Slashdot Mirror
Software Regulatory Body?
Barbarian writes "This article at 3D Action
Planet discusses the possibility of a Software regulatory body, with
the power to impose fines on companies which release crashware. Although
the article ignores Open Source, it is insightful in it's assesment of
commercial software. The article pertains towards games, but it is intended to apply to the Software industry in general. " My only question: Much like the UN, where does the real power come from; how do the fines stick, and actually get paid?
... At least that's not at all the impression I got from the article.
My understanding is that companies would only be fined for software that was flawed enough to prevent you from using it as intended, and only if a significant number of users made complaints about it. And the fines would be based on profit made from release date until the product was fixed, and therefore if you give your software away for free, then profits==0 and you therfore can't be fined. So Microsoft releasing a barely functional operating system could cost them $50 million, while some small company selling a word processor for $20 would lose considerably less money if their product was buggy and they fixed it in a timely manner.
The only problem I see with this system is that the users aren't compensated for their wasted time or lost data from a failure of a product. However, that could be solved with a law saying that a company can't exempt itself from consumer protection and warranty laws in an agreement (exceptions could be made for beta or free products which are clearly labeled as such). This way, if a product acutally caused harm (not just inconvenience) then you could always sue the company in court just as well as you could any other company, like a car company that makes exploding cars.
Although it needs to be well thought out before any action is taken, I think that this is a viable idea that could be very benificial to the end-users.
AB
What recourse does this leave the average consumer? There is no one to hold liable for broken software. Wait, wasn't that why companies don't want to use free software? Oh....
The problem with this argument is that is centers around the structure of the game industry as an example, and to be honest, I don't think the game industry needs to be regulated. Much as it is irritating when a game is buggy or doesn't live up to the hype, that is not a good reason to start fining the publisher. As a gamer, you have a choice if and when to buy a game. If you are the type who has to get a game the day it comes out the door, then you should also realize that you are taking a risk. You always have the option to wait a few weeks for reviews to come in or for sufficient patches to come out. If that never happens, then don't buy the game. Like the writer said, if you buy a ford that never runs, you'll never buy another ford and you'll tell others not to buy one either. That's what a free market economy is all about. Its also important to note that you are not always stuck with a buggy game. Some companies (such as Sierra Online) have 30 day return guarantees, so that if you truly can't stand the game, then you can return it. And perhaps most importantly, the worst thing that will usually happen if a game doesn't work is that you lose $50 or so. No significant time is lost, and except in the most extreme cases, your computer is not harmed.
I must say I am very disappointed with many of the responses I've seen. How many of these, I wonder, might be MS people on company time making sure 'libertarian' people protect MS from the consequences of their actions? Isn't 'Well, he with the gold wins, therefore you shouldn't even try involving the government because MS will buy it' a stinking admission of cowardice and refusal to be responsible?
*ahem* hm, that's coming out a bit strong.
What I'm saying is that this article is dead on the money, and some slashdot posters have begun to illustrate why. UL was mentioned. That is a very important clue to what is really at stake here.
How many items do you have IN ARM'S REACH which are certified by Underwriters' Laboratories? My soldering gun is UL listed. Here's an old Atari power adapter, UL listed. An old Tascam power adapter, UL listed. Hell, every power cable and AC adapter and power strip- _and_ my AT&T answering machine and Wacom tablet. The phone, the modem, the keyboard etc do not have UL listings- but all comply with FCC regulations, and they all have "RU" and "SA" listings (what are these then?)
What is so special about the software industry that it can't be accountable like everybody else? Hell, _you_ as a private citizen are accountable. Why does the software industry get rights you don't have yourself?
The reason all the power strips are UL listed is because (as an earlier poster noted) people were having electrical hardware 'crash' a lot. Yes, this is more life threatening- but come on now, software is not that innocent! At the computer shop where I work, we _must_ have two PCs to do business. The one in the front runs some accounting software and is the answering machine. The one in back is the bench machine, and it is the one we risk with software and plugging stray hardware into, and it's been rebuilt a couple times. The reason we can't do it on one machine is because if we dared, we would be risking all our records and our means of doing business at all, on the daft notion that software crashing couldn't hurt us. No no no! And so we've taken longer to pay off our debts because we _must_ run two PCs in order to be able to function. Does this sound like accountability in action? Yes- ours. On the other hand it's a glaring admission of just how damaging the software industry can be. How many consumers can afford to buy an entirely separate computer to keep important documents and electronic accounts on? Need I even mention the strong bias the industry shows toward having consumers load even _more_ critical data into their computers? All the mortgage information! Every critical business contact! Dad's medical records and scheduling of appointments! All that onto the creaking PC, then install DirectX 9.3.0.0.0! And what do you do for safety? Back up... onto ZIP DISKS! Which of course are their own very serious accountability concern, and not acceptable as an archival medium what with click of death and all. But by god, are they cheap!
We can't do this dance forever.
Now, I've touched on one valid issue- DirectX 12.0.0.0, as it were- the trouble of someone like Microsoft breaking everybody's work. Who pays? Who apportions blame? It's bad enough MS can just about selectively target whoever they wish to break (proprietary means nobody sees the code that says "if vendor == id then crash.die_ungrateful_pup!"), but if they could do that and then hammer the hapless victim with regulatory fines things would be totally impossible.
However, this isn't something to cower around whimpering about- it needs to be worked out. Just because something can't be done perfectly doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all- I am sure there are scandals about UL abuses _somewhere_, or something is unjustifiably penalized, or some big company gets a break, but when did you last see an extension cord catch fire? A toaster explode?
I'm sorry: I for one am not at all impressed by pseudo-libertarian ranting and desperation to spare the software industry any accountability. Grow up! And the software industry has got to GROW UP too. There is no excuse for the current merry band of pirates. I'm not talking about warezpuppies- I'm talking about the VENDORS. Lay down some rules- have everybody straighten out. I can tell you that this would very likely curtail some abuses Apple's been responsible for, producing good stuff and then betraying it and axing it to the detriment of developers and consumers. It would put a damper on Microsoft. It would chill out those game developers risking systems, violating privacy etc: the point is, you want rules? Fine- _we_ come up with what needs to be covered, we already know many troubling areas to be aware of. You want no rules? That may not be your privilege.
While this may be a completely political argument, I think that regulation always is. And I'll tell you straight out, I, for one, am against it.
Regulating others so you gain is a very lazy way of getting things done. The point of the article was that by regulating the industries, we will gain. Is this really a good argument? Why don't we force all companies to hire at least one homeless person a year. That would be a wonderful idea too. A small price for them, and it will help society at large. Great idea, right?
You cannot start forcing others to do what you want. That's a socialist agenda in a free society. A contradiction to itself.
Enough of that. Now, let us imagine that such a regulatory commision came into place, and had such authority as would be needed. Now a company has some really fantastic software, but does not have the resources to test it properly, or even ensure it, due to how large it is. For example, let us imagine that a start-up company comes out with this radically new operating system, that millions of people are dying to get their hands on. However, due to the complexity of the system, and the lack of a world-wide testing base, the company does not have the funds to back it up. So they decide that due to the demand they'll release it as "not suitable for any purpose" and hopefully fix it as they get reports and a cash flow. Would a regulatory committee be helpful here?
Such a comittee could not have one test for all software to pass. It is a very large industry. In fact, each piece of specialized software would have to have its very own specialized test. So who decides what the test is and what it needs to pass? Will a company be able to distribute beta software? Whose to stop companies from charging for beta software and never making a "final" release?
I think a completely different approach must be taken. That is, if it is you that want this committee then it is you that must form it. And the companies do not have to join unless they want to. Or have something similar Consumer's Reports magazine. Just create a group that will buy and test software for those who care to read the magazine. This way, supply and demand would run the show, not some frustrated individual who wants to force his own ideas upon others.
Have you read my journal today?
My problem with this sort of thing is that, once again, it presupposes that the average consumer is too stupid to spend his money wisely and requires some sort of Big Brother to tell him (for a "small" administrative fee) what he can and cannot buy.
If consumers were really concerned about software reliability, they wouldn't buy the software that they do (I am not talking about operating systems which are largely imposed on the consumer, I am talking about applications). The fact is that consumers are relatively happy with what they are getting and regard it as reasonable value for the price. We as developers are upset about software unreliability because we know what is possible but no one else really cares.
For about a year now I have had a one year guarantee on the software I write. It says that if the consumer finds a bug during that period I will fix it for free. Guess how many people saw that guarantee and went Wow! Now that is the sort of guarantee I want! ? NONE!
Go ahead, ask any end user which they would rather have: the software they've got that crashes every once in a while or software that is guaranteed to never crash for twice the price with half the features. I have a full year's worth of empirical data that says they would rather have the cheap software (and no, my software is not twice the price and I will include any feature that does not compromise reliability).
One last thing, the reason that electrical items are required to have a UL sticker is because a faulty electrical item will kill you. A faulty game or word processor is just annoying.
Enforcing this sort of thing by law is difficult. In the past some progress has been made by putting requirements in bidding conditions for government sales. This is why almost every OS under the sun has a Posix compatibility layer. Not that the NT layer is much use. You can't use it at the same time as the normal API and if you want to be secure you have to remove it.
(Btw. this seminar, which I saw on the Heise newsticker has a few other pearls, like the fact that most firewalls can't tell the difference between a virus and a Windows NT service pack. Nor can I :-)
When my company releases a new version of our software, it inevitably has some problems in it, due to (a)our customers demanding new features fast and (b)limited testing resources. We do take responsibility for all bugs that *we* introduce, naturally, and fix them ASAP.
However.
Sometimes M$ will release a new version of DirectX which causes our application to stop working (pretty much every release has done this). Whose bug is this? Is it M$'s bug? As much as I'd like to blame them, they *do* have the right to change the API. And generally, newer versions of DX have sucked less than the previous versions. Is it ours? Our code was 100% compliant with DX(n-1).
This is the kind of situation that bothers me the most, quite frankly. Our software runs right, but because the user has changed/has never upgraded/is experimenting with/has poured water on their computer, our software ceases to function. We work to fix these bugs, but I refuse to believe that some *fine* of some kind would help. Better customer communication is all it really takes...
I don't know much about US law, being Swedish, but if a company advertises features that a product hasn't got then that's illegal in Sweden. It's called false marketing. Surely you must have similar laws over there.. There a lawsuit in the US against Origin re: Ultima Online promising without delivering, was that something similar?
/El Niño
- fit for it's given purpose. This is not trivial; you would have to say what you want to use it for and have the seller affirm that it is suitable. If you buy a package you want to run under NT and it only runs under 95, you only have recourse to the seller if you stated your needs at the time of purchase. If you walked in and bought the package without saying anything, there is no legal requirement for the store to accept the return of the item.
- of merchantable quality
The latter point is most pertinant in this case. If the software is not "of merchantable quality", you have a right to some recourse from the seller (ie, the shop you bought it from). They in turn can go to the publisher and sue them for supplying them with shoddy goods (this has a slightly different legal standing, but that's another point). In any case, the consumer is protected. However, proving or disproving "merchantable quality" is not the easiest of tasks.I'm assuming most countries have similar legislation in place.
--
You're completely off.
POSIX and TCP/IP are standards they say nothing of the software process and the insured higher quality one gets from adhering to it (i.e. I can write a completely POSIX compliant OS that still has a large number of bugs/KLOC (KLOC == 1000 Lines of Code)). The same applies to TCP/IP and all of the other protocols you've used as an example.
I disagree we do need a higher entry level barrier. It would discourage those that are not ready to develop software even though they may think they are. Writing Visual Basic does not a programmer make, however; a made programmer can write Visual Basic.
If what you mean by small developer is those not yet quite capable then it should be made difficult if not impossible (You go try and practice Civil Engineering without a License). They are definitely not ready to be responsible for the delivery of quality software. If by small you mean a small number then your argument is wrong. 5 to 10 highly qualified software engineers whose organization is rated at CMM LEVEL 4 could blow away in terms of quality any CMM LEVEL 1 organization.
If the argument is for higher quality software ( i.e. Zero Defects) then the solution is in the process and its management.
Why don't you pick up Managing the Software Process or A Discipline for Software Engineering by Watts Humphrey. After all he can say it a whole lot better than I, although admittedly more verbose.
"My Opinion is My Opinion and Another person has not easily a right to it" F. Nietzsche
be prepared to pay the higer costs associated with quality.
Now before all of you start getting your underwear in a wad let me explain.
The reason I think we see all of this poorly written software is two-fold.
First although there are many developers out there few of them can grasp the complexity of the development PROCESS. This often leads to bad estimates, rushed schedules, and a chaotic process. All in all you end up with a "get it out the door" attitude, so we can keep our jobs, or in more dire situations keep our company.
Secondly for the developers that do understand the development process life becomes increasingly difficult. Those developers have to deal with explaining to managers, customers, ceo's why it's going to cost so much money to write that piece of software. This is difficult to explain and in my experience always a losing proposition. I'll use an analogy to illustrate. Anyone involved in the Construction of a High Rise building (15 or more floors) can tell you that it is a process which involves hundreds of people (bricklayers, steel workers, earth movers, pile personnel, contractors, structural and consulting engineers). The individual contractors are all guided by the General Contractor which normally answers to the Structural or Project Engineer. The structural or Project Engineer requires the services of other specialized engineers for geotechnical advice and quality assurance. During the whole construction process the set of blueprints the Structural Engineer put together are used to complete and verify the work. During each phase of work the consulting engineers come in and verify that each contractor is fulfilling the specification given in the blueprints.
Software design is very much like that if not almost identical, yet ask a developer about the lifecycle of the software process, the CMM, software size estimation, code reviews and you'll often get very misguided answers if you get any at all. All of the elements in the software process are engineering disciplines in and of themselves yet I meet Project Managers who have no training or knowledge in this area, even self taught.
So if you asked a bunch of people who don't know how to create the blueprints for a high rise, to calculate the loads on the foundation and determine the proper number of piles. To determine the strength (psi) of the concrete to utilize for the slabs. To determine what amount of reinforcement steel (re-bar sizes, tie off separation, and quantity) should be placed in the load bearing sections of the wall. To calculate the loads on the structural steel, the required torque at each joint in the frame, the type of bolt (ANSI XXX), washer and nut to use. You would see a lot more buildings falling down and those that did not would be so grossly overbuilt (Empire State) that only a handful would be able to afford them. This IMHO is the current state of the software industry.
This question of regulation goes hand in hand with professional regulation and when that happens the price of software will go up as it should. Also the cost of entry into the software field will be much steeper. When it happens I think we will all be much better off but the number of people entering the software field will be diminished significantly.
"My Opinion is My Opinion and Another person has not easily a right to it" F. Nietzsche
I could go on and on about the evils of government regulation, but I won't. Suffice it to say that it's appropriate in only a few very limited circumstances, and this is definitely not one of them. What is needed here, if anything, is a consumer organization, or perhaps several of them, to give software companies and products a seal of approval. No government intervention, no official bodies. Each consumer groups sets its own criteria. Each individual decides whether or not to put any faith into any particular consumer group's seal of approval. No, it's not perfect. It relies on the vigilance of the consumer. But it would be at least as effective as government regulation, and with fewer problems.
And to be honest, I don't think anything is necessary here. I don't buy computer products, software or hardware, until I've done a little research on them. I don't buy a game on impulse because it has a flashy, cool-looking box. I buy only after reading reviews and talking to others that have played the game. This way, I never end up with crappy software. The people that do are the ones that just walk into the store and pick up the coolest-looking box. Honestly, I don't care if they get screwed, because it's their own fault. As the old saying goes, there's a sucker born every minute. There's no way to prevent suckers from getting suckered, so don't make life hard on the rest of us by trying.
Regulation is for utilities, phone companies, etc, where there is a so-called "natural monopoly" which has to ask the public ("government") for permission to do lots of things, like raise prices and change service.
The problems he cites with licenses could be solved by a simple law preventing those kind of bogus licenses.
The example he has of some regulatory body fining a company 11 weeks profits is far beyond anything any current regulatory body does.
--
Infuriate left and right
I have a knee-jerk reaction against government regulation, I admit it, but I still see this being a lot more problematic than the article writer seems to think it would be.
Firstly, how are you going to get this legislation passed? That in and of itself seems like it would require big bucks for lobbying in all the various countries. Plus, all the laws would be different if it did get passed.
Secondly, how would you ensure that the government bureau policing software has a clue? Or that they don't develop a political agenda that they pursue above and beyond objective good science? Or that they don't just get bought off? The nasty thing about these kind of government bureaus is that after they're in place their decisions have the force of law, but they're not accountable to anyone. You can't vote them out, no matter how bad a job they do.
Lastly, it's only reactive: the shitty games still hit the market, and the bureau only penalizes the companies after the consumer has already gotten shafted. That's IF the company is still around and in the black.
Instead, and for a fraction of the cost, you could set up an Underwriter's Laboratory type of indie regulation agency, where they would test the stuff and if it met some criteria, give it the Sacred Fist of Judgement Seal of Decency. If it was a well-known and sought after seal, like the UL seal is for electrical appliances, it would have the desired effect: people would look for it when shopping. If enough people surfed the regulation agency's website, they might even make enough money off ads to defray some of the costs. They could also charge game companies to review their products for them, but that would only be feasible if they were already established as a standard.
This type of system works pretty well when Sony certifies games for the playstation. It's fairly rare to even find a significant bug. Of course, Sony has a complete lock on this sales channel, because you can't put a playstation logo on the game without their okay, which an indie agency would not have.
Anyway, these are my thoughts.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
One of my largest concerns about this article is that it seems poised to force Publishers into making a certain type of software. Simple, un-complicated, SAFE software. Things that are technically close to perfect yet lacking in content and features. If you wanted to publish a fantastic piece of software, you would have to pay incredible amounts of money in making sure your coders wrote the whole thing, and they can fix everything, and that everything IS fixed. Suddenly anything as spiffy as Quake III Arena or Adobe Photoshop 5 has it's price tripled. And once it's out, forget about customer feedback. They met their requirement, you purchased it, end of story. Right now software publishers and developers have some vested interest in making the customer happy. But if the regulatory comittee is happy, why bother making the customer happy, right? I mean, the regulatory comittee represents the customer doesn't it? I feel like a regulatory would drive a wedge between customer and company that doesn't need to be there.
I have several other problems, but MAN! I have to stew on it more.
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
To the best of my knowledge these laws already exist. If a company purposefully and knowingly misrepresents the capabilities of a product to a prospective buyer, the company can be held legally liable no matter what contract was signed or implicitly agreed to (in the case of EULAs).
Fraud on the part of the seller invalidates the contract. This applies to exploding Ford Pintos and the software industry equally.
If you want to get into legislating penalties for anything other than fraud or gross negligence I think you will be entering a legal quagmire that will stifle creative and innovation.
As someone else suggested an external testing/verification lab similar to the UL would be a welcome innovation. We have this now to a certain extent in the form of trade mag reviews and test labs - but it would be nice to have that stamp of approval BEFORE the product is released.
-josh
I'm dubious about the idea of a regulator to
enfore software quality, if the release of every
game has to be approved (or more likely is
followed by lawsuits from disgruntled customers)
then companies will be encouraged not to innovate
or take risks. I would prefer to accept a
certain proportion of rubbish games, with most
weeded out by reviewers than have every one
produced to the same formulas. If this become
popular then politicians would probably be keen to use it to introduce censorship.
I agree with you but not on the last point.
;-)
:-)
I am currently working with the quality people in my company (as a computer consultant for them). What I learned of this work is that more and more companies build a quality system. I do not know about computer related companies however. If I do not know figures, it seems to me that the trend is getting stronger and stronger, because :
* they can use cert as a marketing feature
* they get good things back (better internal communication, better failure detection, generally... better organization)
As I already wrote, this does not mean you get a good product at the end, but it definitevely help not to do a bad one
If computer corps did some procedure explaining how to introduce a new feature in a software, and how to test it, I think lots of bugs would be catched long before the product hit the market. But the problem is they just pour new features as soon as competitors introduce them in they own soft... no review, no desgin, few testing... look at M$ and meditate
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
It seems to me that a more practical, and less intrusive approach would be some sort of voluntary industry association.
It would be world wide, and member companies would agree to a set of principles related to usability, refund policy, and so forth. These companies would agree to the association having the power to levy fines up to some limit and in return the companies would be able to put a ``certification mark'' on their software packages.
Failure to live up to the principles would result in fines, and possibly revoking of permission to use the certification mark.
Of course, this would only have significance if customers showed a serious preference for software with the quality certification mark. Some (government/corporate) clients might make certification a requirement for RFPs.
Cost of the association would be covered by membership fees, and fines.
I think a point of contention in such an arrangement would be ensuring that the association was tough enough. If this was all initiated by software vendors, they would likely not want the association taking action except in the most severe circumstances. While the association would want to _appear_ consumer oriented, it would in fact be trying to act on behalf of it's members.
Perhaps the association could require a majority of board members be representatives from consumer organizations rather than industry folks.
This model is used at least somewhat successfully in many industries.
Geospatial Programmer for Rent
The litmus test for any proposed regulation of consumer software quality should be SoftRAM 95. Didn't it go out with a "Designed for Windows 95" seal of approval that Microsoft subsequently yanked?
Coincidentally, today's San Jose Mercury News reports that the software industry is campaigning for regulations which would modify the Uniform Commercial Code to codify the terms of EULA's, something that has consumer groups up in arms.
With regard to the contract mentioned...All commercial packages have phrasing that says "by opening this product, you agree to the following terms...". Without ever trying the product, we are committed to the non-negotiable terms.
Also, the article says the company would be fined. Who receives the fine? How do you quantify the time when a product should have really been released?
The people who suffer the most from buggy software are large companies buying site licenses (or large numbers). If the software is buggy, they lose trackable dollars and time. More often than not, large counts of license are negotiated through contracts that supersede those contained in the wrapper. Hence, those who suffer the most from buggy software already have the problem dealt with: custom contracts. Everybody else is out the $50. Bad products=bad PR. Bad PR=poor business in the future.
(To FS/OS folks: According to this guy's fine calculation equation: fine=$$ lost if the s/w were released when it was ready. therefore.... for FS/OS fine=$0. You get what you paid for. Way to go folk! Beat the system again!!!)
If a certain software company, with very deeppockets, gave a lot of money to the next president, and key members of congress for next years election what would happen? How hard would they be checked out? My guess would be just a few face saving fines that they can afford. How hard would thier compitition be hit? Crippling fines! Want an example? Windows 9.X crashes regurally, so M$ gets a 10 million Dollar fine. M$ pays it out of petty cash. Gnome crashes sometimes. They only get a million Dollar fine. Do you think they can come up with that kind of money? How does the public react to this ? You will never get past "But Microsoft was fined 10 times as much money"
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
This suggests that all software's top priority is stability/security. Sometimes (especially with in house software and open-source), simply getting something out there that works is more important. Why don't we let the companies set their own priorities instead of having the government do it for them?
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
This idea has been around since the 1960's, and was a topic of hot debate in the late 70's until the mid-80's (for some reason the debate died down when microso~1 came to dominate :-)
This is another version of putting the IEEE in charge of licensing SW engineers, or forcing warantees on SW to be the same as for any other manufactured good, etc.
His idea of fining the publishers is not the best idea, since they will just force the developers to sign more legal BS and if they get fined pass it on to the developers or their insurers. I get hit with this occasionally, when a client requires professional liability insurance. I triple my rate to cover the costs, often $20000 to $50000 per year per project. Twice my clients didn't blink when I asked them to cover the full insurance costs.
I think if something like this ever happens, it will be like the Underwriters Laboratories seal of approval. The UL mark started as a voluntary thing in the electrical industry, because appliance makers often turned out badly designed products which electrocuted people, burned down houses, or just died after a weeks use. Soon retailers would only offer for sale UL marked appliances. But now UL approval is required by law before you can market or sell any electrical item in the US. The approval process ensured so much quality, that lawmakers were able to hold it up and point to it as a minimum standard.
So beware of this process. A few years ago I would have said it would be inevitable, but with the Free Software/Open Source movements, the point becomes a bit moot. Any software which remains closed or patented may soon find itself regulated by a 'voluntary' certification body.
I think he uses the word 'scary' a little too much in this OpEd piece. Its not that scary to anyone in the FS/OS world, in that you have to have some accountability at some point along the way. FS/OS people can move the accountability from place to place, if the original writer didn't do a good enough job, then the end user can take on the job to fix it, if it is truly important. Closed source products have to disclaim all accountability at all points, since the ability to fix a problem rests with whoever has access to the source.
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
The relation isn't quite the same as buying swampland property, it's more akin to "If you buy any property, and the house represented to be on that property is unlivable, unsafe, or just plain isn't even there, that's your fault for walking up to inspect the site." The problem with the standard EULA is that it is strictly that: standard.
Luckily, most EULA's do have a clause in them stating that if any clause of the EULA violates state or federal laws, that clause is considered null and void with the rest of the contract intact. -- Our job as people then is to make sure our governments have laws on the books allowing us to a reasonable time frame to return an unwanted product for our money back. The problem with this then becomes the illegal copying issue, which is all the more reason to take any software pirates you know and beat them severely about the head and shoulders with a Commodore Pet. (oo.. that's gotta hurt)
So while decent consumer laws aren't the entire answer, a regulatory body just won't work, for most of the reasons listed earlier in this thread:
- Small publishing companies would be put out of business too easily with arbitrary fines
- Large publishing companies would swallow the fines and continue on.
- It still provides no remedies to the consumer who got the crap software.
- A regulatory body is a money sink. Even if it's not actually out fining people, there's still the payroll of those on staff to take calls, and the internal bureaucracy of any governmental agency.
- People with a grudge would cost the regulatory body (and hence us) vast amounts of money on false complaints. (Admit it, even if MS put out something that did work as it was advertised, far-fetched as that may be, wouldn't you complain against them just because it was MS who made it?)
- Software advancement would slow as publishers became even more wary of "new" things than they are now; and
- Software prices and development time would increase dramatically.
KwilJust because it's my opinion doesn't make it better than yours.
It's better because it's the correct opinion.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Doubtless that's because you're a Prisoner of Bill. For the rest of us, it's garbeldy gook, because it's not legal HTML. If you fetch the raw page, and get a nice octal dump, you'll see what I mean.
My point was simply that I felt that when Slashdot points us at a site that requires a special setup to view (for example: you must register; or you must have a valid referring page; or you need Flash installed; or you must have tithed Lord Bill) that this merits special notification of this unpleasantry.
I assure you that I certainly did "check my facts" before posting. Did you?
--tom
Perhaps in much the same way as /. warns about registration required when pointing at the New York Times, it might also be useful if you would include a warning when Microsoft is required for proper viewing of a page you link to.