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."
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
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.
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.
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.