with all the bitching that went on here last week about this law. It would be nice to think that letters to congress-persons from /.ers actually had some real tangible affect. But its probably just a coincidence :p
You report, Slashdot decides
Prevueing you're poast ownly hellps iff ewe no how two spel inn teh furst plase
from the article:
"Public Criticism: Free-speech advocates complained that UCITA let software makers prohibit public criticism of their products. A new section says that any provision limiting criticism rights is not enforceable, according to NCCUSL."
Between this and the Patriot act, the new Homeland Security plans, and the limiting of F.O.I.A. during the "War on Terrorism", I am really starting to wonder what the first amendmend really means anymore.
Please please support the ACLU and the EFF. And if you should happen to decide you want to be a Libertarian, that would be good as well.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's just another industry scam to assume control.
Ask yourself just WHAT valuable product or service they will provide in exchange. Also ask if they have the capacity to deliver.
Congress passes copyright law, the states pass contract law. Contract law is what the EULA deals with. A state can easily declare a MS EULA non-enforceable in its borders if it violates state law.
Didn't the DMCA have some provisions that said it wasn't supposed to hurt interoperability?
We see just how much a provision like that really means when even a Norwegian teenager can't write code to interoperate with an established MPAA data format...
If, like me, you've never heard of UCITA and are looking to form your own opinion, a summary is available here:
summary of UCITA
Taco excluded Delaware from the flag icon, you know.
then it won't matter what your license says since you won't actually control your computer anymore.
"removing limits on public criticism,"
How can they limit public criticism? Isn't that a serious violation of the first amendment?
BG
There is nothing a license SHOULD prohibit that currently existing law does not already prohibit.
The whole POINT of a software license was originally to keep people from making illegal copies...hence the 'book' licenses of yore.
Interestingly, copyright law ALREADY prohibits that. If I sold a piece of software with no license agreement, and someone copied it and distributed it over the Internet for no charge, I could still sue them for copyright infringement. The existence (or lack thereof) of a software license does not change this basic fact.
Now, look at today's software licenses. The original point has been lost, and they are now used as chains with which to bind those who purchase software. (GPL excluded, of course.)
The fact that the UCITA is being amended, and not completely thrown out, shows that people are, as always, missing the forest for the trees.
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
Try this: Go to a busy intersection in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Wear a low-cut dress (trust me, this will work regardless of gender). Start passing out leaflets saying the government is corrupt, and should abdicate, and that people should be allowed to do/act/say/pray as they please.
You will have many years to Reflect on how things might have played out differently if you'd pushed your pamphlets in, say, New York City.
That is what the first amendment means anymore.
FlashFXP
Not only does this closed source call-home program get huge amounts of attention making all of us wonder if "Charles DeWeese the information thief" is 1) selling your information to marketeers, 2) pretending he can increase profits by threatening, as reported in some cases, paying customers with BSA actions and lawsuits or 3) trojaning your system for other nefarious activities the nature of which you will never be aware because he provides neither source or debugging symbols, and the binary is stripped. One thing is for sure. Be it here on BetaNews, or on Slashdot, or on download.com.com, there is more than a few people calling into question why FlashFXP does what it does, and what is it doing. I would recommend the use of WinPCAP, WinDUMP, and ethereal, along with the free for personal use application firewall, Kerio Personal Firewall (software with nothing to hide, such as KPF, is often free for personal use, and others, like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSSL (a technology probably stolen by DeWeese and used illegally in FFXP) and Linux/GNU to name a few. With scary legislation in the US empowering copyright holders to DDOS your P2P networks, "root" your boxes in order to delete copyrighted content, and to make circumventing the mechanism by which an MP3 prevents the playing of an MP3 without a digital signature a felony, you can not trust software which calls home in an undocumented, undesirable way. This is the inroad by which these technology fascists will infect your computer with government sanctioned Trojaning devices. FlashFXP, when purchased legitimately, forces your to divulge HUGE amounts of information about yourself. You cant use cash and anonymously buy "shrink." Not only did I buy FFXP, but I excercised my right to fair use on more than one machine, the closed source binary was never run concurrently on more than one CPU at a time, yet my key got blacklisted. I have always been fond of OpenSource, but this and the EULAs for Windows Media Player, which also does various call home undocumented behavior, make not using OpenSource suicidal if you want a life where the government doesn't control and monitor your every keypress. Best of luck in the brave new world, if we continue to support fascists such as Charles DeWeese in his never-ending pursuit to force you to be tithed for non-Novel software which is built upon the stolen intellectual property of others, and prioritized. This is by no means a call for legislated digital communism, but it certainly calls into question the value of something that is not transferable, the seller has not liability of the actions of, the right to fair use is forfeit, and they law claims they copyright holder can root your computer in order to enforce copyright. Software like this I should be paid to use! Not pay for it! Be careful. He has stolen from the public domain technology to implement this secure technology, SSL, then he uses it to hide from you the true nature of his communications with home-base, as he calls home and Jon.Ashkrofts your information. I'm glad I use SmartFTP and NCFTP and run KPF as a start in the line of defense against a Orwellian cabal of software and I.P.
Is that a combination of delude and dilute?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Sure, things are worse in other places. That does not, in any way, diminish the loos of fundimental freedoms here in the US. You can say that someone with two broken legs is in more pain than someone with only one broken leg. But that doesn't stop the one broken leg from hurting you.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
-1, Misinformed
You know these guys aren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier when they booked this conference in Tucson, Arizona in the middle of the fscking summer, and smack dab in the middle of their local monsoon season to boot. Can't be anything more conducive to negotiating a delicate compromise than being locked in a room that's108 degrees, 94 percent humidity, and the power's off because of a lightning strike.
I guess we can hope they'll all strangle each other before the week is out.
UCITA Smacked by DoS
SCO (noun.)- A Slimy Corporate Ogre. Often seeks free money.
While we're at it, why don't we let them annex the Sudetenland. That ought to appease them enough that they'll never ask for more...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
There is nothing a license SHOULD prohibit that currently existing law does not already prohibit. The whole POINT of a software license was originally to keep people from making illegal copies...hence the 'book' licenses of yore.
I am not a legal expert, nor do I know very much about copyright and things like that, but...
IMHO, the thoughts and ideas that are behind copyright and the idea of 'intellectual property' have become outdated. In the era of digital information it seems to me that any kind of claim to the property of some kind of (digital) information, be it a program or a document, is very hard to inforce. We see, both in music and software industry, that it becomes very difficult to prevent people from making 'illegal' copies.
But then, any law that cannot be reinforced, should be reconsidered, not? So would it not be time to conceive of a new kind of intellectual property, and maybe let go of the idea of copyright ? Personally, I think legislation on copyright and intellectual property will make place for something entirely new within a few decades. We have seen how major companies struggle to prevent illegal copying, mostly without result. I would not be surprised if some old structures were to break down and make place for a totally new kind of legislation.
My point being, why are they still trying to make new laws (with many flaws, that everyone can see) , when it is quite clear that those laws will not withstand the tide of technological advance?
You are a complete imbecile, if you believe encyphering the content of a DVD prevents anyone from making verbatim bit-for-bit copies of the DVD, illegally. One encyphered bit image looks like any other, and it's possible (as has been demostrated by China) to burn 10,000 copies of "Titanic" on DVD, without every unscrambling the content.
The only thing DeCSS permits that is not already possible is decoding the data on non-approved players, whether they are software players on Linux or players which would otherwise not play the DVD because of region coding.
The first translates into a larger market. The second translates into the loss of the ability to implicitly impose export tarrifs through differential pricing in international markets.
For your information, it is unconstitutional to impose export tarrifs.
did i read that right, or is it just the 40-mins-before-the-day-ends-yips?
I am a troller for the county
And I troll the main discussions
Searching in the crap
For another overload
I hear you ranting in the posts,
I can hear you through the whine
And the Serial Troller
Is still on the line
Emacs sucks and always will; vi rules and always will
The primary purpose of a software license is to thwart first use law, where an original purchaser of a product is permitted to dispose of that product in any way they see fit to do so.
During the original "video revolution", there were a number of cases of "piracy" which had to be dismissed because when you bought a video, you *owned* it, and the copies were made with the permission, tacit or otherwise, of the *owner* of the video.
Licensing permits a publisher to prohibit first use, and therefore control the after market. The current ASCAP and RIAA noise against "The Wherehouse", "Graywhale", and other stores whose business is the sale of used CDs is based on the idea of license, and the non-transferrability of the license, once granted.
It's really telling that the referenced article notes that one of the ammendments to UCITA tries to reestablish implied warrantees on "material defects", when in fact the product itself is immaterial, leaving you just as screwed from "software with known defects" as before.
-- Terry
"The fact that the UCITA is being amended, and not completely thrown out, shows that people are, as always, missing the forest for the trees."
Yesterday, I got into an argument with my boss. And I felt that he was wrong, and I made it clear to him in no uncertain terms that only an idiot would believe what he believed. Of course, he's not about to admit he's an idiot -- and at that point, he was not going to admit he's wrong, either.
In politics, as in life, it is VERY important to allow people to save face. If people do not have a way they can exit gracefully from their current position, you will never convince them to change their point of view.
UCITA will never die, but it can be altered to be something that doesn't look even remotely like what it was intended to be. And that may be the only way we can keep from getting what we don't want while allowing the people who have made the mistake of backing it to save face. They get to look good, we get what we want, and everyone (but Microsoft) is happy.
It's an easy mistake for people to make, to look at UCITA and think it's a good thing. Most people don't have time to concern themselves with these things, either in favor or against it. If we penalize people for making this mistake, people are less likely to come to an agreement with us. The people backing UCITA simply forgot to consider GPL'ed code; THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO LEGITIMIZE THE GPL!!!
Most of the people backing UCITA are NOT interested in destroying the GPL. If we can add clauses to UCITA that DO legitimize it, then not only do we not have to worry about UCITA, but more importantly, we'll have a legal means for defending the GPL -- we won't have to hold our breath every time a commercial app steals GPL'ed source without publishing full source; instead, we can rest confident in the knowledge that UCITA is our ally, and that it will help defend our GPL'ed software from those who would steal it!
So, I feel that rather than destroying UCITA, our aim should be to alter it to meet our own ends. The GPL will only gain legitimacy if we do it right, and the people who support UCITA now will become GPL supporters as well.
>> In politics, as in life, it is VERY important to allow people to save face. If people do not have a
>> way they can exit gracefully from their current position, you will never convince them to change
>> their point of view.
What's wrong with "In light of this new information, I see that I was mistaken"?
I use it all the time when I realize I screwed up.
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
vi thas the thost theatures and my homothexual parthner hasth altho decided to makesth our homothexual webpagthe ustheing onleeth vi.
Join the ACLU if you think this stuff is bullshit... I joined with a monthly contribution of $10. I never know it's gone. I figure I vote with my dollars when I buy a Pepsi or a pair of Nike's, I'd better vote for the good guys with at least a few bucks a month...
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
Ah... the sound of one vote being counted twice.
I thought it was bullshit and clicked somewhere else. No need to join the ACLU because they'le do that same to you after then done turning the people they were scheduled to hate into jailbirds.
It isn't my place to correct other people. And it isn't other people's business to correct eachother also. You Christians make me sick.
My rep is goatse. To contact him, just look in your mirror today.
lzanagi smacked by wife's strap-on horsecock
Well current UCITA causes you to be forced to offer a certain level of support with the software. Which GPL software simply can't do, making unsupported GPL illigal. But I digress.
Here's a good thing:
11. Amendment # 11: Section 410 (new)
Add the following new section:
SECTION 410. NO IMPLIED WARRANTIES FOR FREE COMPUTER PROGRAM. The warranties under Sections 401 and 403 apply to a computer program only if the licensor intends to make a profit from the distribution of the copy of the program or acts generally for commercial gain derived from controlling use of the program or making, modifying, or redistributing copies of the program.
You are right about one thing though when you are trying to bring someone around to another way of thinking or change their mind about something, then it's important stroke their ego and give them an opportunity to change their mind gracefully, but when the decision is made, and the mistakes are law, getting off gracefully is out the window!
Good things never end "eum" they end in "MANIA" or "teria"
The liense you have is an implied license.
If you look at the back of the CD case (usually it's the back of the case), you will see a copyright statement with the phrase "All Rights Reserved." in fine print.
If you could get RIAA to sue you, you could probably argue the legality of them selling you something and then claiming a seperation between the artifact itself and the rights to manipulate the digital contents embodied in the artifact (on the basis of the embodiment itself).
All I can say, since they are permitting you to do what you would be fighting to be able to do, is "good luck getting them to sue you to provide a test case". Unless you are a store that's large enough to be visible and small enough to be unable to defend yourself properly, and are selling used CDs, then RIAA is probably not going to help you out with challenging it.
-- Terry
UCITA (as submitted to the states two or so years ago, and as enacted in at least VA and MD) currently allows software makers to prohibit criticism.
The quote you cite is saying that this reading of UCITA's vague and loose language will specifically prohibit that outcome.
In other words, they're finally going to get it right (at least partially).
Crazy people!
Sik em USENIX etc. =P
Pixels keep you awake!
The flag icon for Slashdot's 'United States' section is missing its first stripe - the stripe that represents Delaware, the first state admitted to the Union. While a simple oversight could be forgiven, it should be known from here on out that Slashdot is in fact aware of the missing stripe, and even worse, refuses to do anything about it!
This vulgar flag desecration and rabid anti-Delawarism must be put to a stop. Let the Slashdot crew know that we will not accept a knowingly mutilated flag or the insinuation that Delawarians deserve to be cut out of the union. I ask you, what has Delaware done to deserve this insolence, this wanton disregard, this bigotry?
This intentional disregard of a vital national symbol is unpatriotic. Why, the flippant remarks CmdrTaco made about our flag border on terrorism! I urge you to join the protest in each 'United States' story. Sacrifice your karma for your country by pointing out this injustice. Let's all work together to get our flag back. Can you give your country any less?
A new section "expressly clarifies the applicability of other law to provide appropriate remedies for cases where known material defects are undisclosed," according to NCCUSL.
This has to be a part that Microsoft is going to fight to their last breath. We know MS sits on top of undisclosed security faults, fixing them at their leisure, and this would allow anyone hacked with an exploit known but not fixed by MS to sue MS.
if we only license the contents of cds and dvds why do all the adverts tell us that "Now YOU can buy MiB on DVD or VHS"
Shouldn't they really say, "Now you can buy a DVD or VHS tape containing a licenced copy of MiB"
This is either misleading advertising or an explicit admission that you defacto own a non-excusive copy of the film?
The changes to UCITA are all very well-reasoned and good responses to the criticism that has dogged it since it was first proposed.
However, it does not remove the worst offense of UCITA, which is the imposition of the shrink-wrap license on the unsuspecting purchasers of software. Nowhere in the existing NCCUSL is there any support for this outrageous abuse of power by the so-called "intellectual property" industry. The imposition of a shrink-wrap license is just too much. They did see fit to throw in the fact that UCITA now gives consumers a clear way to opt-out and get their money back if they feel the restrictions are too heinous, but the fact remains that this is still an attempt to impose a contract on someone who never signed up for the terms.
Your assertion that this is an imposition of export tariffs is incorrect - "tariffs" (per dictionary.com) are fees imposed by GOVERNNENTS on imported or exported goods. Since the US Government is not collecting the money generated by this differential licensing scheme, there is no tariff.
The Constitution is silent about whether businesses can self-impose any kind of export fees.
Sean
UCITA cannot be "got right", because it's fundamentally flawed. The whole principal - you buy something, and then you get to read the contract you are now "legally" bound by, just isn't acceptable. And what is more, there is no current provision in UCITA to prevent the vendor changing the terms of the contract, after the sale, unilaterally.
If you buy a book (a real, made of paper, honest to goodness book), it states what rights you have regarding ownership of the book and the copy of the contents of the book. Nothing else. Why is that? It's because you bought the book - you paid in advance (one time payment), for goods received. You didn't sign a contract licensing you the non-transferable use of the book; and guess what - you didn't with the software you bought at the store either.
I like the quote from the UCITA guy McCabe about the supporters getting what they wanted. Will someone please hit him with a clue stick - what they wanted is something no one else is allowed to have, and for good reasons. If someone told me I could sell stuff to people, and make up the terms of the sale/contract afterwards, I'd want it too.
...the topic was the enforceability of covenants against criticizing the vendor. The original poster misinterpreted the quote regarding that specific aspect of UCITA. While your whining about post-sale disclosure of terms may have merit, that issue pre-dates UCITA, as many states have been enforcing shrink-wrap agreements for a long time now (regardless of UCITA). Your point about books shows your lack of understanding of the current intellectual property regime. Finally, when I said "...(at least partially)." I meant to suggest that UCITA is still a flawed and ambiguous piece of uniform state law (but not for any of the reasons that you cite). Suffice it to say that you've only added to the confusion (including your own).
UCITA is like bad meat. Just trimming off the green and fuzzy parts might get some suckers to buy it, but it's still going to make you ill if you swallow it. It needs to be scrapped entirely, not modified.
It's potentially uniform state law. Two state have enacted it, and several have anti-UCITA statutes. So for the several states that have been enforcing them there seem to be an equal number against them. The whole issue with UCITA is shrink wrap versus first sale - and the jury is still out across most of the country.
With the existing UCITA, there's nothing to stop a vendor claiming your first born, let alone your right to complain - if we have to enumerate what they can't claim as part of their shrink wrap the law will never be as we'll still be writing the exclusions come doomsday. This is why the constitution/ammendments defines what the govenment can do, not what it can't. So yes, not allowing criticizing the vendor is finally the right thing to do, but given the way this is playing out, there will always be another.
Not quite.
Most software licenses proclaim that they're contracts, you must agree to the contract (and waive rights granted you under copyright law) if you wish to use the software.
The GPL is a copyright license. As such, it cannot take away any rights granted under copyright law. It only gives additional rights, but only under certain terms. If you do not agree to the terms, you do not get those additional rights.. However, if you do not agree to the terms, copyright law itself prevents you from abusing it.
Ergo, GPL is utterly unaffected by UCITA. UCITA's primary feature is that it gives much more legal weight to 'shrinkwrap contracts' that attempt to remove rights.
People like Robert Rubin wouldn't be appointed Treasury Secretary.