UCITA Stalled At State Level

OscarGunther writes "Four states have passed anti-UCITA laws and Massachusetts may soon become the fifth. Meanwhile, only two states have adopted the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, which gives software vendors all the benefits and none of the burdens of the consequences of publishing their software. The details can be found at ComputerWorld and an opinion piece by Frank Hayes can be found here."

Comments

UCITA... wha..?

[zoloto]

for some reason i pictured the village people doing their song. *shudder*

From the site:

According to opponents, UCITA sets default contract terms that favor software vendors and free them of liability for any software problems. Supporters say companies are free to negotiate terms and conditions, and they have attempted, unsuccessfully, to ameliorate concerns by removing some controversial provisions, such as "self-help," which would have allowed a vendor to disable a system during a dispute

looks like this was drafted by Microshaft, BSA, **AA's and our beloved government... oh wait.

You can also read from the following site:
EFF PAPER

You see, UCITA says that by default a software developer or distributor is completely liable for flaws in a program; but it also allows a shrink-wrap license to override the default. Sophisticated software companies that make proprietary software will use shrink-wrap licenses to avoid liability entirely. But amateurs, and self-employed contractors who develop software for others, will be often be shafted because they didn't know about this problem. And we free software developers won't have any reliable way to avoid the problem

Solution, lets remove shrink wrapped licencing period. That's like buying a car- THEN signing th e contract.

HEre's another one:

UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free software development in the long term--it gives proprietary software developers the power to prohibit reverse engineering. This would make it easy for them to establish secret file formats and protocols, which there would be no lawful way for us to figure out.

This is familliar. Doesn't it sound like an extention to the DMCA? Hmmm...

UCITA is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically UCITA tries to say that software makers aren't liable for their software. Then it extends to also the platform its running on.
If UCITA passes some things that could be legal:
1.) If the winword box says it has a spell checker in it, but the program doesn't, you still can't return it.
2.) If you car has a computer the manufactor isn't responsible if it malfunctions. In fact some interpretations are that the manufactor isn't responsible for anything because it has a computer in it so they can do safety cts.

Here is some wonderful information about
UCITA

Re:what states have passed anti- UCITA acts?

[Planesdragon]

Nope.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

If enough of the states vote for a law (such as "no UCITA" or "Alcohol is legal") and want it to be The Law of the Land, Congress can be essentially left out of the picture.

Re:State by State breakdown

[LostCluster]

The goal of the UCITA proponents was to make UCITA part of the Universal Commercial Code... The UCC laws are the basic laws of business that are state laws that are exactly the same in all 50 states, so that a somebody writing a typical business contract written in Texas is certain that it holds water in Maine.

Well, that hasn't gone over well... some states have made it clear that they're never going adopt this law. So the fallback is to try to get this law passed in a handful of states, and then let contract-writers use a "choice of law" clause (You've seen those, they're the part that says that if you're going to sue, you have to sue in the contract-writer's favorite state and not yours...) to force UCITA's terms on consumers that way.

Well, that's not going well eitter.... Some states are adopting "Anti-UCITA Bomb Shelter" laws that affirmatively give the rights to consumers that UCITA tries to deny, and affirmatively gives that state's residents the right to sue in their home-state courts over the issues that UCITA tries to block, and effectively overpowering a choice-of-law contract clause with a state law. UCITA is powerless in any state that has a "bomb shelter law" on the books, which effectively means that UCITA's longarm powers to reach out of the states its passed in become voided.

If you're not a fan of what UCITA represents, it's important that your state not only reject UCITA when the lobbists come calling, but that they also pass a bomb shelter law to prevent Maryland or Virgina's UCTIA laws from being used via a choice-of-law clause in your state.

Re:what states have passed anti- UCITA acts?

[agurkan]

why not try to be polite? is it to hard to quote?

The measures adopted by the four anti-UCITA states -- Iowa, North Carolina, West Virginia and, just last month, Vermont-- are called "bomb-shelter" legislation, intended to prevent a vendor from applying, for instance, Maryland's UCITA law provisions on residents in a bomb-shelter state.