Slashdot Mirror
ABA Withdraws Consideration of UCITA
Cognito writes "AFFECT, Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions, is reporting that the American Bar Association has withdrawn its consideration for endorsing a resolution to approve UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act. This is a good thing. It's interesting to note that a recently filed law suit would have been prohibited if UCITA were endorsed and adopted as a common law."
AFFECT. ucita.com.
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 11, 2003
Contact: Carol Ashworth
202-628-8410/ 1-800-941-8478
AFFECT CELEBRATES WITHDRAWAL OF UCITA FROM ABA
CONSIDERATION
Seattle, Feb. 11 -- AFFECT, Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions,
expressed gratification with the withdrawal of a resolution seeking approval of the
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) from the ABA House of
Delegates.
"Implicit in the decision not to push for a vote was the recognition that the ABA was not
going to approve UCITA as appropriate for enactment by the states," said AFFECT
President Miriam Nisbet. In recent weeks, major sections of the ABA, including
Business Law, Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, and Tort Trial and Insurance
Practice, voted to defer indefinitely or to reject the UCITA resolution placed before the
ABA at its Midyear Meeting. Also, the ABA's Standing Committee on Law and
National Security last week informed the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), the sponsor of UCITA, that the committee could not
support UCITA because the act's provisions could "present a significant security
concern, potentially affecting key aspects of our nation's critical infrastructure." In
addition, the president of the American Law Institute recently advised the House of
Delegates that he could not support the effort to have the ABA approve UCITA. ALI
normally co-sponsors uniform laws with NCCUSL but had withdrawn from
recommending UCITA in 1999 because of concerns that the act did not meet ALI
standards in several key areas.
Nisbet said that she was pleased to hear NCCUSL assure the House of Delegates that it
has no intention of bringing the act back to the ABA. AFFECT believes the inability of
NCCUSL to win approval for UCITA from the ABA this year will lead to its rejection in
Oklahoma and other states where it is currently under consideration. Nisbet said, "The
failure to pass the ABA hurdle after almost four years of 'fixes' underscores the fact that
it is time for UCITA to go back to the drawing board."
AFFECT is a broad-based national coalition of consumers, retail and manufacturing
businesses, financial institutions, technology professionals and librarians opposed to
UCITA. AFFECT members have been following UCITA for the past decade and the
coalition has been involved in every state where UCITA has been legislatively active.
Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions (AFFECT)
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 403
Washington, D. C. 20004
V-202-628-8410
F-202-628-8419
www.affect
I'm not sure UCITA is the correct way to go about it, but I think we do need some way of assigning responsibility for software failures, and opening up authors and distributors of software for lawsuits when it does fail.
Perhaps a professional association would help. Engineers designing bridges, chemical reactors, buildings and aircraft all have to sign the designs to say they have examined them and believe they will not fail. If they are proven incorrect they can have severe consequences, including monetary damages, loss of license to practise, and jail terms. Why do software "engineers" get off so easily?
Rules should be placed on software use so that in "critical" systems only software that is signed off as safe can be used, and so that if software that is signed off by a professional software engineer is used, and it fails, then the signing party is personally responsible for the failure.
A body of lawyers not endorsing a law that would prohibit some lawsuits? Very strange indeed.
<satire/>
Seriously, would the passing UCITA result in more or less lawsuits? I'm assuming less since the room to challenge license clauses would be greatly reduced.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
The UCITA is an attempt of software companies to get out of responsibility. It is one thing to not be responsible for every minor unknown bug, but it is completely different disclaim everything and enforce many of these all to common draconian terms in shrink wrap license agreements.
Fight Spammers!
Thank goodness the submitter told us that. For a second there I thought I was going to have to read the article and form my own opinion! :-)
The software purchased would no longer belong to the buyer.
UCITA allows consumers to become licensees who are bound to the terms of the contract provided in "shrink-wrap" products or "click-on" agreements.
UCITA allows restrictions on use to be revealed after purchase.
UCITA allows restrictions that prohibit users from criticizing or publicly commenting on software they purchased.
UCITA puts consumers at the mercy of software publishers to "blackmail" users for more fees by their unhindered ability to disable or remove their product for unspecified "license violations."
How the fuck that law was even thought up in the first place is beyond me, let alone taken seriously and implemented in two states (Maryland and Virginia). This is a severe intrusion into consumer rights and privacy and as far as I can see trys to restrict what, when and where you can do with software as much as possible.
I remember reading in ZDNet a long time ago (forgot who wrote the article) about two great workarounds for the click-wrap agreements.
1. Videotape yourself getting hammered before clicking - thus not in the state of mind to agree to anything
2. Videotape a minor clicking on the "ok" - also not bindidng
Anyway, I thought it was cute back then
In what world?
That lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was forced to stomach a license she could not have been reviewed, with respect to which she was not permitted to return the goods after deciding she didn't like the license.
Had California been a UCITA state, she could sue under UCITA for failure to accept the return, since UCITA expressly provides that a shrink-wrap for a mass-market product is not enforceable unless the person has an opportunity to review, or:
At least at first view, UCITA would have provided her an express cause of action, unlike the present and uncertain state of common law and UCC in which her lawsuit presently festers. She will not know the answer until the judge and jury had decided, and at least one or two levels of appeal had passed (assuming she doesn't give up first) -- Under UCITA, she would have a right to return or rescind given to her by statute.
For some good background, read Ed Foster's columns in InfoWorld. This guy has (thanfully) been waging a war in print against UCITA since it was first proposed. Here's his latest column on this very topic (ABA consideration of UCITA):
Gripe Line Column from Jan 31 2003