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."
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.