Slashdot Mirror
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."
I hope a lot more pass those kind of laws...I mean if more than 2/3 of the states pass such laws there will be a bassis to build a constitutional amendment movement :-)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
From the link...
.... if I used windows....
Under UCITA, software vendors could booby-trap software so they could remotely disable it if a customer was suspected of violating the software license.
Hmm.. I might be worried about this
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
From the site:
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
Solution, lets remove shrink wrapped licencing period. That's like buying a car- THEN signing th e contract.
HEre's another one:
This is familliar. Doesn't it sound like an extention to the DMCA? Hmmm...
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.
I've not followed this issue so I don't know which two states have adopted this, but I can guess one of them might be Washington state.
At any rate, one should hope that when one produces a product, they should have a sense of craftsmanship and ownership of that product and stand behind it. Now, I am not one who supports the litigiousness of our country right now, but if a software company writing software that controls the infusion rate of an insulin pump screws up and kills people, they should be held responsible. That is one of the checks against creating crappy or dangerous products. For instance, all of the recalls I had to endure for my Dodge pickup (ultimately the reason I bought a Toyota), were designed to protect the consumer against a faulty product. With all of the concepts of pervasive computing controlling aspects of our lives, we are going to have to hold software companies responsible for products they create that are going to be used in sensitive or critical applications.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
UCITA has become law
"Bomb-shelter" has become law
What is UCITA "bomb-shelter" legislation? UCITA "bomb-shelter" legislation is defensive legislation needed to protect a state's residents from being subject to unfair and overreaching provisions in UCITA even if the act has never passed in their state. As of 2002, West Virginia, Iowa and North Carolina have passed this kind of legislation. "Bomb-shelter" legislation narrowly protect software licensees from choice of law provisions that make UCITA the governing law of the contract or from choice of forum provisions that might select another state unrelated to either the vendor or the licensee as the forum for settling a legal dispute over the contract. One proposed version (New York) stipulates that only the laws of the licensee's state (i.e. the state with the "bomb-shelter" law) will apply in determining whether the license's terms are enforceable.
See AFFECT's "bomb-shelter" section:
States to WATCH
This state is one to watch closely because some UCITA activity has been reported. This could mean that important pre-legislative activity has begun.
Things you can do:
Contact your state library association to find out how you can help them. Educate yourself about UCITA's effect on libraries by visiting the Impact section.
No legislative activity reported
Things you can do:
Contact your state library association to find out how you can help.
Educate yourself about UCITA's effect on libraries.
Review the ALA Washington Office Online UCITA Tutorial.
Keep your eyes open for workshops in your area at ALA mid-winter and annual conferences.
Request a workshop if you don't see one listed in upcoming conferences.
Once software/data/network insurance comes out, the insurance companies will jack rates on insecure software, bad admins, and unsecured data.
Industry will regulate itself (unless monolopies are made....).
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
On another note, I've stopped worrying about all the legislative garbage and contract trickery some large companies are spewing out. It does a fantastic job of convincing people that they are not looking to benefit the paying customer. It's going to kill them. Maybe not tomorrow, but if they don't ease up, everyone who doesn't hate them right now will. Just remember, whenever you try to corner the market and drive up prices, people will either use an alternative or stop using your product. Don't worry... they have plenty of rope to hang themselves with. They're just putting the finishing touches on the knot.
IAAL
Not naming this company is pretty gutless and does a disservice to us all. And it's not only a 127.0.0.1 address (clearly the software's own fault) that might do this to you - if you're a small developer and have a provider that doesn't give you a dedicated IP address, but rather assigns one each time you connect, or even changes it every few months, then you are extremely likely to be caught by this foolishnes
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Except that Rand had it backwards. It's the companies that are the leeches. They're trying to get laws passed that require people to purchase their services, like it or not.
Mandatory CD taxes, on the assumption that everyone is a criminal. (Hell, on the assumption that copyright violation is criminal...)
Laws like the UCITA that deny you any right to except a product to do what it's advertised to do. Hell, under the UCITA they could pretty well sell you an empty box and get away with it.
While there are some pretty stupid injury claims files by consumers, they rarely get all that much money. (The initial multi-million dollar judgements not only get reduced on appeal, but they include punative damages as well as the compensation payments.)
Businesses are also quite good at using a ton of public resources and not paying a lot for taxes. Hell, US law allows you to claim the 'average retail value' of a charitable donation... Microsoft donates hundreds of millions of dollars of licenses, literally for the cost to print them.
And then, if you're rich (as in, CEO of a business) you won't get punished for anything. Ken Lay won't get half the jail time of a clerk who embezles from 7-11, despite the fact that Ken Lay's crimes ruined thousands of people.
Yes, there are leeches out there, removing any incentive to work from the honest man. But it's not the average person doing this, it's thieves hiding behind the corporate shield.
As soon as I finish this Twinkie, I think I'll get offended.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Federal law is superior to state law: ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
"[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
It doesn't matter how many states enact anti-UCITA laws because state laws are just that: state laws, unique to each state, and completely unrelated to each other; and if Congress were to enact a federal UCITA law, all of those state anti-UCITA laws would be invalid.
Also, if Congress were to even partially enact UCITA or even something similar to it, those state laws would be invalid as well. This is what is known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause." The Constitution gives Congress the ability to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." See U.S. Const. art. I, Â 8, cl. 3.
The courts have held that since congress is given the sole authority to regulate interstate commerce, any state laws that conflict with federal ones regulating interstate commerce, or even state laws that attempt to regulate in an area of interstate commerce in which congress has expressed its desire to "occupy the field," are invalid.
What you're talking about are not state or federal laws, they're constitutional amendments; things which will change the actual text of the Constitution.
For that to occur, first, the amendment must be proposed. For Congress to do this, the amendment must be introduced in one house, then pass both houses with a two-thirds majority. For the states to propose amendments, two-thrids of the states must call for a constitutional convention. After proposal of an amendment, it must be ratified. See U.S. Const. art. V.
For ratification to occur, three-fourths of the states must ratify it. See id.
Since a supermajority is needed for ratification, it almost never happens, especially for something that the vast majority of people couldn't care less about (like stopping UCITA). The last time an amendment was successfully ratified was in 1992, the 27th amendment; which was proposed by the first Congress in 1789, and took a whopping 200 years to be ratified.
There are two kinds of software users -- corporate and home users (hence the reason you typically see two kinds of software, such as Windows XP Professional vs. Windows XP Home, Red Hat Advanced Server vs. Red Hat Standard, Microsoft Office vs. Microsoft Works, etc.)
Home users don't read the warranty provisions of software products and don't care. Most software, including OSS, right now has an exclusion of warranty right in the click-wrap.
Corporate users, OTOH, tend to negotiate some sort of warranty provisions into their purchase agreements. This bypasses click-wrap and UCITA altogether.
The only people TRULY affected by UCITA are consumers and small businesses (SOHO) with no negotiating power. And all but the most educated consumers don't care. That's why they stick with Windows. How many Windows users have actually *READ* the EULA? I'd wager almost none. If they had and if they had understood it, many of them probably wouldn't have installed Windows or allowed it to be on their computer at all.
Example: My aunt was having a garage sale and was going to sell some of her old software she wasn't using, including Windows 95. I told her, "No, you can't legally sell your copy of Windows 95."
She said, "Sure I can."
I said, "No, you can't. Have you READ the EULA?"
"EULA? What's that?" she inquired.
"The End-User License Agreement. The thing you agreed to when you installed Windows. It says you can't sell or transfer the license to the software," I replied.
"No, it doesn't say that!"
"Yes it *does* say that."
Consumers are very clueless when it comes to what's in the EULA, including exclusion of warranty. They think that they can sue Microsoft is something goes wrong, and with UCITA they won't be able to for sure. But they won't know and won't care because most software consumers have never even heard of UCITA. That's the scary part.
My journal has hot
Hey, if you live in Mass, write your state representative already! Barely anyone does, so they'll probably even listen to you! I'm going to dump some information I found on the Mass.gov site, and you can use it to find your reps and write them.
First of all, I believe the matter under discussion is House 1622, Petition of Ronald Mariano relative to the interpretation of computer information agreement contracts. Though as you can see from the JCCL homepage, there's lots to choose from and I'm not shocked they didn't act at the hearing on June 2.
If you don't know who to write to, visit the Who are my elected officials? page and type in your addres. And be sure to pick the STATE reps, as they're listed alongside your US reps in a way that's less-than-clear (to me anyway).
I haven't cooked up a boilerplate letter or anything... I figure I'll just synthesize something from this article and the EFF page regarding UCITA. If anyone is more familiar than me with the Mass state legislature, and can let me know if House 1622 is actually what we want, please get in touch.
We all heard about the arguments agaisnt the anti UCITA clause which will give vendors god like powers but lets look at this through another angle.
What about free or OSS software?
Do any of you know how extreme the UCITA is and why the anti measures are being adopted?
Under the UCITA, a developer is liable for their products. If some nut decides to install Linux kernel 2.5x for a mission critical server and it crashes causing thousands of dollars of lost revenue then Linus is held liable!
Or what about some asshole who wants to never work by suing people decides to install your product and then sues you if it doesn't work?
Corporations can afford lawyers. Individuals can not.
I welcome the anti-UCITA as it protects free software, innovation, and software corporations. Remember this was formed from lawyers lobbing the democratic party. They want to sue everyone who makes software so they can fill their pockets.
Yes I believe some of the clauses for this might be extreme but the UCITA is quite extreme in its own right.
We need some moderation in laws but right now its a game of who would you like to fight? Corporations or lawyers? I chose corporations.
If a corporation acts like an asshole then do not use their products and develop a free alternative. However a lawyer can do alot more damage to free software and could kill it. Meanwhile the price of regular commercial software will go through the roof to pay for these redicolous software. An EULA already gives these corporations godlike powers anyway.
http://saveie6.com/