Slashdot Mirror
UCITA is passed
A reader wrote to say "According to InfoWorld , "The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) was voted on during a meeting in Denver of the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)...The vote count was 43 states in favor of the proposal, six against, two abstaining, and two not present." Looks like the end of any rights users *thought* they might have had. "
How does this apply to embedded software, or to anything not sold by a "software" company? A good chunk of the products produced a battery or a plug have some sort of EEPROM with software on it. Certainly any of the major home eletronics does.
So will this affect them? If I can't "transfer" software without permission, how can sell a used car? Will Maytag be able to come to my home and shut down my refrigerator?
Evan Reynolds evan@evan.org
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Two peanuts crossed the street. One was assaulted.
so they put in the magic hooks that let you shutdown WinOhOh or whatever remotely ... and what do the hackers do? half of them reverse engineer it and ship patches to disable that 'feature' .... the other half reverse engineer it and start shutting down random Win00 machines, maybe they shut them all down .... only the trusted, open source OSs are left running ..... heh and they're worried about Y2K .... just you wait .... I bet they shut down ALL the machines at M$ first ....
Plus I would be willing to bet that when it hits the courts, it will be overturned. Especially the bit that would outlaw reverse engineering. If it weren't for RE, there wouldn't be a PC industry, and we would be slaves to the first inventor of any item.
I'm going to side with the "big" software companies on this one and back the UCITA all the way! Why? Because it does nothing but make Copyleft and Open Source more valid approaches to making and distributing software. The more fascist the shrinkwrapped licensing method seems the better, IMO. Does anyone see any reason why this wouldn't be the case? LouZiffer
LouZiffer
Absolutely not. Do you believe Microsoft provides the best possible products? If not, what government intervention has caused this--- intellectual property protections?
Go read "The Rise of Worse is Better." Good products do not necessarily survive in the marketplace, for very good reasons. If you ever have the chance, ask Andy Rappaport about "The Great Value Illusion" or read his article on "The Computerless Computer Company." Technical superiority does not ensure marketability.
The free market may be the most moral choice for an economic system, but don't ever mistake it for optimal. The rest of your post is well taken, though.
Does anyone else see this as as much of a Bad Thing as I do. Granted, I copy plenty of software and it probably is wrong. That's another topic altogether. But that a company has the legal right to look into my computer and see if I am illegally running their programs with copied serial numbers etc. Uhm, it scares me a bit to say the least. I mean, is crap like this even legal under the constitution. I think it's kindof funny that they claim it will "outlaw reverse engineering" and how are they going to do that? All geeks, you must HALT your progress in seeing how things work. I'd like them to try to stop me from figuring out how ICQ works..etc. etc. blah
Anyone think that the standards for peeking into our computers will be open source? Then we can block dis bullshit with our handy dandy multi-pupose firewalls.
Where is this country going?
That's the best thing that could ever happen for GPL and other Open Source licenses. The danger of tactics like that is that there is an invisible line. On one side is the status quo, on the other is a big backlash. Given the nature of MS, if allowed, one day they will cross that line.
The above is far from the optimal solution, but it is the most realistic solution.
It would automatically retroactivly affect all software out there that used reverse engineering in the past.
First let me say, IANAL. However, in the USA, I do believe it is not legal to retroactively apply a law. I believe the legal principle is 'ex post facto' -> 'after the fact'. i.e. The legislature can't pass a law outlying bleu cheese, and then arrest you for possesing bleu cheese a week ago when it was still legal. So this will have no effect on currently available reverse engineered products.
I agree with you, but I can't stand to see anyone use the old fallacy we all learned in school, that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Instead, I suggest we use Frank Herbert's version, "Power attracts the corruptible." There have been examples in the past of entirely reasonable and not-at-all-corrupt people in power. It's just extremely uncommon. :)
Anyway, this is just a pet peeve, so don't take it personally.
What a boon this could be for Open Source and Free Software! Imagine if a 'few' Linux advocates decided to wrap the nastier points of this act into an informative put persuasive package and e-mailed it to, say, a couple thousand companies. Maybe the IT departments. Could they even imagine not being able to communicate to another computer, let alone the 'Net? Their all powerful e-commerce app turning into all useless 1's and 0's? No inventory. No sales. No site hits.
Imagine the pucker-factor of company X when they read that one small license disagreement could literally stop them in their tracks. It could point to the not-so-fair way M$ has handled it partnerships.
I call this a temptation because this would be akin to SPAM. Noone likes SPAM (not to be confused with Spam, which is quite good...hmmmmm, Spam!)
If anyone can figure-out a loop-hole in the ethics of this, please respond and we can all start.
Maybe we could have a master list of companies and just go down the list (minimize copies).
I AM NOT TELLING anyone to do this, this is just an idea. I don't want to be responsible for a SPAM war with M$ and it's clients.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
- Allows prohibition against "reverse engineering". This is akin to saying I can buy a car, but opening the hood to see how the engine worked would make me a criminal.
- Allows remotely disabeling software when publisher suspects violation of the terms of the license, without needing a search-warrant. This is akin to saying that if I buy a car that, in the fine print says I'm only allowed to use gasoline from a particular company, and if the car company suspects I used gasoline from a competitor, they could make the car stop working, even in mission-critical situations (like while being on a busy freeway).
- The user isn't necessarily entitled to see the software license contract before agreeing to it. This is like saying that for a car you bought with a "bumper to bumper" warrenty... The warrenty can cover only the paint job (from one bumper to the other), and that you many not find out until you take the car in for repair.
- It is legal for software publishers to prohibit sale or transfer of a software license... Something like saying when you're ready for a new car you need to throw out the old one, because you aren't alowed to sell it.
- The software publisher can limit thier liability to the cost of the software, even if the user has paid for additional services over and above the price of the software. This would be like if (God fobid) if you drove your new car off the auto lot with your family and the car exploded killing everyone except yourself, that the car company would owe you no more than the price of the car, and to collect that, you may be required to call a special refund service that could charge you twice the value of the car for just the phone call... and that even after the car exploded you would still be obligated to pay for the 5-year service contract.
I hope this helps you put this proposed legislation into some perspective.Loren Osborn
**Opponents** of UCITA and its parents missed several opportunities to have a better bill. Now is a time for some introspection, rather than continued choir-preaching and whining. Did we do the best we could do to effect change?
UCITA is another demonstration of the inefficacy of the *flame on* mode of opposition when faced by a politically powerful opponent. By repeatedly overstating the case, opponents of UCC Article 2B ultimately lost any hope of compromise on substantive issues while TPTB simply moved away from ALI, passed the UCITA, and is likely to get the bill passed in a sufficient plurality of states to do harm.
Ultimately, the final bill is worse than intermediate drafts of UCC2B, and is that any surprise? Then was the time to compromise.
Now, encouraged by successes in Congress and state legislatures with assorted Y2K legislation and the DMCA, TPTB are coming to the view that it is easier to try to take all of what they want than to achieve consensus, and in so doing they have actually been aided by the self-marginalizing conduct of their opposition.
This is the difficulty of overstating the case against a powerful opponent.
Arguments made against UCITA and UCC2B overreached to the point that few legislators will take seriously an opposition that merely decries the entire bill. It is a mistake, a serious mistake to oppose UCITA wholesale from this point on, as it was a mistake not to compromise earlier to remove the more negotiable and far more onerous provisions. There is a difference between making a good argument and an effective argument, and on this count, the anti-UCITA critics failed to do anything but preach to the choir.
To be fair, very few Uniform Laws are actually uniformly passed -- not even brilliant successes such as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. However, they have broadly influenced courts and legislatures in the years that followed, and much harm has already been done just by this vote.
The best chance of minimizing the impact of this Uniform Law as it comes before the several states is to try to neuter its most onerous provisions -- not to try to kill it or marginalize it.
And remember, this is Contract law -- if you don't like it, change it by voting with your pocketbook. Write competitive and/or free software substitutes. Don't whine -- do something meaningful to change things. Issues that truly impact the marketplace or threaten individuals who are not techies can be changed -- that is why we no longer have copy protection. If you can't change it, perhaps the market really doesn't care about the point, and it is *we* who are overreaching?
It's not clear exactly how the new law intends to define reverse engineering, but it will give companies a dangerous legal foothold. What open source developer is going to be able to defend themselves in a lawsuit by a large corporation claiming their code code was reverse engineered? It doesn't matter if the project is actually in violation of the law, the corporation has the ability to squash it with a barrage of lawyers.
It's great that the Libertarian party has principles, and I'll admit that most Libertarians I talk to seem to have a good grasp on those principles. But however wonderful those principles are, you can't assume that the U.S. was founded with your principles in mind but has since strayed from them. The U.S. Constitution indicates that the principles of government include ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare (that's welfare the concept, not welfare the government program). The U.S. has never really followed Libertarian principles in the past; perhaps the American Confederation which briefly preceded the U.S. was closer to these ideals, but the U.S. has always had other concerns beyond simply national defense and domestic justice.
I can't argue with many of the specific complaints that you brought up (many of them are indeed bad things), but none of those problems are unsolvable without a Libertarian government, they just require that our current government change its laws. A Libertarian government wouldn't be immune to passing bad laws either.
That does NOT mean the government has a right to: Dictate what we can and cannot eat and drink (FDA)
I do disagree with this one. The FDA couldn't care less if you enjoy a snack of leaded paint chips in a light motor oil. However, they do care if a company sells this treat labeled as "crunchy watercress salad in a light viniagrette". This is in the interest of protecting individuals from large corporations, which falls under ensuring domestic tranquility.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The reason it looks like Slashdot is because it uses Slashdot's code. I don't like the look as much though, I wish he just changed the green to red and left the rest alone. Slashdot looks good how it is.
And, of course, the Supreme Court can still overturn it as unconstitutional (that bit about disabling software remotely could be construed as illegal search and seizure).
That is true, if the Supreme Court took the time. As it is now, the supreme court is REDUCING the amount of time that it spends hearing cases. The justices are spending LESS time on the bench, and granting fewer cases their audience.
Congress knows this. State and local legislators know this. A supreme court case could take five, ten years, in addition to federal court and appeal court circuts.
Yes, eventually someone WOULD win this case in supreme court, but by the time ONE litigant stood up for $singulargenderpronoun&"self", thousands of others would have been bullied in to submitting to the whims of multibilliondollarleagaltactics or suffering the stigma and expense of "making a Federal case out of it"
"Illegal Search and Seizure" applies only to the actions of the government. Your US Constitutional right to not have the gummint come in and take your cookies (or house soldiers in your basement, etc etc) without paying you for them/it/whatever. In the case of a software vendor and the end-user, you're into the realm of private law, and in private law, as long as it doesn't violate whatever jurisdiction's definition of "public interest", just about anything goes. (Obviously, contracts to do criminal acts can't be upheld in court. Duh.)
Unfortunately, in my perusal of the links, I couldn't find out which states voted what way. Could someone post a list if they find it? I'm going to try to get the word out amongst the techo-savvy law profs at my school (yes, some do exist).
Government for, by and of the people only works if the people put down the frickin' remote control long enough to do something.
If you want a floating island in the equatorial pacific, this is a place to start:S AM.html
http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/9802STR
I'm with you! I want out of here!
Or just let them slip away
"by any means..." X
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
- I'll be laughing my ass off when everyone's
- (including business and government) software is
- remotely disabled after the shutdown codes are
- posted all over the Internet!
-
- Fortunately I'll still be able to laugh at them online thanks to free(dom) software.
No you won't if your ISP uses commercial, UCITA-`protected' software. If the kidz get their dirty fingers on the data needed to kill say the Radius-software your ISP uses to authenticate you, there'll be no more on-line laughing...
--frank[at]unternet.org
can it be overturned?
Thank you. Drive through. (:wq)
(not a lawyer, worse, a law student)
Does anyone else see this as a positive thing. The more rediculous the laws governing software licensing become, the more industries will be forced to take a closer look at those ignored little licenses. Once they start to look a little closer, they might not like what they find, and may actually start to demand the rights they deserve. Just another argument for Open Source software as I see it, and perhaps the most compelling one so far.
something needs to be done quickly.
--onyx--
What ever happened to the 'peoples government' , i surely don't want this, and i doubt any of the 'normal' population wants this either, this goverment is becoming so corrupt now adays because of huge corporations and organizations forcing their weight into things and getting their ways, our government is now purely in the interest of the larger bid.. Too bad there is no more land left to create our own country.. Even my grandparents who have been in the war now questions why he served to protect a government, and to fight 'oppression' and evil forms of government when our own is taking away our rights to privacy and anything that we still have left dearest to us. This won't ever reverse, all it can do is go forward until you are catogarized, and totally commanded ala Brave New World..
This definitely looks interesting! I'm all for independence as well. What kind of laws govern sea-going living quarters? Do the laws from the country that the ship was constructed from still apply when the ship is at sea?
This doesn't seem to be a government body.
I don't know much at all about legalness but how much sway is this really going to have on the laws. Anyway all Things legal can be contested in courts. I hope.
If the bill passes as a law...you know what to do ;)
This is about the only part that I agree with
For example, if it is not profitable for corporations to produce eco-friendly products vs. eco-unfriendly products, they will produce much more of the latter. I think it is absurd to conclude from this that consumers "want" or "like" pollution, for example.
True, its doubtful that consumers like or want pollutioin. This example also shows that consumers do have some power (and in some case quite a bit of power). According to your model, the corporations would only do things that would maximize their profits (and I agree with that). So why is it that we see more and more "eco-friendly" companies, more recycling, companies stopping the use of child labor overseas, pollution reduction, community involvement and improvements (the list can go on and on). It certainly isn't increasing their profits to use more expensive labor or production techniques. It is going to increase their profits in the long run because consumers have made it clear that they want a cleaner environment, fair labor practices, etc. The company is maximizing their profits in the long run if they listen to their customers and give them what they want. To say that companies give consumers what the companies want and the consumers must take it is superficial, actually, that is called a monopoly, or as economists call it "market failure". For the free market to work there must be choice.
Anyway, you're just baldy asserting that THE way for corporations to maximize their profit is to make the "best possible products". This idea I frankly find simplistic to the point of absurdity.
Again I have to say that what you are saying is closer to absurd than what the other person posted. If there is really a market (and not a monopoly) then the corp. that doesn't produce the best possible product that the comsumers (as a whole) want then their product won't be bought and the company will not survive. Most of your assumptions seem to be pointing to all corporations being a monopoly. I don't think that is the case but UCITA seems to be trying to give monopoly (market FAILURE) power to all software companies. I do agree that most likely a company isn't making the "best" product but with a free market the trend is towards "better" and what the customer wants. With a monopoly that isn't the case, the trend is towards more profit and towards what is better for the company.
The other person seemed to be arguing that a free market is a good thing and I whole heartedly agree. You say that his thinking is wrong but you are using the assumption that it is in a monopoly setting. I guess you could say that you are correct in one sense because if you try to use freedom of choice in a monopoly setting then you are screwed (that is why it is called market failure) but that was not the point. The point was that if you get rid of the market failure then good things will happen and the product will be better and the customers happier. UCITA is an attempt to give more monopoly power but for those of us that know about and use "free" software we will choose to not support the monopolists (of course most of us here already don't support them). I feel that the end result is that more people will be forced to join our club (which is good) but I feel sorry for those people that are stuck with the newer monopolistic powers (if UCITA is made into law in all states, which I doubt that it will)
Dave
"We think that this will extend the rights of end users," Nimmer said.
Oh yeah... That's what it'll do.
So is there anybody on this committee that actually uses computers?
10Brett-T
Oh, bother.
"The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) was voted on during a meeting in Denver of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), a private group of more than 300 lawyers, judges, and law professors. Under NCCUSL guidelines, draft legislation has to be approved by a majority of states present when votes are taken, and that majority must include representatives from at least 20 states."
WTF is this "NCCUSL" outfit? It sounds like these 300 lawyers, judges, and law professors have granted themselves all the power of the Federal government, with none of its accountability.
This so-called "law" was made by a process found in no Constitution known to man. I don't think it's gonna fly.
Here are a few things to consider:
First, with the UCITA in force, purchasing commercial software will TRULY become a liability for a company- and in many cases, a signficant one. If I were a CIO, I don't know that I could logically (or ethically) encumber my company with something that could either mean an endless stream of "protection" money being paid to commercial software vendors, or risk being rendered non-functional without the use of the software.
Second, I figure that if the vendors supporting the UCITA are actually DUMB enough to attempt to wreak havoc on a company because of a perceived license violation, it's nothing that a few very COSTLY lawsuits won't cure.
Anyone with an IQ slightly higher than your average light bulb will know that just because a law is passed is no guarantee that it's even remotely a good one.
You know Linus and Alan are not going to get off their terminals long enough to sue your ass!
Seriously, how can you run something mission critical with software that can be legally yanked at anytime? Even the suits will be able to understand this.
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
Yes, Bruce's Technocrat.net site is a wonderful thing. For those who missed the earlier story, Technocrat.net is devoted to "technology policy" -- laws which affect technology. It may take a while for the site to become popular, and may go through some growing pains, but if it can actually serve to bridge the gap between computer techies and non-computer techies, it may help educate everyone. (I've learned quite a bit from it already -- I'm quite familiar with the computer-related stories, but I haven't followed the space exploration stories as much, and I didn't know anything about amateur radio.)
I've already submitted a UCITA story to that site. I imagine a lot of other people have, too. I haven't seen one posted yet, but I can't possibly imagine this story not showing up there.
My employer sells telecommunication billing software; the price varies depending on the exact configuration, but it can be over US$1M. (Our customers include @Home, AT&T Worldnet, GTE Internetworking, MCI Worldcom, France Telecom ... you get the idea.)
Do we rely on a shrink-wrap or click-wrap license to protect ourselves? Hell, no -- we draw up a detailed license on paper, and our customers, unlike the average MS Office customer, have lawyers that look over every line.
Does our license say "this product is sold as is, no warranty, if it blows up in your face you'll be lucky to get your purchase price refunded"? Hell, no -- our customers aren't stupid enough to consent to such an agreement, considering how much a flaky billing system would cost them.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
The response of Slashdotters' response to the ability of software companies to do remote-shutdown of software is extremely amusing. The general sentiment is of Slashdot pro-libertarian; however, this sentiment should agree with the idea that companies should be able to have as much power over their software as they wish, leaving the choice up to the consumer, and not having government interfere saying "You can't shut down software remotely". While some elements of this contract are more government-intrusive than the status-quo, some are actually de-regulations.
Many people on Slashdot had better come to a decision: do they want government intervention, or not? Should companies run everything? Because companies will start introducing nasties if they are deregulated.
I'm getting sick of this #%^$. Buncha money grabbing politicians we've got here. Too bad we can't vote No Confidence on the whole gov't. Maybe it's time to hold rallies in D.C. for Computer User's Rights.
-- Terry
Why would the American government pass such a law? Could it be the billions of dollars that software companies put in their g-string pocket books and there just giving the paying customer a good time. Once again, the U.S. gives me another good reason not to move to the U.S. from Canada. It may be cold sometimes and we may be taxed, but we can say anything we want in anyway to anyone (e.g. no stupid crypto laws). Also a software company doesn't have the right to disable my software on a whim. This is only going to help open source software(Yeh!) and hurt the closed software vendors. The laws are supposed to protect us, not give companies the right to remove my license because I have a competing product (It will happen, the article reffers to reverse engineering. If company A believes company B reverse engineered their product they can remotely shut down there software)
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Actually, Back Orifice and other trojans don't require holes in your operating system.
//+ because it didn't do any of that. Of course, it wouldn't use anything except 5.25 inch floppies, but 140k is enough for anyone...
Think about it. Back Orifice basically gives you the power that telnetting into a unix box with root would give you. If telnet isn't a security hole, then back orifice isn't.
The whole security problem comes when someone runs code that someone else sends them. If you install software on your computer and are taken advantage of with that software, then it's the fault of that software, not the OS.
If offering to hide processes from casual browsing, providing net connections, etc, are holes, well then the most secure OS would be DOS 3.3 on my apple
I thought Micro$oft had some control now. I pity the person who wants software that microsoft doesn't want them to have. Can you say legal BO?
SPAM openly welcomed. I do charge a 500$ proof-reading fee though. Any complaints may be directed to the brick wall to y
If UCITA passes in your state, however, that will change. That's why software companies have been lobbying for UCITA.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, the natural pesticide incorporated in many genetically engineered crops
In total, the 11 Bt and other bioengineered corn products on the market occupy 39 percent of total U.S. acreage.
With these disputes raging, industry's diehard opposition to identifying bioengineered foods may be weakening.
So up to 39% of US corn has pesticides incorportated into it via genetic engineering, and the industry refuses to let us know if we are eating that corn.
And don't get me started on selling seeds that produce plants which cannot reproduce.
I hope I am wrong, but there seems to be a large tendency for these kinds of laws to infect other countries. Canada would seem to be particularly susceptible to this.
I think our first hope would be that this law never goes into effect. In the event that it does, you need to head to the really technologically challenged third world countries, where likely this disease will spread last.
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson
UTICA merely attempts to clarify the law in the favor of the vendors. Since this is a relatively unsettled body of law, it will have a huge impact. At our expense.
Repossesion is just another means of protecting a license. Time limited authorization codes are already common. With net gear some sort of periodic authorization or real-time authentication of licenses will become much more common and much more effective since lots of web gear will require web connectivity to be worth anything.
Make no mistake. UTICA will shaft end users. Its worth fighting by any means.
You accept an implicit contract when agreeing to purchase. This basically means that you have entered into a contract to do what seems reasonable by offering to buy merchandise that a merchant makes available for purchase.
If the merchant wishes to make any ammendmants to this contract, they must be stated before the offer. This means, for instance, posting an "As Is - All sales final" sign over the merchandise, altering you to the deal. Otherwise, you'd be entitled to a refund if the merchandise didn't perform as expected (ie, you were sold a broken unit.)
Any contract requires consideration for both parties. In other words, you and they both have to get something out of it. You also can't be held to a contract that you are unaware of (with some very limited exceptions). The EULA, if in the box, or otherwise difficult to read, is invalid for at least two reasons. 1) You didn't know what it said, even if you knew it was there, thus you can't be expected to have agreed to it. 2) You don't receive anything for agreeing to it because you already paid for the package, so unless they offer it with an incentive ("Sign this and we'll send you a rebate for the product") it's not valid.
I'm sure people would like you to think that EULAs are binding, and would really love to change enough laws to make them binding, but at this point, they're completely worthless.
Really? It was my understanding that no court precidents have been set to uphold EULAs. Is this a misconception? Did I miss something recently?
This gives vendors a ton of wiggle room in order to say "hey! you assented to the license!"
Regarding license transfer: What you refer to is called the "doctrine of first sale" in legal jargon. However, UCITA aims to remove software from the doctrine of first sale by making it so that you never "own" the software, you just have limited license rights for use of the software. If you buy a book, the copyright holder (or its agents) sell you it, but they can't prevent you from turning around and selling it again, or even giving it away should you so choose. If, however, you only hold a license, you are restricted from transferring that software under the terms of the license. And those terms can be as painful as the company can craft them, so long as they aren't "unconscionable". And one judge's definition of unconscionable is different than anothers.
On reverse engineering: The curent method of R-E is known as the "clean room technique". I disassemble the program, write a spec for it, then hand off the spec to a 3d party who hasn't touched the disassembled code. That is how the original IBM BIOS was R-E'd. UCITA would allow the license agreement to specifically disallow R-E in section 307. Currently, federal trade secret laws do not disallow R-E. This is a nice end-run around that.
Unfortunately your confidence in the wisdom of the courts is misplaced. Should a majority of states pass this proposed legislation, we could be looking at a decade or more of protracted litigation to overturn this. In the interim the only people who will benefit are the makers of over-the-counter pain relievers as we try to get rid of our large headaches.
IMO, if it has to be shot down in court piece by piece, how good of a legislature could it be in the first place? Each time it goes to court it will waste resources in the form of time in court and money paid to lawyers. And who can afford to hire a lawyer to fight every unconstitutional clause in UCITA? It seems to me that the amount of money lawyers get these days is indicative of the poor design of the laws we've been passing. Maybe software designers should be working alongside politicians to steamline these things ; )
It only applies to there clipart, not there application. you can do whatever you want with corel draw 7, just not there clip art, witch semes reasonable, I guess
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
anyway....
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
KiCk 4$$ dUd3!! 7h47s s0 k3wl!
31337 ind33d.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
yes, lucky you, you live in a place where its illigal to have "hate speach" on a hard drive or transfer it over a computer network (that is exactly the language in the law)
canada, a happy wonder land of civil liberties.....
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is like putting your items (book) in a (insecure ;)) safe (file) that is locked with a key (Word)... You lose the key and suddenly, you have no legal right to get your items from the safe YOU OWN. Sure, the safe is easy enough to break... You could get a locksmith to unlock it for you ... but it's illegal to do so! If the owner of the key owns the safe too, then it is their right to keep you from opening it...
Now let's blur the safe and the contents a bit... Suppose the safe is constructed out of the contents you claim to own and that it's built with the key. The key is the tool that can reorganize the safe into its (usable) contents... The contents and the safe are one. If you own the contents, how can you not own the safe? (Yes, the key made the safe out of your contents... but if you didn't want it to? Save as Text ... hmmmm ... Now you own the contents and they aren't locked in a safe... but wait ... since you refused the safe, the key stole some of the contents (formatting info, graphics, etc)...)
Let's assume that since we own the contents and the materials used to construct the safe (and since the option of not putting our items in the safe STEALS the contents) that we own the safe. Who can tell me that it's not my right to get a locksmith to break open MY safe to get to MY items? Who can tell the locksmith that he can't do it ... or that he can't make the tools to do it?! Who can say that he can't observe the obvious parts of the original key in his attempts to make such a tool (granted - this last part of the argument is a bit thin)
I think that this analogy fits the reverse engineering of software fairly well... It's my file and if I want to be able to read my own data, I have the right to try, and I -think- that I should have a right to look at obvious parts of the original key in my attempt to reach my data.
Wow, *any* goverment allowing *lube* now, I'm pleased, things are getting better :-P.
Anyway, why not just say "they"? That's allowed, even though it may feel awkward to use a plural form to refer to one person.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
And those people are wrong.
You can give your assent to a license in any manner of ways, not the least of which is registering your product, filling out those little forms, and simply using the product. UCITA will let the vendor write in the EULA a little line like "USAGE OF THE PRODUCT WILL BE CONSIDERED ASSENT TO THE TERMS IN THE EULA."
As for the 53 members of the NCCUSL, it's the 50 states, Puerto Rico, DeeCee and the US Virgin Islands.
I'm just guessing here, but the only way I can think of to get to 53 is to include Guam, Puerto Rico, and D.C. And, if you included Guam and Puerto Rico, wouldn't you have to include the U.S. Virgin Islands too?
-- Terry
This is a very, very dangerous interpretation of the role of government. The will of the people can be very ugly (Nazi Germany, Austria during the Anschluss, Serbia, the United State's treatment of black and native Americans and the attempted extermination of the Mormons back in the 19th century are just a few of the more obvious examples). The purpose of the constitution was to precisely spell out, and thereby limit, the power of government, even a democraticly elected government. While I disagree with much of the libertarian vision (they place far too much faith in the free market IMHO), they are very correct in their argument that the constitution has been and is being violated by many convinient but fundamentally incorrect interpretations of the document designed to facilitate empowerment of the government to do things "we the poeple" feel, or felt, were expedient and necessary, however constitutionally questionable. The interstate commerce clause is the most common, but by no means unique, vehicle for this.
If you reinterpret the constitution to allow, or even require, the government to "do whatever the people want" you will be creating a terrible tyranny of the majority, in which potentially 51% of the poeple would exersize nearly absolute power of the 49% who voted the other way. No minority, however defined, would be able to feel at all safe in such an environment. Since by one definition or another each of us is in a minority of some kind, none of us would be able to go about our lives without constantly looking over our shoulder. Oops, maybe you have described the current reality, after all.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What about giving each other state's laws full faith and credit? If it's legal to send the repo order in Washington (home of MS), doesn't Nevada have to give that full faith and credit? Or does that only apply to a judgment from the WA court? And if MS did go into WA state court and get an order allowing them to repo a license for WinNT in NV, wouldn't they be able to despite NV's criminalization of the remote repo?
What happens when this law is passed in the US and the US software companies try and shutdown a computer outside the USA for supposed liscense violation...
I see big law suits happening here...
-~ Given a choice between two theories, take the one which is funnier. ~-
Well what I'm saying is that while it could (which I doupt they would create the law this way in the first place) cause current programs to become illegal. While they couldn't retroactivly arrest you, they could force you to despose of all products in your possession.
We could build a dava haven like in Cryptonomicon.
How much do I have to pay for citizenship?
The GPL is not a license to use , it is a license to copy . The former is, indeed, "an end run around copyright law" while the GPL is an expression of copyright.
Well, who the hell *are* we supposed to vote for? I mean, they had a "democracy" in russia to, and look how they turned out. They can pull this crap beacuse people don't understand enough about it. I mean, does this stuff get reported in TIME? would people even understand what that meas? The sad fact, The only choice we have is from two diffrent kinds of currupt liars.....
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Is it just me or is letting the software companies have a 'Back Door' Just scream 'Security Problem'. (Doesn't that mean that they have to have a way to access thier code through your fire wall?)
Well, then quit stealing software! Did you and everyone you know pay for all the payware on their systems? Ya, didn't think so. (P.S. If you're giggling at the thought, you know you're guilty)
CPU IDs aren't as bad as everyone makes them out to be. All the highend (Sun,HP,IBM,SGI,&others) processors already have and use them daily.
does this mean that we can still look at the *Raw* binary data? it couldn't be *that* much harder then looking at pure assembly :)
plus then you could clame to be truely 31337
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Our government first broke the constitution when it started printing money, and again when they delegated part of their duties to a seperate organization.
They have suppressed cold fusion.
They pay 21$ for a bedpan worth 25 cents. All in the spirit of making a few companies happy. They waste money on frivillous bunkers. All the while, they stiff their school systems, their future, out of needed money.
They set up supersecret sigint stations. We heard of them, but how many of you heard a damn thing about them in the real world press?
They imprison us without trial, they obliterate our rights on a daily bases, they spend money to make sure that they stay in power, they make sure the rich get richer. All in the name of our safety.
My question is, when will it be enough?. We are the largest collection of brains ever assembled on this earth. Yet, we do nothing. We watch our rights be trampled. When is the point at wich you are willing to say, "No, you can not do that to me."?
Yes this rediculous thing will pass, but it is scary enough that 53? people got together and 47 decided that this would be a good idea. Why do we continue to let the idiots run the government? I laughed as I've seen governers say that they are waiting for the "virus thing" to come out that will fix the y2k bug. I laughed when I learned that New Jersey, a heavily idustrialized state, has the third lowest school budgit in the country, yet their governer has the highest salary of any governer. The only states that beat out New Jersey are Alaska with their one highschool, and some state out in the midwest.
When is it time for change?
- X
SPAM openly welcomed. I do charge a 500$ proof-reading fee though. Any complaints may be directed to the brick wall to y
hear hear.
Big iron programs may never be open source, but I have a hard time believing that they will have such tyrannical license either. Nothing is forcing a software company to use a draconian license allowed by UCITA, although it does make doing so much easier.
I suspect that a company doing a mucho-million bucks software purchase has the power to actually _negotiate_ a _contract_ (yes, thats what these things people call shink wrapped licenses are, a non-negotiated, unsigned contract). The contract may include even stricter agreement than allowed by UCITA, but it may also include source access. If they don't negotiate a good contract than it is their fault and not the law's.
Clearly the same doesn't hold true in any software segment where there is a monopoly, relatively small purchases or in the consumer sector. Obviously UCITA is bad news in those cases, but let's not mourn the Fortune 500 yet.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
As the title states, sounds good to me. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, by gum, let em!
I would never purchase and install a package where the vendor could disable me at a moments notice. Should a uniform law like this pass, it will make free/open software much, much more popular with mainstream companies. Fear is a powerful motivator.
spellchecks built into the /. server will be used so heavily the server probably wouldnt run at all.
I doubt it. Methinks said hypothetical spell checker would be run extremely infrequently (judging from the quality of some posts, here and on Usenet).
To hell with that -- I'm still wondering why in the name of all that's binary I can't run an external editor to fill in a textarea! Just fopen() a temporary file, fwrite() the textarea's current contents, fork() a process which edits the file, then fread() the data and overwrite whatever was in the textarea. Add appropriate rewinding and flushing, and you're set. The only trick is making sure you fork() the right process, and that's a simple matter of defining, say, a MOZILLA_EDITOR environment variable and letting us put what we want there (say, "rxvt -e vim" or xemacs).
If Mozilla ever reaches maturity and doesn't have this, I may even try to hack it in myself. But I lack the GUI development skills to hack a pre-alpha web browser of this complexity.
and look who's *for* it! New frends of the open souce comunity! Adobe! gee, I feel great now!
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Yes this is EU law, however I last saw it ages ago in a time far away. You could try searching the EU database ( about as easy as getting MS to fix code ).
WRONG. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. The only way they can do that is to sell something that people like. A very democratic process. Without government intervention, the free market MUST provide consumers with the best possible products. This gets perverted when government incentives exist (subsidies, special protections). (side note: I believe there is a case for anti-trust law, but otherwise I am against governmental interference in the operation of a market.)
Corporations maximize shareholder value - but not necessarily by providing the best products. They may choose undemocratic ways like bribing politicians to do what they want. Such as undermining the "free market" in subtle ways.
Another take on that: If Microsoft were to shut down all of my NT servers remotely, it would in fact improve 'quality of service.' I would finally be able to move all systems to a real OS paradigm ;) Wow, fancy words. Is anyone readin g this stuff?
Miles Lott
M$ can't bribe THAT many legislatures
Considering M$ is currently in a "battle" with AOL after they reverse engineered their messenging protocol (e.g. AOL Instant Messenger), I doubt M$ will be fighting to make reverse engineering illegal.
Thank GOD I am Canadian :P
Is that hate speach? did you just transfer it over the internet? I think you did. you just broke the law
Thank GOD I'm *not* Canadian. (Although I'm not to happy about being an american right now, also this *is not* law yet, and state governments are a lot better at listening to people then the federal government is, they are a lot closer, and most state governments don't get much lobbying)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
While they couldn't retroactivly arrest you, they could force you to despose of all products in your possession.
I don't think they could do that, because the act of reverse-engineering the software is what would become illegal. Not the software itself. When the software was made it was indeed legal to make it. What it would do is stop future development of the software that was based off reverse-engineering. So while they couldn't force you to dispose of samba 2.04, they could make newer versions illegal if they continued performing reverse engineering (not just bugfixes).
It still sucks, it just doesn't suck in precisely that way.
C'mon, for software companies to actually switch off your usage remotely, their software will have to open a port to receive the kill signal.
Gank that port at the firewall, problem solved. (Unless their software tries to connect on startup, in which case they end up in court for unfair and insecure practices anyway, so use something else.)
If you actually care about security, this is so very not an issue that it would blow your mind.
(You do have a firewall, right?)
Do you have a
The only restriction on GPL is that you can't close it again once opened. It doesn't have 'political' clauses like this, nor should it.
Anyways, its a nasty little bugger. Thank God for Open Source. This just might give it the boost it needs to take over the world. :) We'll see. Oh, and I havent read the whole 335 page proposal myself, so I might be a little off on a few things. Tough. :)
See this for the full (889k) 1999 draft text.
http://www.law.upenn.edu/lib rary/ulc/ucita/citam99.htm
Rob Carlson
Why dont you then?
Check it out: :)
http://www.2BGuide.com/docs/riaa1098.html
I really doubt this will come to pass, at least I hope it doesn't, it seems there are A Lot of people aganst this, including 26 states Attorney Generals, including Iowa, where I live. (thank god
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I didn't close my link tag :P. The Words "a lot" are a seperate link, to a list of every one who's aganst it (http://www.badsoftware.com/oppose.htm)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I meant to say ACLU (not UCLA) in my first post.
It isn't as simple as this. If you sign a contract with me (e.g. an NDA) where you agree not to discuss a piece software, you can't go crying: 1st Amendment!
I thought a little bit about this at lunch. (If watching "Law and Order" can teach you anything about the law...) It seems like I, as a consumer, can not sign away my constitutional rights. What if I am a 10-year old kid with no knowledge about the law and installing software on a computer?
I guess it goes back to the fact that I don't think that buying software should be a contract. Buying a computer game seems a lot like buying a yo-yo. I don't have to sign away my constitutional rights to buy a yo-yo. And if the yo-yo is defective, the manufacturer is responsible for replacing it with one that works.
In most cases? Hardly. Indeed, most of the cases addressing EULAs focused on the question of the enforceability of particular clauses, and not on the question whether there was an enforceable agreement.
The only Circuit Court opinion squarely confronting the issue of contract formation, the ProCD v. Zeidenberg case, expressly held that there was a contract.
The better view is probably that the particular circumstances of the transaction dictate the enforceability of the EULA. In particular, if you clicked something prior to buying acknowledging that there would be an agreement, or if the package says something about an agreement inside, its probably enforceable.
Just so you are clear on the theory of these cases, it goes like this. To have a contract formed, you need an offer, acceptance and consideration. The offeror may establish the terms of acceptance in the offer, and hence may say something like: "Here's the deal. I offer to sell. If you want to accept my offer, pay me first, take it home and read the EULA. If you don't like it, return the dough and no deal. If you use it, you bought it." Under this theory, the fundamental tenets of contract law are satisfied, a contract is formed, and the only question is whether public policy is violated by enforcement of the provisions (this almost never happens).
USA Beats the Soviet Union by Being More Soviet Than the Soviets. Film at 11.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
At least this isn't law yet. Individual states still have to pass it, and M$ can't bribe THAT many legislatures (hmmm... well, theoretically Billy could divide up a half-billion among each state legislature, but that'd be too obvious).
Hell, even if it can, the software companies (most of which are already ethically questionable when it comes to licensing; M$ isn't the only one) will create such outrageous licenses that Open-Source will simply look even better. The divide between OSS and proprietary is growing wider, and it looks as though it could be in out favor.
And, of course, the Supreme Court can still overturn it as unconstitutional (that bit about disabling software remotely could be construed as illegal search and seizure).
I live in New York State. Two months ago I tried to call every representative we had on that committee. The only contact I got was a 90+ year old representative (I'm not kidding. Methinks he was alive when the UCC didn't exist). He understood none of the implications of this bill. I predict that the big result of this is that companies will (1) start renting software and (2) be able to remotely shut down your company at will by withdrawing the software until the issue gets resolved. God help us all.
You missed the point of the thread, it was a conceptial thread based upon the notion of "what if" they made the accual use of reverse engineered software illegal.
No. But it is legal to look at how something works and make a duplicate. (As long as you aren't infringing on any patents, which is a different issue.)
from another article in the thread. Someone was citing a case where "reverse engineering" was basically responsible for the proliferation of clones. I don't dispute that cloning of the BIOS enabled this. I don't think that it was "reverse engineering". I may have too limited a definition of reverse engineering.
The first BIOS was written by IBM. The first people to emulate the functions of the BIOS and create the first IMB PC clone were Compaq. All PC BIOS'es rely on the fact that they are reverse engineered clones of the original IBM BIOS.
I don't think that this is correct. There were two teams involved in the "duplication effort" to clone the IBM BIOS. There was a team that wrote the specification for the protocol in the original BIOS, and there was a "clean" team that used that specification to create a new BIOS that functioned the same way. Microsoft supports Kaffe because it is a similar "clean room" implementation of Java. Microsoft's own people had seen the code for the Sun implementation, so it was not clean.
Can someone whose following this thing please explain just what it means for use?
I think that governments need to have some legislation in place to produce an economic domain where capitalism works. Within this domain, the best way to gain wealth is to produce wealth for others; that is what capitalism is all about.
Capitalism is a set of natural laws describing how economic transactions occur. Many natural laws only hold true within a certain domain. For example, Newtonian physics only works when the objects it describes are over a certain size (not much smaller than an angstrom, say), and are not moving very close to the speed of light in a vacuum. If you go outside that realm, Newtonian physics break down and you need a new set of laws.
You need certain legislation to keep within the realm of capitalism. The most obvious such legislation is antitrust law. Others include truth-in-advertising laws and contract law; both enforce an ability to trust one's vendor. Tort (lawsuit) law also exists to enforce trust; this gives us reasonable ways to settle vendor-customer disagreements (the fact that tort law is now the first, rather than the last resort, is another problem entirely).
The government can destroy a capitalism in one of two ways. If it allows citizens to operate outside the realm of capitalism, making it possible for them to gain great gobs of wealth without producing significant wealth for others (say, lying through your teeth and selling snake oil), people will follow their profit motive in ways that don't help others. The other way to failure is to overlegislate, as you said. Overlegislation deadens the profit motive and produces a socialism.
So where are we (the US) now? IMHO, we are slightly overlegislated (less so than most "capitalist" countries) in most areas. However, we missed one key condition of capitalism: that economic success should not translate to political power in the government that set up the capitalism. Since we missed that trick, our largest companies (with the largest lobbies) are underlegislated, and able to make money by screwing the people over.
--The basis of all love is respect
Thank God I live in Canada ;)
But seriously, who are they trying to fool with the "remote disabling" bit? That's ridiculously easy to break. Look out for disable-command blockers on the crack sites.
Anybody have information on how likely it is that this can be opposed successfully? How will the process go about? Can it be challenged legally, politically, or just by popular favour? The bureaucracy can't be entirely the pawn of big business. How long will it take?
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
If reverse engineering is not allowed, would that now cause a problem for MicroSoft, since they reverse engineered the AIM client?
Seriously, without 100% open standards, outlawing reverse engineering is simple anticompetitive.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Congress is trying to pass yet another Big Business pipe dream, and, even if they do so, it'll get shot down, either in whole or bit by bit, in court.
It'll be fun to watch the wreckage fall to Earth.
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
"who are the other three states?"
:-)
1. They split California into north and south, because, well, everyone does,
2. They didn't hear that Puerto Rico turned down applying for statehood, and erroneously believe they have applied,
3. They count the D.C. as a state.
Probably.
Ah, but creating the code was not illegal then, and the code itself is not illegal. I agree if you continue reverse-engineering then there would be a violation of law. But Samba (for example) at the current version will always be legal. Only newer versions could be declared illegal. At least that's how I read it, who knows how it would actually come out after it's been through a reality distortion field like the US Justice System.
I don't know if it's legal but the last time I looked on a MS EULA it said that opening the box bound you to the laws of MS's home state ( or something like that ). If you really want to hurt MS then move to the EU, there's a little known law here that says if a software company won't fix bugs when you ask them to then you can request the source code so that you can fix it yourself, that should tie up the legal vultures for years!
It would automatically retroactivly affect all software out there that used reverse engineering in the past.
This actually has a far greater impact than you could possibly imagine. The only reason why all x86 machines are hardware compatible is that they all have a BIOS that functions in the same way.
The first BIOS was written by IBM. The first people to emulate the functions of the BIOS and create the first IMB PC clone were Compaq. All PC BIOS'es rely on the fact that they are reverse engineered clones of the original IBM BIOS.
So, depending on the length of the Statute of Limitations on this, it could be that it is now illegal to use any non-IBM PC!
Ho hum, just another example of the stupidity of the legaslative bodies around the world.
Joe
--
If the license forbids you from reverse engineering or talking about how the program works, I think we would all agree that this is a violation of the spirit of copyright and patent policy. UCITA does contain an exception against abuse. However, it will be up to a judge in a court to decide that matter.
If some software company were to limit free-speech by putting a clause that the software's quality cannot be discussed (no benchmarking, for instance), then this would be a violation of the First Ammendment (in the U.S.) and the UCLA should jump all over that. Since most database vendors have such clauses in their licenses, I would think there would be a case submitted to the courts shortly after UCITA finally passes (if it passes).
Wait ten years - there will be two kinds of software for sale: totally free, and totally fascist. People that code on a proprietary basis will resort to network-encrypted executables or worse, eventually, to protect their int. property rights and maintain control of the product. On the other hand, OSS will explode in the opposite direction, so I don't think it's much to worry about.
Actually, I have "purchased" all of the software that I use. But if I actually read the agreement, it's not a purchase. It's a "permanent lease". Wouldn't take too much of a change to make it a temporary lease.
And recently the banks have decided that it's legal for them to change the terms of an agreement after you've signed it, and without you approval. In fact, it usually takes effect before they even bother to notify you. Think the software companies won't pick up on that?
Don't attribute your actions to others (well, I have a tendency to attribute things that way, so I assume that that is what you were doing).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
At least sane companies won't start implementing these things - at least sane companies who want to sell to countries other than the US. Let me say this: if a similar bill is ever proposed in the Parliament or provincial legislature of Canada, I'll personally lead a crusade to fight it. I've no fear of public speaking, and I speak my mind however I see fit. Similar things will NOT come to pass in sane countries, if the people speak their minds.
To those unfortunate people who are stuck in the US: Write your representatives NOW . Make sure that they know you will NOT accept this sort of garbage. Make sure your local newspapers know about it. Every single average person will not be appreciative that their supposedly fair government, the government they elect and pay, wants to take away their rights and drop them into the hands of big business, whose only care is the almighty dollar. If enough people voice their opinion on this, it won't come to pass.
This doesn't affect anybody yet. It's just a proposal which now goes to each of the 50 states and only takes effect if adopted by their legislature, and then only to contracts governed by the law of that state. For US residents, you can still oppose it in your state legislature. My SWAG is that it will eventually be adopted by 30 states, with significant variations in about 20 of those states, so there will be a complete mess. The interesting question is whether proprietary technology vendors start putting into their contracts that the contract is governed by the law of a state likely to adopt UCITA quickly (Washington maybe?)
Look, personal freedoms and rights in this country are going downhill at a rapid rate. I count at least four stories on slashdot in the last week alone about how the government is reducing freedoms that we once had. At this point in time, there are two choices that lie before us, we can either roll over and do nothing, allowing the government and corporations to take total control of our lives, telling us what to do, what to look at, and what to buy. The second option is that we can do somethig about it, we can prevent it, or at least mitigate it. In order to do this we must organize. I think that any organization that happens needs to have slashdot as its focal point, for two reasons; One, because most people who want to do something about this problem read slashdot, so its a good starting point, and two the people of slashdot have the means and the knowhow to coherently argue the issues. In order to organise we need to set up a seperate website, or a forum on slashdot especially for advocacy and protection of freedoms. We need writers who can put together letters that succinctly sum up the opinions and input of all /.ers. And as much as I hate to bring this up in such a forum, we need a strong leader. No advocacy or revolutionary organisation will or has succeeded in acheiving its goals without a strong leader. Thats not to say that any group with a strong leader automatically achieves its goals, but its a prerequisite for coherent action. Well theres the idea, tear it apart, build on it, but don't disagree that something must be done. Geeks of the world unite, for we have nothing to lose but our chains, and nothing to gain but our freedom.
Joe Stecher
Stecher@wam.umd.edu
P.S. Please dont flame me, but if you have constructive criticism, id love to hear it
"hell is being intelligent in a world of idiots"
Also, since they already have the GUID method in place, it is easy enough to key it to your Pentium III processor #.
Sure this won't give them universal coverage. 50%, though, it a lot more than they need to get pretty draconian.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Hmm, I did go back and re-read it. I think I did let my attention wander a bit. But I still don't think they could make such a broad change feasibly. While it might not fall under the rule of no retroactive prosecution, it still would be a bit much. I don't think they could make it stick, and you would end up with so many lawsuits that the software industry would fall apart. Reverse engineering is a fairly common practice in all kinds of fields, not just SW.
Though if I'm wrong, then it's probably time to start packing my bags for somewhere nice like Italy. The US is not becoming a friendlier place to live as time goes on.
The American government is obviously not siding with the people anymore, the small business, or the little guy. No it seems rather obvious that we have a corrupt house, congress, senate, president - whatever. The 'government' that we have is obviously controlled corporations who shell out the bucks to get whatever Aristrocrats elected. An example if I may, in Silicon Valley - the most internet dependant place in the entire USA AT&T has taken the entire ISP market into their own hands by having a completely closed - monopolistic hold over the "cable modem" industry. What does Chairman Kennard of the FCC say in a ZdTv interview - is he frightened that one company may POSSIBLY be able to control the entire ISP business in the not-so-near future? ... No unfortunately he doesn't. His attitude is that we can 'sacrifice' the small ISP's to build a large broadband infastructure. I have harsh words for someone who is so near sighted - It seems to me that people are far more interested in filling their own pockets rather than what is good for the public - this may seem like a new concept to many people but it is not. Politicians have always been crooked and dirty - even in Biblical times they were, and they still are. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. To wrap this up, they are taking the money from where it comes... being that the Sun Microsystems, AT&T's, and Microsofts are all out there saying "we need to be protected from piracy -- we need to not be screwed, oh and by the way here's 30 million dollars" the politicians are responding with "Yes Mr. Gates, what would you like in your coffee".
= 53 states. The 50 states + who? DC(?), Puerto Rico(?), who are the other three states?
--
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
teleneting isn't, in and of itself, a security hole. Letting everyone be root, now... Do you browse the internet as root?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I believe that the GPL probably already covers what you are asking for. IANAL.
(Of course, many lawyers appearantly consider that the GPL might not hold up if tested in court... and, depending on the judge, they are certainly right.)
Perhaps it would be as well if someone who had the expertise were to express the intent of the GPL in legally sound language. (I wanted to say bug-free code, but there don't seem to be any debuggers available).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Hmmm, I think I used that subject last time. Oh, well.
Just wanted to point out again that this will make reverse engineering illegal. So long as we live in a world not entirely defined by RFCs, that's going to be a problem. And depending on what the actual laws say, it might not even help if it's reverse engineered outside of the country.
And what ever happened to "they moved this to another bill because it's so stupid no one would vote for it"? I'm sad now.
Better to fight it here before it becomes well-established than to run from it and wait for it to catch up with you. I just submitted something yesterday in which I asked if there is a good Slashdot-type political site for people who are concerned about the government's complete cluelessness about technology issues. I hope to find one. We need a place to organize our voices into something that Washington can hear loud and clear.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Thank you, we've noticed. Gloat if you must.
I'm not a lawyer. (I don't even play one on television. ;-)) I would look for this to be challenged on prior restraint grounds.
This entire issue is so lame. The proponents of this legislation are trying to tell people that they have no rights under the law to the use of their computers. This imposes a huge restraint on the rights of all users of commercial software. Right now, that must be about 90-some percent of the computers.
This very well might make it to the Supreme Court. But, I'd bet anything it will be struck down in the lower courts long before that. There will be plenty of big-time corporations who, not wanting their rights to use software restricted either, will pour tons of money into the fight.
Regardless, this is such a ludicrous bill that the states implementing it will become laughing stocks. Can you imagine being the governor of such a state asking large corporations whose livelihood depend on high technology that moving to your state means they have to give up their rights to the software on which their corporation depends? I don't think so.
Yep. EULAs have won in court. It seems ridiculous until you see things like this UCITA bill pass. Then you realize who's really running things in this country.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If it's legal for them to remotely disable your software in the state that they operate in, how does it protect you if your state doesn't allow this? It was legal for them to do what they did where they did it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Time to speak to your local governments again. Make them aware what these kinds of laws means to the average consumer..."Bend Over and Lube Up!"
We need lobbyists, oh wait, we got 'em. I think it's called the Slashdot effect. Ain't e-mail grand.
2 scariest parts-- No reverse engineering, remote disabling of software and vendor approval for reselling. Does that include VARs?
Kind of makes those with OSS look at the others and issue forth the eternal sound of Nelson "Heh-huh"
+&x
(NCCUSL), a private group of more than 300 lawyers, judges, and law professors.
Think about it. Lawyers make a law like this that will be controversial because it tips the scales heavily in favor of big software companies. The software companies will obviously want their state to OK the law and they will lobby for it. Consumer groups are against the law, but what can they do? Boycott the software companies? Not likely. So, the law passes and lawyers succeed in ensuring full employment for themselves due to lawsuits over the new law, and software companies get to realize some of their wildest fantasies. They can do whatever they want to their users and it's legal!
Ok, that was a rant. I'm annoyed. I still find it hard to believe that the states passed this abomination of a law. There's something very bad at work here, that much is obvious. Whether it's lawyers, big business, or government, I don't know. This is obviously not in the best interests of consumers though, so I wonder what that says about who is running this country. The people? Not likely. A few heads of big businesses and their lawyers? Much more likely.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
UCITA is not law yet. The NCCUSL has voted to forward the bill to the states, who must enact it individually. This is, incidentally, how the Uniform Commercial Code works, which governs many commercial transactions. However, it is likely that many states will pass the legislation given the rubber stamp of the NCCUSL.
It goes mostly without saying that UCITA will be bad for the consumer. It gives software makers many broad powers to limit consumer freedom. For example, shrinkwrap licenses don't even have to be on the outside of the box to be enforceable. Goodbye EULA protesters!
I disagree with those who say that UCITA will be good for open source software. Under UCITA, manufacturers may be able to enforce gag clauses that prevent you from discussing the product (including performance, etc) with others. This goes against the very nature of the open source process. Also, explicit provisions against reverse engineering may now be enforceable as well. Think of how the Samba team relies on reverse engineering to make a superior product. UCITA may allow Microsoft to forbid that practice in the future.
Many groups are opposed to UCITA, including librarians, consumer groups, the Attorneys General for almost half the states, and the Federal Trade Commission. Despite this the NCCUSL probably promoted UCITA because they have an interest in preserving states rights over federal. Cem Kaner hosts an excellent web page, Bad Software, which discusses these issues and summarizes the hurtful parts of UCITA.
It is now vitally important that citizens contact their state commissioners, governers, etc. to expresse their opposition to UCITA. It's got to be done on a state-by-state basis now.
CraigI find it interesting that this NCCUSL troop made such a decision, considering the fact that no one in it appears to be qualified to make such a decision. Lawyers, judges, and law professors? I can understand dragging some of them in for technicalities writing up a law, but for consultation about a concept for a law, you need input from people in the field which will be affected by the law. I doubt any of the people on that conference/committee know what they're doing....and what the consequences will/might be.
And that disturbs me, because I really hate it when people try to stick their noses in where they don't know what they're doing.
Insert mind here.
Not to support script kiddiez or anything, but I'll be laughing my ass off when everyone's (including business and government) software is remotely disabled after the shutdown codes are posted all over the Internet!
Fortunately I'll still be able to laugh at them online thanks to free(dom) software.
Maybe they could take that logo of a GNU and work it up into a stick-on label, that only certified programs would have the right to use. (And an ICON that could be attached to download links!)
Well, if Intel and MS can make something like that work, it MIGHT be do-able.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
- The government having the power to censor web sites that it deems unacceptable, or
- American corporates controlling the web through financial or legal means.
In the end it'll boil down to the same thing: a loss of power to the individual. And my feeling is I'd rather have the government blocking porn and the occasional good or useful site than have American companies controlling the web.I realise that the story wasn't quite about control of the web, but this law is a distinct step in that direction.
One of the scariest things I can see about the Net at present is the inevitability of the American corporate-legal system propogating itself around the world, due both to a lack of regulation and international cooperation, and also just the sheer legal power of these companies. You can see it already through their lawsuits on international websites, patent controls, and similar tactics.
And yeah, I'm Australian.
Considering M$ is currently in a "battle" with AOL after they reverse engineered their messenging protocol (e.g. AOL Instant Messenger), I doubt M$ will be fighting to make reverse engineering illegal.
Since AOL published the protocol at one point to promote 3rd party clients, it doesn't seem like reverse engineering to me.
(Don't remember which article I saw that in, but one of the MS vs. AOL articles here mentioned that AOL had at one point published that - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
Tatara
Just wondering, is reverse engineering legal now?
Is it legal to take a working (proprietary)program, disassemble it and publish the source code on the web?
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
The Mass. Committee on Science and Technology is probably where the bill will begin. When UCITA comes up, it should be listed here.
Th is link should at some point lead to the bill itself.
Let's not let it happen in our backyard.
It's just court judgments, not laws, and there's even exceptions to court judgments. For example, many states may not accepet *any* judgment for a gambling debt, as it violates public policy (Nevada only began allowing judgments on casino markers about 10 years ago).
The repo order you mention is only valid within the court's jurisdiction, which stops at the county or state line.
Also, note that the act of removal occurs within Nevada, not Washington. If it's hunting season for dancing paperclips in Iowa, but not in Missouri, and I shoot from within Iowa to kill one in Missouri, I've committed a crime in missouri. My actions have reached into missouri, and subjected me to missouri jurisdiction.
hawk,esq.
It's not law yet, but I read on 2bguide.com (I think) that 43 state governors have expressed support for it.
The kind of software that would be mostly affected by this mesure NEVER will be open source. We will not see any viable free alternatives to ERP applications, industrial strength CAD/CAM, large custom data mining solutions etc in our lifetime. Such applications are far more important then the operating system and hardware it runs on, they cost zillions, and if you have lost control over them - you have lost control over your business.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
The laws popping up the in good 'ole USA are just getting me to the point of moving right out of the country, period. Anyone need a good sys admin for a ISP running Linux? ;)
I mean, when you buy software off the shelf now, just by "opening" it you agree to the licensing crap that you sometimes can't read until you open it anyway! Amazing....
Dana
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
There are some more details on the "wonderful" proposals. They are for our own good, right? HA HA!l ?/features/990531ucita.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.p
Or click here
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
From www.badsoftware.com, a letter by 14 Attorneys General that are against UCITA.
Another from same site is www.badsoftware.com/debate.htm.
Do check out rest of the site since it has a lot of interesting information about this evil bill.
For more information about UCITA and what it will do to the software industry, check out badsoftware.com, run by Cem Kaner, a lawyer and computer programmer. It is very bad, much worse than the press article slashdot linked to described. Imagine if you were a lobbyist for a company and you had complete and total freedom to rewrite the laws your company worked under. You'd write the laws to give you all the power and screw everyone else, right? This is what has happened with UCITA. If you have anything to do with software (and why the hell are you reading slashdot if you don't), you need to pay attention to this.
--
Michael Sims
I think you missed something there. It's not being implemented on a state-by-state basis. If you read the article, it clearly mentions:
It won't matter what any one particular state has voted for, the same law will apply everywhere.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
But honestly.. the concept of reposession, great idea. Just as if you are using your phone for 'wrong' they can disable it, if you use software for illegal reasons (use), cool. I would like to see how this would be enforced in a fassion that it won't be easily crackable. Encrypt most of the program so that the small encrypted portion decrypts?
Enforcable licensing and reverse engineering. I would hope that GPL would be marked as one. So stop whining if it is. Else, it scares me.
Reverse engineering is bad and its good. Its good in the sense as it doesn't restrict and allows free development on the code. It lets alternatives sprout. Its bad in the sense that how something is done, the concept, can be patentable and this is just a further way of enforcing it. Depends on which side of the line you are on. OSS vs non-OSS.
The upside on tracked licensing, easy transfer of warantee or other promised services. Down side, who the heck is going to be patient enought to use it? Those new to computers. Hell, we already do this with cars, no? This forces the companies to get off their ass and do better tracking of who owns what. This allows a company to even sell its software to different departments or branches with less trouble.
Disclaiming warantees is my big issue. Wouldnt' the disclaiming of warranty considered a form of false adavertising? To say that a warranty claims that we give support with this product but we, the company, say no since we want to?
I guess because I use only OSS, it won't affect me as much. This also is more a fight for the companies over idiot p1r4t3s. But you reap what you sow.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Outlaw reverse engineering? This sounds completely illegal. The right to reverse engineer has been upheld time and again. Copyrights protect only the expression of an idea, and not the idea itself.
.. extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,etc.'), and grants the Software industry special privileges not granted to other industries.
Reverse engineering cannot be outlawed because RE is necessary to understand how the software works i.e. the idea and principles behind behind the software. Outlawing reverse engineering constitutes protecting ideas through copyright, a right expressly denied by the Copyright Act ('in no case does copyright
When I first read that, I thought it was a big joke. I thought "No, that can't be. Nobody is that stupid." WHAT KIND OF SICK SCREWED UP MORON WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT?
"We think that this will extend the rights of end users," Nimmer said.
YOU FSCKING IDIOT! YOU'RE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS AND GIVING THE CORPORATIONS COMPLETE CONTROL OF EVERYTHING!
I never thought I'd say this, but Canada suddenly looks like a really nice place to live.
how about a movement to append the GNU license or OpenSource standards to include some lines saying that complient programs cannot include such "evil features". I dunno, just a thought. It would be more of a political statement to show that people dont want such things then a needed condition.
Flame away.
>It won't matter what any one particular state has voted for, the same law will apply everywhere.
States are still allowed to customize UCC regulations on a per-state basis. Maryland, for example disallows certain warantee restrictions that are guaranteed by the universal commercial code. Think of it like a standards document. It's not exactly guaranteed to operate the same *everywhere*, but 90% of the time you can expect 90% of it to hold true, and the discrepancies are well known amongst those whose business it is to know (i.e. the laywers)
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
What if this is only the beginning for the software industry and its consumers? In that article, they were talking about remotely shutting down software on a personal computer [talk about invasion of privacy]. How far can this go? Someone in a position of power better have the intelligence to see what effect this potential law could have on the U.S.: the end of freedom, the rebirth of a "Bigger Brother", and a computer software industry run by software vendors. Can anyone honestly tell me that the people who designed this law are doing it for *our* sake instead of there's?
Rajiv Varma
Marketing opportunity for anyone distributing or selling truly open source software. Play this one
up.
The average consumer doesn't like this. Don't believe that just because so many people have been
using Microsoft products that they will want to continue doing so if it is driven into them that they do not own the software and that it is only being rented (and that the license can be terminated online). It's up to RedHat, Caldera,
FreeBSD, etc., to use aggressive, cometitive advertising to make consumers more aware of this.
The developer community and the software services industry, which is much larger than those who mostly develop new software, are even more opposed because they will have no sound basis on which to deal with their clients and customers, either in-house or in contract work. If licenses become little more than rental contracts, it is very likely that service vendors will recommend open source in almost every case - because the license grants ownership of the code - thereby reassuring the customer that the rug won't get pulled out by unforseen events. (And that the service contractor can extend his contract to maintain or customize a product that will be around for a while).
Many people I know who are not nerds (use Windows mostly) object strongly to things like active updates when AOL or Microsoft takes over their computers to upgrade and install (and do who knows what else while going through their files). They also object strongly to unwanted connections being established with vendors by hidden tripwires in the software or planted in the Windows registry.
This is not just a Windows thing. The potential for exploitation of consumers and end users is just as great with Java. Sun would like nothing better than to have all consumers using very thin client machines, renting and running their Java and Jini objects downloaded from Sun mainframes. Sort of like the good old mainframe time sharing mentality. I don't think consumers will go for that if they have other choices. The can have those choices, easily.
For example, open source endeavours can offer competing open objects, which won't be rental but can reside permanently on the client machine or over a clustered network if the user wants that. Regardless of flaws which have plagued Java in the past, it is coming strong and Linux looks like the chosen client platfrom for it in the near future.
Especially with higher bandwidths by several orders of magnitude... I expect Java development to pick up dramatically in the Linux and free unix community - within the coming year. It would help to have a Java for Linux as good as what is available for Solaris and Windows. I think IBM will see to that.
The only part that bothers me about this agreement between the states for software licensing law is the part about reverse engineering. That can be broadly interpreted to have a chilling effect on many worthwhile projects. But it is almost impossible to prove. So long as developers aren't intimidated by legal threats I don't think that the plaintiffs in such cases can win often enough in court to make it stick.
This act is suicidal on the part of the large software vendors who have lobbied for it. Very short sighted. Of course if open source endeavours don't aggressively follow up and make the public more aware that they have other choices then things could get very bad before they get better. But I think there are now enough well established companies backing open source, and enough venture capitalists willing to invest and smart enough to realize that this is a fiasco for closed source.
People who stick there nose in where hey don't know what they're doing... that's government. We should definitely make our voices heard when this stuff comes up in our respective state legislatures.
At first I didn't see any problems. Even vendors having the right to disable products by remote seemed like a possible bonus for some of us. Users pissed at proprietary vendors who disable their software because of a mistake might look at an open source solution where this would never happen.
But then I got to the point about making reverse engineering illegal, and that my friends is a serious issue. This could, and very likely would, make future products such as samba illegal. Now, that being said, a program like samba COULD be created and distributed anonymously. Its unlikely that anyone could be sued because they're using a product that was concieved of illegally, and being open sourced, nobody would be able to prevent anyone from picking up the project at any time.
In fact, if the reverse enginner published the specs anonymously, than another coder could take over the project without (technically) breaking any laws.
Still, I don't like it.
I don't like any of it.
Even the idea that a vendor would be forced to remote disable a product is sickening. I know its to prevent piracy, but its very nature is an invasion of privacy. However, there are adaquate workarounds to prevent this possibility. First of all, in order to disable the software, that software needs to be accessible from the internet. If that computer never actually ACCESSES the internet, then there's no way to disable it. Also, sitting behind a firewall or a masq.'ed network would also prevent this.
Furthermore, assuming this is a method to reduce piracy, consider the fact that most commercial software products don't require any software keys to use the software, except maybe during installation. The reason they don't require you to enter your original diskette every time you run the program is they realize that its worth the risk of piracy to make it hassle free for the customer than to piss off half your customer base by making it difficult. Just a few mistakes on the part of the software vendor and they'll get some VERY bad press, along with some possible lawsuits. And you can be damn sure that they'll also lose those customers.
Still, I'd rather see the government stay out of the software industry. Let microsoft have their monopoly. I think I'd be happier letting linux or some other product topple them on their own merit rather than having "help" by the government who will likely create dangerous precedent in the process that will give microsoft a card to play in the future when the tables are turned.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Thank GOD I am Canadian :P
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Certain parts of this law would definitely make me call for some Civil Disobedience. Now, I'm not entirely up on the details of the UCITA, but if it outlawed things like Reverse Engineering, etc, then I'm afraid I would have to knowingly break that law every time I sit down at my computer.
I'm sorry, but no government can stop me from thinking and figuring out how something works. What are they going to do, throw all their sysadmins and developers in court? Yeah, that would be good for economony.
Don't even get me started on that.
Has anyone actually sat down and read existing EULA's...they already have supreme power and can basically rewrite the agreement whenever it suits them. ITS SCAREY NOW.
Now a bunch of lawyers and bureacrats want to give the software industry more power? Im getting shafted as it is...why give greedy corporations more power...if anything the end user needs more protection. Right now you can install a piece of software and if it eats the contents of your drives...so what..your fault for installing it?
Does anyone blame me for being scared.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Does everyone remember when John Perry Barlow posted the Declaration of Independance of the Internet? We all laughed and shook our heads.. why would we want to be a global city state? Then the legislation started and we all started saying "hey, since when does the US government own the Internet?".. Then Microsoft decided to move every one of their products onto the net and we all said, "hey, since when does Microsoft own the Internet?".. well recently I've heard a lot of these music industry dudes saying how they are going to stop piracy by controlling the distribution channells with their mythical encryption and proprietry compression standards and I ask again, "hey, since when does the music industry own the Internet?".. on a side note, Microsoft had the right idea, they saw that in a free standing anarchy they can't survive so they formed their own (crappy) network.. the MSN. The music industry should do the same, the TMN for Totallatarian Music Network..
The problem with declaring yourself independant is governments still consider you a part of their turf. How has this been solved in the past? Well, with bloodshed really.. but that really doesn't apply to duel citizens like us. Is there a peaceful solution to the political supression that we are all experiencing on the net or will our independance only lead to cyberwar. Clinton seems to think so. An enemy within is an enemy as well.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The fact is, the government and corporations have LONG been stepping and crushing people, but it's always been the poor. No one cares about the poor! Now they're invading your space. The middle and upper middle class. Crushing your rights and freedoms. Recently large numbers of people have been protesting things like the G8, and in November, the WTO in Seattle. University students protesting against sweatshop labor. Thousands and thousands of people. And they're all involved in these things DESPITE the fact the corporate media never mentions them at all. Somehow, people are fed up and have discovered ways on their own, to try to fight back. Right now the largest community run microradio station, KPFA, is protesting against Pacifica because Pacifica wants to sell KPFA because of it's large audience! People have been outraged and massive protests have been going on there.
Our government hasn't just now decided to become corrupt, it has long been so. it is just now invading the "freedoms" of the middle/upper class of the country, where as before it was only hurting the voiceless poor and people of other countries (and still is I might add).
From killing off native americans in the past and now, to using slave labor in the country, and now using slave labor in third world countries, raping the earth's resources for profits and to feed our addictive consumption rates, suppressing the rights of women, and long promoting right-wing Christian fundamentalism...how can it not be clear the US isn't perfect like they lie and make you believe? The US is f-cking evil...and if you don't believe me now, you will soon enough...when they limit your freedom, or put you away.
http://www.savepacifica.net
http://www.infoshop.org
http://www.protest.net
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.zmag.org
http://www.fair.org
http://www.foodnotbombs.org/
http://jya.com/crypto.htm
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointel.htm
http://www.urban75.com
http://www.oneworld.org
http://www.mediafilter.org
There you go. Arm yourself with information. Don't believe the world is perfectly all right. Now apparently the short-sighted people are beginning to see they were wrong. Don't think you're alone for thinking something is wrong, there are millions out there who know it already. From those educated on the subjects, to those experiencing the abuses caused by this horrible corporate owned world, and their servant governments.
If the only software available for a vital corporate function is commercial hostageware, then there will be significant unfulfilled demand for non-hostageware. In a capitalist system, an unfulfilled demand involving zillions of dollars what is known as an opportunity. And it tends to draw entrepreneurs and their VCs like moths to a flame.
And better ensures that you will not have your software remotely deactiviated than a free software license and the ability to look at the source code?
Furthermore, would you trust your vital corporate functions to a random support firm, or the company that directs the development the software? The support contract model of free software is actually perfectly fits this kind of situation.
At WORST, this law will result in the commercial licenses and contracts for vital software to include no-deactivation clauses. At BEST, it will create a massive market for free software.
And they think this will hold up in court? If a vendor remotely disables something that you pay for, that is called sabotage with malicious intent. On shrinkwrap licensing: If it doesn't have my signature, it is not a legally binding conaract. On license transfer: Big business needs to learn that I pay for a product, not a license. I have the right to sell, trade, or transfer MY software to whomever I please. On reverse engineering: Again, I own the software. What I decide to do with it on MY internal network is totally my decision, and it will not be illegal.
What I see here are some industry hotshots trying to get something into law that they can use in court. I hate to break it to them, but this will be torn apart in court.
Perhaps you failed to notice the part about this being an AMERICAN law.
There are quite a few programmers out there that AREN'T Americans, and as such, have no legal reason to follow American laws.
I'll admit that the majority of Slashdot readers are probably American (including myself), but the rest of the world doesn't have to follow these greedy laws.
Don't think I'm saying that as Americans, we can't fight this. I'm planning on writing my local congresswoman about this, but for the rest of the world - this news is nothing more than an annoyance.
What's more - maybe this will push more non-US programmers to participate in the Open Source movement.
-Jeff
I give you that on the patent example.. it is a bad one at that. Sometimes patents take too long to go through at times.. but that's neither here nor there.
For the sysadmins that need to worry about licensing, the companies, it becomes easier. All of our basic rights, I dunno about that.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
I would think that a firewall would cause "protected" software to disable itself. I would imagine that the local copy of the software would have to contact a master server over IP or dialup or something for a daily or weekly or monthy ACK. If it cannot get the ACK, it shuts down. Anyone who would want to do this remote shutdown routine has surely thought about firewalls.
Isn't Samba's approach to analyze NT's wire protocol? I would have guessed actually trying to grok binary Microsoft networking code would have been way too complicated to be feasible (unless the crew down under is much better at it than I thought)
iSKUNK!
How would we even tell the difference between that, and what we've got now?
Microsoft already shuts down our NT servers regularly, and they aren't even trying.
Information is not Knowledge
God knows they'd do a better job than the "government" and "rights" we enjoy and defend in this wonderful country. Come on in, I'll be waving my (Canadian) flag on my porch. ;-)
-Joe
Simple. The reverse engineering team would be outside the US. I assume there's no restrictions on importing code that was written by overseas peoples' efforts.
...that this article's correspondent is named "McCarthy".
:)
Those stupid boiler plate licenses that 99.99% of the public never reads have finally come to life. The question is will the average non-programmer consumer understand that they are going to be 'information raped' by dumb companies that write bloated, buggy, code.
I guess that it is time that GNU be branded as consumer friendly. Maybe Stallman was onto something when he was insisting that all linux distros use the 'GNU' name.
The consumer needs 'education' in this area, that they can not let 'whack on command' software into their homes and onto their hardrives.
Is this going to be one of those silent 'nobody cares enough to make a noise' laws?? Who is going to inform the general public??
It's been argued that open source is dangerous becouse a back door could be added by any random cracker.
While true this ignores the fact that such a back door could just as easlly removed where as a closed source counterpart can only be removed by the very person or persons who put it in to start with.
If this becomes law the whole argument is trunned on it's head. Not only would it become more likely to happen in closed source than open but it could be company policy. A feature to disable illegal copys. By it's very nature illegal copys of open source do not exist making such a feature meaningless.
I don't actually exist.
I can see MS "disabling" NT servers remotely if they find they are on a network with Samba. I guess the bright side of this, for NT admins anyway, is that MS will have to improve the remote admin capabilities of NT in order to do this. Or maybe Steve Balmer will just drive over in a car and pull the plug. :-)
TedC
Hm. I rememeber hearing all this blather about a shortage of technically competent people. Now, how do you think those people are going to react if their Government keeps trying this sort of silliness?
.. yeah ... I'll remove it, to Europe :-P
They're going to leave. Maybe they'll tolerate a bit. But there will come a point at which it would become unbearable. If I get people knocking on my door requesting that I comply with such and such law and remove my unauthorised firewall
Hey, multi-billion dollar US tech industry, do you *want* employees? Or can your lawyers write code as well as they can propose codes?
Why must the government co-operate with industry? I think the ideal situation is to have the government and the corporations opposing each other continuously, hopefully leaving them too busy with each other to give us any more "service" than we require.
I don't see anything wrong with this. It just screws over people stupid enough to use non-free software. :-)
If I'm going to get mad and write my rep about something, it will probably be over encryption export controls... now THAT is true stupidity.
Read carefully. Uniform acts are *not* laws. The committee has *no* power to enact laws. None. Zero. Ever.
What it does is suggest laws so that they'll be the same or nearly the same in various states. The ones that make sense tend to get accepted. The ones that don't get laughed at. This will end up in the latter category.
The only two uniform acts that I can think of that have been adopted by all the states are article 2 of the U.C.C. (sales), and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Others have been adopted by a handful or most, and I believe that some have been adopted by none. I'd guess that this will end in the last group.
States have *no* obligation to pass this, and could choose bits, pieces, or completely rewrite it if it were proposed. I can't speak for other states, but Nevada is more likely to criminalize the newly "permitted" acts than to allow them. Your states results may vary, depending upon whether you elect legislators who support liberty, or those who support big government.
And as a passing thought, if Nevada criminalizes the remote shutoff of software, sending a termination order electronically into Nevada would lead directly to issues of federal wire fraud and racketeering . . .
These proposed legislative changes will be illegal in Europe and probably an awful lot of the rest of the world.
So, US companies bound by the new rules will have to administer a domestic version with domestic policy and an export version with some other policy.
This is not the way the wired-world works!
The effect will be to stifle the US software industry methinks.
C-x C-s
Rob Malda for President!
Just thought I'd interject that...
I didn't really think of it as "GOOD" news until I read that one comment, but I was going to suggest that you could just not buy from companies who are real $*^^@&(!!!'s about it.
No joke, this sounds fair enough to me. If it will be legal for MS to remotely disable software because they believe that a user has violated a license, how can users retaliate when they believe that MS is the violator? MS has made it clear that they will not pay the refunds that they owe to countless Linux users. Do Linux users get to hack into the Redmond complex and shut down the company until they pay up? Why the hell not?
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I'm not rooting for this, because it's very bad law, but, if it does pass, it will likely cause a stampede to free software. As well it should.
--
...and I'll see you on the flip side.
You know, it was just a week and a half ago I spent five days canoeing in Ontario. Absolutely gorgeous.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
All a part of the secret Shadow Government.
;)
This sig is false.