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.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
One item that opened my eyes when I testified against this legislation in 2001 before a committe of the Oregon Legislature, was that the insurance industry was set against it, as well as a number of industries who buy software. And the insurance industry has members in each of the 50 states.
Think of it as big corporation vs. big corporations over profits.
> Unfortunately it is Congress which passed UCITA in the first place.
Err, no: this model legislation, written by a group of lawyers. It is then submitted to each of the 50 states to adopt, modify, or ignore as they see fit. Because it is a ``model", drafted by legal ``experts", most state legislatures are inclined to adopt it unless the local users (both individual & business) raise a stink about it.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
even a complete dumbass script kiddie...can't write code to interoperate with an established MPAA data format
Point was:
He was a teenager (normally tough to prosecute).
He was Norwegian (DMCA doesn't exist in Norway).
He wrote the code.
The code became illegal to distribute.
He *still* came under legal fire.
I guess it didn't matter that the code didn't break any copyright or patent laws and was a first step in writing "interoperable" products.
So, we're left with a question. Who's allowed to interoperate, and who's not? Obviously Norwegian teenagers fall into the "who's not" category, at least in practice. The fact none of this even gets mentioned by legislators just underlines how foolish it would be to think these ammendments to UCITA actually mean anything.
I think you're mistaken about this 'implied right' thing, for books, CDs, whatever. There's nothing implied about it -- when you buy a copy of the music/text/whatever, you have some rights and some restrictions set forth quite explicitly (Title 17). The RIAA, however, wants to claim that there are more restrictions than have been set forth in copyright laws; it's my position that, unless they have you sign a contract, it shouldn't be legally enforcable.
(Looking at your post again, I think you may have thought that I was part of the crowd that says 'I bought it, I can do anything I want with it, including distribute it to anyone I want.' That wasn't my complaint; sorry if I gave that impression.)
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?