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.
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
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.
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.
> 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!
There is no constitutional limit on what clauses a contract can contain.
NDA clauses (I will show you my trace secrets as long as you promise not to tell anyone else) limit "free speech".
Arbitration clauses limit your right to have courts address wrongs.
Covenants (you can buy the house, but you can't put a satellite dish on the roof) limit what you can do with your private property.
Non-compete clauses limit the jobs you can take.
All of the above types of clauses have been upheld by the courts. The courts will only void a clause that violates the norms of society. (You can't sell yourself into slavery.)
Having said all that, I think the no-criticism clauses step accross that line.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
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.
A good point.
:)
Though in this case, congress would be passing a law enabling businesses to limit speech, which would simply mean that Congress is passing a law that prohibits speech through the medium of businesses, which would violate the 1st Ammendment.
Another argument: The terms of a contract are only valid so long as they can be legally enforced -- you can't enter into a legally binding contract with me that says that I can kill your family if you don't make your payments on time, for example. Thus a contract term is only valid if the law will enforce it -- thus congress must have passed a law which made such terms legal, and will use the force of law to enforce such terms. If the contract term being enforced by law a prohibition against speech, is that not a violation of the first ammendment?
Just a thought.
The enemies of Democracy are
Please realize that traditional contract needs signing of both parties, while UCITA would make "click-thru" or "open the wrap and you agree" contracts legal binding.
It makes the game a lot different - if you put stupid clauses in a traditional contract, sure they're legal, but I can disagree and walk away without signing. It is effortless.
To disagree with UCITA contracts you'll have to jump thru hoops like refunding, calling, etc.
That's why we think the UCITA would need more protection from stupid clauses.
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
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.
"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.