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
This means we'll be allowed to write software reviews again! YAY!
This was a stupid piece of legislation and it needs to be fixed. Now, lets just see how bad they screw it up even more while trying to fix it.
If the opposite of pro is con, what's the opposite of progress?
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
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...
"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.
> 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
Congress had nothing to do with UCITA, it was created by an NCCUSL committee. UCITA is part of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is designed so that all states have the same rules when deciding questions of interstate commerce. It is a sort of compromise between state's rights and imposing Federal control. Every state gets to decide if it accepts the code, most of the time it is non-controversial. UCITA was poorly conceived and so got a lot of flak.
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
...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).
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.