Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

Maryland, Virginia Consider UCITA 172

Posted by michael from the full-court-press dept.
Bob Kopp writes "The state legislatures of Maryland and Virginia are among the first in the nation to consider passage of the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA). The Washington Post has coverage here. " The Federal Trade Commission says that UCITA allows software companies to place "restrictions on a consumer's right to sue for a product defect, to use the product, or even to publicly discuss or criticize the product." If you oppose UCITA and live in Maryland or Virginia, you need to call or fax your legislators immediately.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Maryland, Virginia Consider UCITA More

Maryland, Virginia Consider UCITA

Comments Filter:
  • This page [state.md.us] has links to all of Maryland's representatives and senators, which then have contact links on their respective pages.
  • It sickens me that a law so blatantly stupid even requires protesting. But indeed it does, and strong protesting. I encourage anyone living in those states to make their voice known. Every person who speaks up DOES count in issues like this. Draw the line now while you still can.
  • i really doubt they can prevent people from talking about it, now matter how much they try. People have a habit of doing things they're told not to, with extra enthusiasm.
  • What exactly is the scope of this? Does this mean that you can't say ANYTHING negative, even if you're in the media? If that IS the case (and to be honest I haven't looked into it much as I'm in Canada) surely this bill will mean the death of magazines like PC Gamer. If the latest game has this agreement, but is truly dire, the magazines aren't allowed to tell you. Draconian doesn't even BEGIN to cover this. The existing agreement is ridiculous, and wouldn't stand up in a court of law. By opening the box, you agree to the licencing agreement, but you have to open the box to READ said agreement. What kind of corporate BS is that? And now they want MORE?! We're already screwed by the current licencing agreement. Never thought I'd say this, but the software companies who proposed this are, without a doubt, SCUM.
  • There's a strong movement going on in this country to remove constitutional rights in matters involving technology. This is rationalized by the arguement that technological issues are somehow different from issues not involving technology, so the constitution doesn't apply to them. CDA is an example of this, crypto export regulations are another, this is just yasl (yet another stupid law) designed to undo what we have already been granted.
  • That page isn't useful. It's a list of federal representatives and senators. Try this page [state.md.us], it is the organizational structure of the Maryland House of Delegates and has links to member directories.
  • It wouldn't mean the death of magazines like that, it would mean the complete corruption of them. No magazine would be able to say anything "BAD" about a piece of software they reviewed. This would be a sad state for journalism if no bad statements could be made. If some no-name company from a city in Washington decides to put a backdoor in an OS, and people discover this, this would hamper their ability to report it. And that is inherently dangerous.
  • Whoops, you're right. Time to get some sleep.

  • future? (Score:1)

    by Zach ( 79700 )
    What if this happened?

    "Dear Microsoft,
    I live in Virginia. Your latest product is shoddy and I want my money back. Its crashed my computer and given me hours of downtime that I've never recovered from.

    -Dissatisfied Customer"

    Now MS replies back:

    "Dear Dissatisfied Customer,
    We've been examing our records and found that you have been complaining no numerous message boards and Usenet groups about our product. This is damaging and inflammatory to us. We're going to take away your software and there's nothing you can do about it. You'll be lucky if we don't call the police on you either.

    -Your Friendly MS Representative"

    ACK! 1984, anyone?
  • Buy a copy of the program you want to use. Pay the company with a personal or business check.

    Promptly throw the entire software package (manual, CDs, license) in the garbage.

    Download the "cracked" or "warez" version of the program and use that.

    If they come knocking on your door about using warez, show them the cancelled check as proof of payment.

    If they claim you violated the the license by using the warezed/cracked version, just ask "what license?"

    I'm sick of fine print. If some company expects me to read fives pages of legal garbage each time I so much as break wind, I'm going to sue them in small claims court for the cost of hiring a lawyer to explain it to me in English.

    - JoeShmoe

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  • You're offtopic, but you're absolutely right. It's stupid to have the default display mode 'flat' and 'oldest first'. The worst thing about this is that it makes Slashdot bewildering and incomprehensible for newcomers. And oh, get rid of 'html formatted' as the default posting format.
  • UCITA has been introduced into the Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Comittee by Senator Glenn Coffee as SB 1337. You can track the status of the bill at www.lsb.state.ok.us.

    Also, check out Richard Stallman's excellent critique at http://linuxtoday.com/stories/15948.html which includes links and contacts for those of you wanting to stay informed of the status of UCITA in your state.
  • This one makes my blood boil, and it isn't volatile. I really wonder whether the Nazis would have been as bold, in 1933. Whether this is a major test of our nation's sanity, I'm not sure, but folks like Ralph Nader, the ACLU, and others must regard it as a delightfully clear-cut case. It's crucially important to fight this. I suspect that the absurdity of its being illegal to criticize will be its Achilles' heel. This one got me upset enough to actually go over to where I keep my passwords and dig out the little slip of paper, and log in, and that's something.

    It also is a really sorry body of evidence that such legislation should be considered; my historical knowledge is not great, but seems nothing like this has been proposed since the Sedition Acts (?) around the time of Jefferson.

    It's also a sorry indication of the pathetic lack of emotional maturity shown by its creators, as well as those who allowed it to become a possibility. Taken down to its essentials, it is really brats in a sandbox who holler "You can't say anything nasty about me, or I'll kill you!" (Of course, it's grimly possible that a brat might have a real handgun and literally carry out that threat....)

    Folks, we gotta fight this. It stinks to high Heaven, no less.

    Found /. busy, at this hour! Had to wait ~5 min. to get the reply-post screen from /.'s server.

    Nicholas Bodley // somewhat incoherent at this hour.

  • well i guess i wouldnt live in virginia or maryland then....any state that would EVEN consider such a fascist law isnt worth living in. Of course that might be all 50 states sooner or later. As far as i am concerned, Ucita totally justifies piracy. From this day forward, until Ucita is dead.....i will refuse to buy any software for any reason. And i will encourage my friends to do so as well. I see no reason to give companies money to take away my rights.
  • For thoese of you too lazy to read the artical, I found this quote by a Microsoft attorney to be rather informative:

    ""There is clear language in this law that says if the consumer buys some software, sees the agreement and doesn't like the deal, they can get their money back," said Bob Gomulkiewicz, a senior corporate attorney for Microsoft. "UCITA actually makes that law."

    How many of us baught a new computer and didn't like the MS software included or the "deal"? How many of the same people were easly able to get a refund for that software?
  • heh. I didn't catch that before. funny!
  • Just one slight issue with that theory. You're not paying for the software itself.. You're paying for the license to use it.

    If you throw away the license, you throw away your right to use it.
  • I will not buy anymore Microshaft products even to appease my computer illiterate users in my Domain. I will simply make them use Free Software. Long live the fighters!

  • I'm gonna be out there doggin' Microsoft's crappy code until I'm out of breath.

    Let the goons come. This is where I draw the line, hard core.
  • Cem Kaner told me a story about how he made a Microsoft lawyer sweat. He said that if Microsoft refuses to offer a refund to take the software back, and the user refuses the license agreement, then that invalidates the license agreement and allows the user to keep the software under no binding license agreement terms. The MS lawyer was made nervous enough that he gave Kaner's client the refund.
  • > I encourage anyone living in those states to make their voice known. Every person who speaks up DOES count in issues like this.

    We who are informed about the TRUE (read: not mainstream, 'hyped-up') nature of computers have an obligation to speak up about this. If you've heard about this, and have gotten angry, or felt shocked that anyone could even CONSIDER the ideas set forth in UCITA, it is your responsibility not just to write to the appropriate legislators, but also to write to newspapers, and magazines. Inform your friends and co-workers about this! Encourage them to read Stallman's article @ Linuxtoday.com [linuxtoday.com]

    We must increase the public's knowledge of this issue. We MUST take a stand now.

  • On the front page, don't click 'Read More', but
    the ## of ## and you get threaded. At least it
    works for me.
  • This seems inspired by Bulworth. If you haven't seen it, Warren Beatty plays a Senator who goes a little nuts and stops being a corporate sell out and turns into a rapper. Warren Beatty rapping is hilarious. I think any movie that Warren Beatty raps in would be good, it is that funny. Bulworth also has a really good social message in it.
  • Actually he's not; he's just throwing away his copy of the license. If he regeisters it then he always has the license. Anyway The Man only comes looking for licenses if your a major company or they think you're a big time pirate. It's not worth their or the government's effort to go knocking down the door of every junior high boy in America.

    My issue with this plan is the fact that it accomplishes nothing. He paid for it and then used the warez cooy. Big deal. So instead copying the cd "for archival purposes" he downloaded his "archival copy". BFD.

    Also what's the big deal about reading the license. You have an idea what is in it anyway, if not you should read it. I have a problem with licenses in general for software. You should own software like you own a car. Your Mustang is yours and you can do what you want with it, but yet it is still Ford
    s intellectual property (ie you can't clone it).
  • This is going to be so good for Linux. Who is going to pay for all their Word, Dexcel, Powerpoint etc? Not me! Lotsa people pay for the OS Windows, but not their other progs. This probably means a change for me to Linux.

    History:

    First M$ helps getting software around the world (/salesman/'yes, off course this software enhances your life...'//salesman/).

    Second Linux is develloping to a mature stadium.

    And third: M$ is placing itself out of the consumer market.

    And all in the right time.


  • // This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    // it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    // the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    // (at your option) any later version.
    //
    // This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    // but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    // MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
    // GNU General Public License for more details.

    while (ucita) {
    old_money = money;
    software.buy(&money);
    software.package.open();
    software.license.read();
    software.get_refund(&money);
    assert(money == old_money);
    }


    --
  • this connects you to the e-mail addresses. Tho if they actually read em, I'd be supprised.
    Contact A legistlator [state.md.us]

    To find the person in your district.
    Maryland legislative maps [state.md.us]
  • The point that he's trying to make is that you can't agree to the license untill after you buy the program and bring it home. And if you don't like the license most stores won't take open software back so your screwed. Point being, it's not right to have to buy a program that you can't see the licence to.
  • I hate to sound like the total ignorant fool that I am, but who is it I should be e-mailing? State senators? The guys who go to washington? I am totally clueless on government, my e-mailing probably wouldn't do much, but guys, this scares the fsck out of me, I gotta do whatever I can.

    I'm in Virginia, btw...

  • Is there a current site to refer to for those wishing to fight this in other states, or is it too late in some states?

    I've looked at www.badsoftware.com, and from what I can tell the site resembles a long dead battlefield...
  • You should call or write your representatives in the Virginia General Assembly. This page [state.va.us] is a good starting point, it's the official Virginia ONLINE Legislature web page. You can use it to find out who your senator and representatives are.
  • Think about it. Whenever you use a piece of software with those rediculous licences (if you do so at all), you just click ``accept'' and never think about the license again.

    Basically the licences often say that ``you have no rights'' and ``it's your own fault'' etc. People ignore that now, and they think that if they don't bug the company, the company won't bug them.

    If these licences were enforced, and if they could be so with backing in the law, people might start considering what they are actually agreeing to.

    If this passes, I think licences might start to change. People might not accept a ridiculous licence if they know for sure that by accepting it they _will_ be breaking the law.

    (funny example: licence on the drivers to the i810 motherboards on the accompanying CD say thay you may not use them commercially, eg. you cannot run windows on an i810 motherboard in your company)

    This is another step towards wide use of Free Software and sane licences.
  • A few things I've noticed...

    A printed letter is worth at least 100 emails. Put your credentials somewhere in the letter- let them know you live /work in the state. If they start getting out-of-state mail, they'll end up deciding its a "copy this text, sign, send" campaign (spam, really. It's bulk. And if you're from out of state, it's unsolicited).


    Give them reasons why you care, not just that you don't like it. Make at least one of those reasons economics..."Our company could waste thousands of dollars on bad software if reviewers have to get permission to publish." Most of them know that the pro-UCITA lobby donates a lot of money. Remind them that the anti's have money too. (be subtle. you don't have a track record, the lobbyists do.)


    Tailor your reasons to the legislator's politics and focus on the undecided first. A few minutes of research per letter can save you from useless (or worse than useless) arguments. "Forcing the US have the same rules as other countries" might sound good to some and new-world-orderish to others. "EULA's are wrong" won't help with the ones who think EULA's are what you say at a funeral.

  • It's the same justification that a lot of states have for passing anti-union, right-to-work laws; they think that this will draw companies into their area, and I'm quite sure the companies are implying that they'll do so. The idea, of course, is if you bring jobs and money into a region, all other problems magically vanish. Though personally, I don't really see this as a big deal; this kind of legislation would have to be tested in a court of law, and I don't think it would survive judicial review...
  • Here [state.md.us] is a page that will find your Maryland legislative district and representatives based on your address and zip code.
  • Obviously, this will not mean the end to magazines like PC gamers and their ilk. The legislative branch of the US government enacts laws, and it's the court's responsibility to step in and determine the constitutionality of any laws that they enact. So please don't be afraid that if this law passes, US citizens' constitutional rights will be taken away, because they can't.

    Moreover, he said, some of the perceived problems with the legislation are unenforceable. Critics, for example, have said the law would allow companies to suppress critical reviews of their projects.
    Judges would consider such conditions "unconscionable," which in the language of contract law means they would never stand up in court.

    Also, please open your eyes about the other previsions of the law. If click licenses actually had teeth and companies could ensure that you could not use their software if you returned it, stores would not be afraid to accept returns.

    Lastly, this law will end up being a good thing for free software. Instead of buying software from XYZ company who includes a very restrictive license, I'll use and improve free (as in increased freedom) software instead.
  • Though personally, I don't really see this as a big deal; this kind of legislation would have to be tested in a court of law, and I don't think it would survive judicial review...

    IANAL. The last time this came up, someone pointed out that legislative acts took precedence over common law. Unless someone can find a constitutional argument against the law, the court is stuck with enforcing it, even if it is a bad law.

  • One small correction: a hand-written letter.

    Moderate this down (-1, You Are Not Even American)
    --

  • Don't fight it, use it!

    Since this law allows software peddlers to basically trick people and businesses into legally binding contract terms they may very well be unaware of, then why not just add some really nasty terms of your own?

    1. Buyer hereby agrees to install a copy of this software on each and every computer owned by, or in the possession, of the business or organization.
    2. Buyer hereby agrees to uninstall any and all copies of Microsoft [microsoft.com] Windows, in any version, including
      1. versions obtained for beta evaluation
      2. unlicensed versions
      3. networked copies
      4. copies co-existing with other operating systems
    3. Buyer hereby agrees to make a donation in the amount of $1.00 (one dollar) to The Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org], and a donation in the amount of $1.00 (one dollar) to the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org], for the first computer found running Microsoft [microsoft.com] Windows, doubling each donation for each instance of an additional computer found running Microsoft [microsoft.com] Windows.
    4. Buyer hereby agrees, upon penalty of death, to never press either key labeled with a trademark of the Microsoft [microsoft.com] Corporation.

    Well, the above might not fly, but you get the idea. Come up with something you can enforce, and stick it in there.

  • I can think of a couple constitutional arguments against it; disabling the software might be interpreted as unlawful seizure; freedom of speech/press issues might come up; freedom of privacy. A stretch maybe, but I've seen some pretty thin arguments win in court...
  • The problem is that (under UCITA) you never actually buy the product you pay for a right to use their Intellectual property. You have no legal right to use a warez version EXCEPT under the liscense they give you. By using the warez version without technically agreeing to the liscense you are probably in violation of copyright law.

    The reason he was going to throw away his liscense is that until you break the seal you have not agreed to be bound by the terms of that contract. Unfortunatly in this case you are in violation of copyright law.

    (It is sorta like the GPL. Only the liscense gives you the ability to use the product)

    True the government won't come knocking on everyones door but precisely because of this fact does this put too much power into the hands of corporations. If contract violations were prosecuted ferverently no one would buy software with stupid contracts in them. As it is this allows the company to turn every citizen into a violator and hence force prosecution where and when they please. Big firms like Intel already have police officers working/funded by them full time.
  • Sure it might suck in that it gives companies like microsoft an obscene amount of power but consider slashdotters have way more in common with microsoft and other software companies then with the common populance.

    We could include such fun provisions in software as:

    "CS majors may sleep with your first born daughter at their whim"

    "You must follow a direct order by anyone employed in the Computer economy"

    Or just realease the new version of the GPL including the phrase

    "Anyone using and/or copying this software agrees never to use microsoft products"
  • The organization we all love to hate, the MPAA [mpaa.org], sent a letter [2bguide.com] objecting to the terms of the UCITA. Now what?

  • Well, this is a dilemma! Either support UCITA (and side with Microsoft) or oppose UCITA (and side with the MPAA).

    What is the discerning Slashdotter to do?

  • Perhaps if you spelled the Governor's name correctly and addressed it to the right state, it would work.

  • Good point.

    Either being able to return an opened shrink-wrap box of software, or being able to review the license before buying it would however be necessary to protect the consumer. If the consumer can only find out about unwanted license restrictions after the sale is final, then the consumer is screwed anyway.

    In the mean time, maybe we need a www.softwarelicenseregistry.org to keep track of software licenses?
  • No. You are paying for a software product you have reasonable expectations to use to your advantage. Use of what you paid for is implied. No contract that is internal to the installation (as most are) and that you are forced to sign to even use what you have already paid for is valid. It is legally extremely questionable to attempt to impose such contracts.

    The software companies that use such methdos would like us to believe we are paying for a license but that view is empty of any real meaning.
  • You need to read Richard Stallman's article at linuxtoday.com to see what a really evil piece of work this is. This bill is aimed right at the heart of Free Software and Open Source. It is intended to make it impossible for anyone but a well-heeled corporation with plenty of lwyers to distribute software.
  • If the software is "bundled" in, can't they argue that the OS is an integral part of the computer, since the computer won't run without an OS?

    A good analogy would be people who buy cars and switch the wheels for light alloy models they buy separately.

    For instance, my car is a Chevy, and its wheels are stamped with a Rockwell logo. I wonder what would happen if I went to Rockwell asking for a refund on the set of iron wheels that came wiht my car, preinstalled at the GM factory. I suspect the answer would be the legalese translation to "Fuck You".

    From the /. moderator guidelines: If you can't be deep, be funny

  • any state that would EVEN consider such a fascist law isnt worth living in

    Maybe, but it'd be a great place to run a software business and that is exactly the motivation behind these bills. The Northern Virginia area already has more high tech workers and companies than Silicon Valley, and the VA Legislature wants to make sure it stays that way.

    All the rants about personal liberties are going to fall on deaf ears in these states. Their economies are in overdrive because of the huge influx of high tech capital and nobody wants that to stop. Pouring a little gasoline on the fire never hurts, either.

    The reality is that there are plenty of existing interstate commerce laws and ample contract law precedent to challenge these bills if it's ever an issue. There's no sense in getting all bunched up because a lot of politicians have had their ears bent by some high tech lobbyists. This is just business as usual for both parties (legislators, lobbyists).

    If you want to complain, complain to the companies you work for. They are the ones that are pushing these bills through. Of course, if you are in the business of making and selling software, it's in your best interests to let it pass. If you're in the "business" of making and giving away software, you probably view this as an unfair advantage being granted to your "competition".

    Either way, the fault lies with the companies that are pushing for this legislation. The dumb, Luddite legislatures in these states can't reasonably be expected to understand the quality issues in the current software market, can they? It's just one more example of government by the checkbook, for the checkbook, and of the checkbook. So go out and vote with yours. If you don't like the license terms, don't buy the software.

  • Use 'em fast. Virginia votes as early as Monday or Tuesday!

    ltgov@ltgov.state.va.us, Johnchich@aol.com, governor@gov.state.md.us, thomas_v_mike_miller@senate.state.md.us, casper_taylor@house.state.md.us,
    kwaddell@ltgov.state.va.us

    I gleened these from http://legis.state.va.us/ (Virginia) and http://mlis.state.md.us/ (Maryland) while sending emails (I also sent written mail [that's 'snail mail", folks].

    Send email to dfc@dfc.org to find out how you can help.
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    While you are correct that a court will most likely flame down the UTICA law quickly on it's first try in court, that still meant the law has passed and that for a short period of time, it will be in effect.

    Our government has switched from pro-active (only passing laws that need to be passed after considerable review) to retro-active (passing all laws and letting another part of the gov't deal with the implementation and legality). Sure, you can say that's part of checks and balances, but as the courts get more and more overloaded with what can best be described as frilious cases, the quality of rulings might start to decline; What if the judge that was reviewing the first case under the UTICA was so busy that he assumed that a passed law was passed with good reason, and let the law stand?

    We also need educated lawmakers at all levels of the govt'. Remember the UTICA is at a state level (which makes little sense, this is an issue of interstate commerce, the realm of the federal government). We've got a difficult enough time trying to work with all of the US Senators and Representatives, but it's a hard battle. If the lawmakers were informed and learned not just to listen to the easy money, UTICA would be laughed at, as well as things like DMCA and CDA.

  • Golly--whoever the PR firm behind this campaign is, they're doing one hell of a job.

    Is it me? Or has anybody else noticed that all the articles regarding this question that have appeared in major newspapers open in exactly the same fashion? "Microsoft and other software giants are pressing to get this passed" followed by "the bill will permit software companies to surreptitiously sneak into your computer system to disable software that hasn't been completely paid for."

    What you're watching, folks, is a very well-orchestrated campaign in opposition to UCITA that is "planting" story themes. And newspaper writers with, um, more enthusiasm for computers than, well, knowledge buy the idea and write panic-stricken articles about the Evil Corporation and Plans to Invade Your Computer. The only thing different about this article is that the WP writer went further and actually got people in favor of UCITA (like the Virginia governor) to comment on the accusations.

    Come on, people!

    This is SlashDot, right? Presumably a group of people who know how to do stuff like secure their networks? People who don't just open ports at the firewall for every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to peek at your system? People who have sense enough to not grant root (or administrator) privileges, or to leave those privs set to the default passwords?

    Riddle: If you're filtering packets at the public router, and you're doing stateful packet inspection at the proxy server, and you're doing network address translation, and you're properly securing privileges with passwords--how can a vendor break into your system?

    There are only two ways that TrojanWare can exist. The manner threatened in these maskirovka articles is that an Evil Corporation invades your system and cripples your software. Right--how? If you have done a half-decent job of securing your network it can't happen. If you haven't done a half-decent job of securing your network getting your software turned off by a vendor is probably the least of your problems. You are doubtless bedeviled by all the l33t hax0r skript kiddiez from the local junior high. The only other way is if the software periodically reaches out from your system to contact the Evil Corporation to check a license--theoretically possible, but again something that you should be able to catch at the firewall. (You can typically block outbound addresses, for instance, or monitor your firewall logs to see where traffic originates from. There is no reason for Port 80 [for example] traffic to Microsoft to originate from one of your servers.)

    In other words, if you have half a clue the only way TrojanWare can exist is if you actually agree to let it. And the only way you'd agree to let it be there is if the vendor can make a valid case for it.

    And guess what? The UCITA provision for "self help" (which is the euphemism du jour for TrojanWare) is, in fact, there to permit vendors and customers to agree to self-help in contracts. Contract provisions permitting self-help are not binding in those states that ban self-help (including Virginia). The UCITA overturns that. That's all the UCITA does (on this matter). The people screaming about Evil Corporations Invading Your System are engaging in exactly the same kind of hype that the Y2K Survivalists did--the difference this time is that it appears to be computer industry denizens who ought to know better that are getting panicked.
  • At the risk of stating the obvious, once you've bought the car the wheels are yours, you don't buy the car and then have to agree to a licence before you can use the wheels.
  • But for as long as the licences are unenforceable who cares whether they include a 'you surrender your right to your first-born' clause?

    You seem to be advocating making them enforceable (thus creating the problem) in the hope of thus solving the problem (that you just created..) Hos does that help?
  • I think most everyone is missing a fairly important point: If someone disagrees with the terms of a license, sure they can get their money back... but they can't use the software! People will simply ignore the licenses, since without the software they will be unable to do whatever it is the software would enable them to do (i.e. read .doc files). And I'm sorry, but I simply can't believe that Joe Average the Windows Warrior is going to read through six pages of legal Greek, regardless of the potential legal implications. A majority of Windows users (which, in turn, comprise the majority of computer users) would probably have to sit for six hours with a Webster's just to determine what they could and couldn't do with their software. They won't, period. And what's [fill in your favorite Software company] going to do? Sue millions of people?
  • You can find more information on UCITA activism at http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian/ UCITA/ [mit.edu]. California and Oklahoma are the next battles to be fought.
  • Well, this is a dilemma! Either support UCITA (and side with Microsoft) or oppose UCITA (and side with the MPAA).

    What is the discerning Slashdotter to do?

    I hesitate to suggest this in modern society, but could the answer be -

    Read the legislation and think through the issues, then make up your own mind rather than have somebody do it for you.

    ?

    Are you a man, or are we sheeple?

  • We've been examing our records and found that you have been complaining no numerous message boards and Usenet groups about our product. This is damaging and inflammatory to us. We're going to take away your software and there's nothing you can do about it. You'll be lucky if we don't call the police on you either.

    In a case like this UCITA would be ruled unconstitutional.

    Congress shall make no law...

    Five immortal words.

  • Moreover, he said, some of the perceived problems with the legislation are unenforceable. Critics, for example, have said the law would allow companies to suppress critical reviews of their projects.

    Is it a confession that part of that law is specifically designed to assist frivolous litigation?

  • What if the software checks on the web to see if it should be running...

    you see this, and block it...

    it says "I can't see HQ, someone must be screwing with me, I'll shut down".


    This might even be enforcable by DCMA for "attempting to circumvent a security measure".

  • Congress shall make no law. . . .

    Well, I guess the CDA, the COPA, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and numerous other laws were never on the books.

    Congress, and the various State Legislatures, can, and WILL, pass anything, if they think it's in their political favor. . . I can't WAIT to see what travesties they come up with to solve the recent rash of DoS attacks.

    Remember the Creed of the Politician:

    Something Must Be Done !!!

    THIS is something. . .

    Let's do this. . .

  • If you live in Virginia or Maryland, e-mail or call your representatives. Be kind and don't flame.

    Complaining get's you nowhere. Action is what is needed.
  • Emailing/snail-mailing/calling your State Rep is all well and good. But it helps if you can reference a specific bill.

    For Virginia:

    In the House of Delegates, UCITA is House Joint Resolution 277 [state.va.us]

    In the State Senate, UCITA is Senate Joint Resolution 239 [state.va.us]

    The link for Identifying your Delegate and Senator is here [206.246.254.9]

    For Maryland: In the House of Delegates, it's House Bill 19 [state.md.us]

    In the State Senate, it's Senate Bill 142 [state.md.us]

    To ID your State Representative and Senator, click here [state.md.us]

    The usual advice about being direct, to the point, and not threatening or ranting apply. Snailmail and phone calls get more interest than email, sad to say, but that's reality. Go to it, gang. I am. . .

  • Not all software companies support the UCITA. In fact, if any of them have any brains, few will support it except the big ones.

    Reason: all software companies depend on other vendors' software (compilers, etc.) Without legal means of assuring a minimum level of functioning and reliability, a software company will be on very unstable ground.

    I've sent in some "official" letters from my company to the Maryland reps we have outlining many of the problems with UCITA from both the end-user and software developer perspective.

  • You've left your licence unclear. Can a user press keycode = 115 if they've put a merlinsoft tux sticker on it, covering the Microsoft trademark??

  • No contract that is internal to the installation (as most are) and that you are forced to sign to even use what you have already paid for is valid. It is legally extremely questionable to attempt to impose such contracts.

    That's EXACTLY what the UCITA proposes to fix.

    Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.

  • It looks like it has been stricken from the docket of the Virginia House of Delegates. I'm not incredibly familiar with legislative rules, but I *think* that this means that it can't pass in VA without being re-introduced to the VA House. If someone can clarify this, please post it. You can find out more here [state.va.us].
  • Riddle: If you're filtering packets at the public router, and you're doing stateful packet inspection at the proxy server, and you're doing network address translation, and you're properly securing privileges with passwords--how can a vendor break into your system?

    Answer: The license key portion of the software makes a request out through your firewall to the MegaEvilSoft key server. The software will only if the key server responds positively. If no response comes back the software jumps to the help page 'how to configure your firewall' and/or quits. If the MegaEvilSoft key server sends back a negative response the software will delete itself and any other MegaEvilSoft code it can get write access to.

    Side effect 1: MegaEvilSoft can collect statistical data about how you are using thier software.

    Side effect 2: A local network failure will bring down all the software on your computer. A person with a backhoe will be able to reduce the productivity of an industrial park to zero.

    Side effect 3: Crackers succeeding in swamping MegaEvilSoft's key server with a DoS attack will shut down all copies of MES software worldwide.
  • I've seen a number of good comments on how to talk to your local legistlator, but how much good will this actually do? You're one in 10,000, and may not have even voted in the last election. (Around here they don't track who you voted for, but do track if you voted. And if you didn't...oh well.)

    Write a letter to the editor of your local paper, and remember that Joe Smith will be reading it, so sensationalism sells. Even better, this is sweeps month. All the local news organisations are looking for stories to get people's attention. What better than a law that gives corporations rights to our first-borns?
  • On http://www.badsoftware.com [badsoftware.com] they say that two states obstained from voting on the matter, and 6 voted against (these were named on the sites).

    Does anyone know what the two states that obstained where?

  • Ok, so I see several things odd about the way this is being emphasised:

    1. No one is looking BACK to say "hey, is it even a reasonable starting point that software vendors don't take responsibility for the software they write?
    2. The restrictions on reviews and benchmarks needs to be challenged so badly that I can't even thing straight when considering them. This is blatently bad for the consumer! But, very little emphasis is placed on this.
    3. There is also very little said (only toward the end of *this* article) of the remote shut-down "features".


    If this bill were simply:

    Software shrink-wrap licenses are binding contracts as long as (a) they do not restrict more than the installation and coppying of software and introduce warantee terms (b) the consumer has a right to recieve their money back if they do not agree with the terms


    I would still have problem #1, but I would be happy to let the market decide. But, the controversy over this bit seems to be drowning out the truly scary parts of the debate, so people like the Gov. of Virginia thinks this is an OK law. He never hears anyone telling him how truly awful this will be, just "I don't want to be bound by shrink-wrap licenses."

    A side note: MS is pushing for refund rights huh? Can't wait for the next refund day! ;-)
  • At my university, they provide a large software library on the local net for student use. But they needed some way to ensure it just couldn't be copied to whomever, including former students taking their computer & unlicensed software with them when they leave.

    In order to run any of this software, you have to run a key-client concurrently. As the software runs, it checks for a valid license through the key-client. If you shut the key-client down or lose your connection to the server, the software shuts down as well.

    Yes, you can filter out the key packets, but that just disables your software. You can crack the software and avoid the key, but that's violating the license, and you should have just pirated it in the first place, because you're still getting fined/going to jail.

  • DANGER! (Score:2)

    by ajs ( 35943 )
    You are falling into a trap that the software companies are well aware of! The "we don't have to worry, they only go after big companies" theory is fine until this law goes into effect. The goal here is to make it legal for the software to break when and how Microsoft (do we have any illusions that anyone else is behind this) wants it to. That means that the next time you hit the MS site with IE, it's quite legal for them to nuke every copy of MS products on your hard drive that you didn't license. They'll have standard plug-ins in every app you buy before you can blink. There won't be any such thing as "good guy" companies because the ones that are traded publicly will not be able to justify NOT doing it to their shareholders and the ones that are not public will feel the squeeze when most of the industry goes this way.

    Isn't a free market driven by investment fun?
  • The article says: Already, more than half of the world's Internet traffic passes through Virginia

    What drug had the reporter been smoking when he wrote this? Does anyone else find this hard to believe?

  • We should be able to flood their phone lines and faxes with objections.

    If the /. effect can take down servers, it certainly can keep their lines tied up.

    I don't mean just tie up their lines and fax machnes. What I mean is to express our disagreement in an inteligent fashion. Thousands of phone calls opposing the UCITA will get our point across!

  • Not all software companies support the UCITA. In fact, if any of them have any brains, few will support it except the big ones.

    Reason: all software companies depend on other vendors' software (compilers, etc.) Without legal means of assuring a minimum level of functioning and reliability, a software company will be on very unstable ground.

    This makes a very good point. In the zeal to screw others, we often screw ourselves.

  • SB1337 (UCITA in Oklahoma) was referred to the senate judiciary committee for review as of Tue 8 Feb. The next committee meeting is Tue 15 Feb, but it is unknown if UCITA will be discussed. The bill is at the very beginning stages of legislation, so it is important that we not let it progress any further. If you live in Oklahoma, please contact your state senator and tell him/her your opinion of UCITA! Here is how to contact the members of that committee:

    • Sen. Brad Henry (D) (Chair)
      Represents: Cleveland, Oklahoma, Pottawatomie counties
      henry@lsb.state.ok.us [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 413
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4808
      (405) 521-5539

    • Sen. Jerry L. Smith (R) (Vice Chair)
      Represents: Tulsa county
      smith@lsb.state.ok.us [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 528-B
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4808
      (405) 521-5620

    • Sen. Ben Brown (D)
      Represents: Cleveland, Oklahoma counties
      lawson@lsb.state.ok.us (assistant) [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 414
      Oklahoma City, OK 73104
      (405) 521-5522

    • Sen. Bernest Cain (D)
      Represents: Oklahoma county
      cain@lsb.state.ok.us [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 413-A
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4808
      (405) 521-5610

    • Sen. Larry L. Dickerson, Jr. (D)
      Represents: Le Flore, Sequoyah counties
      dickerson@lsb.state.ok.us [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 522
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4808
      (405) 521-5576

    • Sen. Brooks Douglass (R)
      Represents: Oklahoma county
      douglass@lsb.state.ok.us [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 533-C
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4808
      (405) 521-5543

    • Sen. Lewis Long (D)
      Represents: Creek, Tulsa county
      herrmann@lsb.state.ok.us (assistant) [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 428
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4808
      (405) 521-5600

    • Sen. Mike Morgan (D)
      Represents: Lincoln, Logan, Payne counties
      bard@lsb.state.ok.us (assistant) [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 520
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105
      (405) 521-5572

    • Sen. Trish Weedn (D)
      Represents: Cleveland, Garvin, McClain counties
      weedn@lsb.state.ok.us [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 417-A
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105
      (405) 521-5535

    • Sen. James A. Williamson (R)
      Represents: Tulsa county
      brownb1@lsb.state.ok.us (assistant) [mailto]
      State Capitol
      2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 530
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105
      (405) 521-5624
  • You are, of course, wrong. The scheme works like this:

    1) the software won't operate unless it is allowed to contact a remote server during operation. So if you want to use the software at all, you'll open the hole in the firewall.

    2) If you break the license agreement or are suspected of breaking it, the next time your software tries to verify that it's authorized to operate, it won't. Boom, it shuts itself off. Remotely disabled.

    And while I'm at it, there's no PR firm behind the campaign to *defeat* UCITA. There *are* a whole lot of pro-consumer groups who don't like to see the software industry writing laws which screw consumers. Microsoft has spent millions to get UCITA passed so far, the budget on the other side is approximately zero.

    --
    Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
  • Um... I've scanned the UCITA, and I can't see the section everyone keeps referring to about not saying anything about a product? Is this an interpretation of the 'responsibility for faulty information' bit? If so, I think we already have the equivalent in libel laws. It seems everyone keeps talking about this one effect, but no one writes where in the UCITA it is :P
  • Actually, it seems entirely plausible that this is the case. Consider: AOL and UUNet are based in Northern VA, as are various branches of the Federal Government, including the FBI and the Pentagon. The CIA and NSA are just across the border in Maryland. Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County is a center of world satellite surveillance.

    NoVA is a little silicon valley of the internet revolution, as much as we love to hate its most famous beneficiaries.

    BTW, this is EXACTLY why the Va. and Md. legislatures are so hot and horny over this new li'l bill. They're courting the fastest-growing sectors of their economies, and Maryland is verrry anxious to steal some of Virginia's tech industry for itself. What we have here are two states falling all over themselves to court industry-- the comparison of this law to anti-union laws is apt indeed.

  • You can find information regarding the bill on the computer services and uses section of the Va legislature home page. Here is the link to Computer Services and Uses [state.va.us].

    If you live in Va and want to find out who your delegate and senator is go here [206.246.254.9].

  • Relax. MN was one of 6 states to vote against UCITA. The state attorney general Mike Hatch is rabidly pro-consumer.
  • Why? Simple, this is a pirates dream. You don't even have to waste time downloading software anymore. Just go to the store, buy it, burn it and return it saying 'I didn't like the licence agreement'
    Stores normally have a policy for not allowing returns on open software, but this FORCES companies to buy their software back from you.

    Although, if it prevents anyone from saying negitive things about a product, then the law is DOA. Something about freedom of speech.

    Later
    Erik Z
  • The more closed-source vendors employ Machiavellian tactics like the UCITA, the more attractive (at least to me) open-source software becomes.

    How much would you be willing to pay for some big money closed source software if you knew the vendor could uninstall it at their discretion? It would be like buying software with its own built-in trojan horse!.

    It's much better, I think, to run software that gives you complete control.

    -y


  • (It is sorta like the GPL. Only the liscense gives you the ability to use the product)

    Your statement is FUD. Your favorite license is subject to the same attack. The only thing that isn't is no holds barred public domain.

    cheers,
    sklein

  • It doesn't though, does it? The contract can still be inside the box, so I have to buy the product to read the license, and I can return it as long as I don't also open the shrink wrapped CDROM. I suspect a change in "Return Policy" will be forthcoming that requires me to ship it back to the producer at my expense to get the refund if I have a problem with the license. Of course, I'll have to buy it and open it to read about that new policy also - just a hunch. ;-)
  • A software developer can avoid UCITA. To opt out of UCITA, merely include a new provision in the license. The provision should say something like, "Transactions involving this software will come under the scope of common law. The UCITA will not apply."

    Here are more details. I'm a law student. The UCITA is the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act." Ucita.org [ucita.org] has no content yet, but there is content at nccusl.org [nccusl.org]. Several uniform business laws have been developed to standardize the law within the USA. This includes the well-known Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC. There were actually earlier proposals to change the UCC to include something like the UCITA, but those earlier proposals failed.

    Common law is the precedent-based law that courts create over time. The UCITA is a statute that is probably going to be passed by state legislatures. As a statute, it will partially reflect the common law and partially not. Like the UCC and other statutes that modify contract law, those who enter contracts can almost always include a side-agreement that specifies which law should apply. You might have a credit card agreement that specifies that certain bodies of law apply, for example.

    So instead of distributing code under the GPL or the BSD license, you just distribute the code under a *slightly changed* version of these. You simply add a provision to the "license", or contract, that explicitly says the UCITA doesn't apply, and common law does.

    But I said "almost always," right? Yes. The only reason you couldn't is if that provision makes the contract "unconscionable," in violation of public policy, or illegal in some other way. These are steep hurdles that are not climbed without the contract "exploiting poor people" or creating mandatory sexual relations. (!)

    Microsoft has pretty much bought off a lot of state legislators on the UCITA. They think it's great, because "software companies" want it. Let them have their stupid law. Most software companies, like Corel, probably will have a non-UCITA clause in their licenses. Just stop buying Microsoft's buggy software and you probably will never have to deal with it other than to say it doesn't apply.

  • If you want to see the reference to the UCITA bill in the Maryland House of Delegates, here it is: HB-19 [state.md.us]
  • Many states have web sites for their state legislature. NY State's Senate [state.ny.us] and Assembly [state.ny.us] web sites include pending legislation. Presumably, similar systems are in place elsewhere. I can't search everywhere. But I think the aseembled hoards from Slashdot can. Watch what your state is doing. Rally the troops. Let's show them what a grassroots movement looks like backed by the Web.
  • No not always, unless you have really good handwriting. I've known several people who've worked at the capitol in Sacramento. When an office gets flooded with mail, the staff will moderate letters- and "easy to read" = +1. You want your letter to do more than add to the pro/con count. You want it too be seen by the top people.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • This article discusses nondisclosure:
    http://www.badsoftware.com/nondisc.htm [badsoftware.com]
  • ...If we're not careful. In California a few years ago the legislators were about to reject a bill banning junk faxes. The direct marketers wanted to be sure it was rejected, so they faxed letters- many, many letters- to all the legislators urging them to reject it.


    The bill passed by an unsurprisingly wide margin and remains the law today.


    Legislators probably don't have a good opinion of 'the sorts of people who read Slashdot' right now-- to them we've likely associated with piracy (DVDs), crackers (dos attacks)and the Seattle riots (just because). Too many calls from us will be a dos attack to them, tying up their phones, ruining the value of subsequent calls. If thousands of Slashdotters are going to contact their reps, fewer calls / more letters = more value / improved opinion of tech people.

    (Even better, letters on company letterhead starting with "I'm the chief network engineer/ DBA/ Other Title of company X, with Y employees," or visits or calls that begin with "Hi, I'm the CEO of a company worth a billion dollars. I want to talk with you." And find some non-tech people to write- local college presidents or religious leaders automatically get a +2 on letters.)

  • Hi Michael!

    One wonders if I can change the title of the original post to "Read the Whole Post Before Replying...." You and four others (at the time I write this) didn't read all that I wrote. I specifically address the question of software that checks a license over the network in my original post. It's the second way that TrojanWare can exist:
    The only other way is if the software periodically reaches out from your system to contact the Evil Corporation to check a license--theoretically possible, but again something that you should be able to catch at the firewall. (You can typically block outbound addresses, for instance, or monitor your firewall logs to see where traffic originates from. There is no reason for Port 80 [for example] traffic to Microsoft to originate from one of your servers.)

    Three points:
    1. First, you have to agree to it. UCITA legalizes self-help measures in the contract. It does not simply let any software vendor invade your network. If you are in the business of installing mission-critical enterprise software without reading your license agreement, you deserve what you get.
    2. Second, you have to permit it. As I wrote earlier, you're monitoring outbound traffic at the firewall, right? You've done the routine thing of grouping all your servers in an identifiable IP range, right? And you keep an eye on outbound traffic at your firewall, right? So wouldn't you notice if one of your servers starts sending HTTP packets (or any other kind of permissible packet) out through the firewall?
    3. Third--network outages happen. Any vendor attempting to sell software that won't run without a current connection to the Internet has rocks in his head. The gas company rips up my frame relay circuit with a backhoe--so my accounting software quits? Does anybody think that is a vendor that's going to be in the business for the long haul--like, say, through Christmas?

    So what is self-help (TrojanWare) for?

    Simple. Lots and lots and lots of custom software (and customized commercial software, like Great Plains accounting systems) are sold in "thirds." The bargain is
    • one-third of the contract price at the time the bargain is signed,
    • one-third at the time the project is delivered,
    • and one-third thirty days after the project is delivered.

    Lots of small software firms have found it extremely hard to collect that last third. If you have a 40% gross margin (relatively common in the industry) and you have absolutely hit all your project deadlines that last third amounts to practically all of your profit. If you have had a little bit of an overrun here, an extra cost there, and perhaps your margin has slipped a bit (extremely common in the industry) that last third may be money that you desperately need. More than one small ISV has gone broke depending upon the last third of a project to make payroll taxes, only to have the client refuse to pay. (I had to lay off one of my very best friends when this circumstance happened to us.)

    So how do you collect that last third? If the client is in the same state, you can sue. But you'll spend a mountain of money (and a ton of otherwise billable time) in pre-trial litigation. If you're trying to collect the last third of a $45,000 project, you'll go through $15,000 in legal fees in a month. If the deadbeat is out of state it is even worse--you cannot sue in federal court unless you can prove $50,000 in actual damages. Trying to collect that $15,000? Forget it--it is too small an amount to sue in federal court. Your only option is to sue the client in his home state--using an out-of-state lawyer for a one-off lawsuit will only cost you more money. Bottom line: you write off the $15,000, and perhaps go broke.

    A lot of small ISVs resort to Trojans. I used to work for a small ISV that dominates the market for accounting and marketing software for book publishers. They bill "on thirds" and they used to use a trojan to make sure they get paid. If you hadn't paid your bill 90 days after installation, each system user was warned that a problem existed with the system--please call customer service. If the bill was still unpaid 120 days after installation, the users were warned that a SERIOUS problem existed--please call customer service. If the bill was still unpaid 150 days later, each user was warned that their employer had not paid for the system in five months. The system would not start. The client's data was still intact--but the client now had to get around to paying up instead of jerking my former employer around. The clients were aware of this--it was spelled out in the contract. And because it was spelled out in the contract the trojan never actually got used (at least not while I was there).

    But in the late 80s the Commonwealth of Virginia banned that kind of "self-help" system. And all of a sudden the deadbeats in Virginia could stiff out-of-state ISVs with impunity.

    UCITA overturns the Virginia ban--it lets an ISV explicitly include trojans in a contract. Is that a bad thing? Tell you what--let's wait till you're waiting for that last third from a client, with $200 in the bank and payroll taxes due at the end of the week. It might give you an entirely different perspective on the question.
  • Under the UCITA, the license need not be read to be enforceable. If this passes, we're all pretty much screwed. I'm going to contact the ACLU, to work on a first amendment challenge. I don't know who to contact about the business ethics, but I doubt this is the Better Business Bureau's area, and I doubt the Chamber of Commerce would be sympathetic. I will ask the lawyers in the family if they could write a letter to the editor, though, since I'm sure the newspapers will not be happy about something that tramples on speech rights like this.
  • The point is not to generate a denial of service.

    The point is to have lots of different people calling. Even people outside of jurisiction.

    True letters would be better, but any form of communications is better than none.

  • Hey Bill Gates. You don't want anyone to be able to criticize your software.Well.....YOUR SOFTWARE SUCKS!!!! Sue Me!!!!
  • From their position it is denial of service. They have limited staff, time, and phone lines. They want to hear from their constituents. Lots of out-of-state contact means the constituents don't get through, the voicemail system is clogged up and 3,000 more emails than average sit in the Inbox. They get annoyed. They think that some out-of-state special-interest group is having a fax & phone crusade, and instead of thinking 1 call = 20 voters, they think 20 calls = 0.01 voters. This is worse than not calling at all.

  • (It is sorta like the GPL. Only the liscense gives you the ability to use the product)


    You do not need to accept the GPL to use a GPLed product. In fact the GPL forces whoever gave you the copy to place no restrictions on your use.

    But since the software is copyrighted, you are prevented by law from making derivative works outside the bounds of fair use UNLESS you accept the license. So the GPL is giving you rights you would not ordinarily have and you can choose to accept it to gain those rights.

    Ordinary shrink wrapped licenses may take away rights you ordinarily have, such as freedom to discuss the performance of a software package, freedom to make archival backups, freedom to resell or lend your software, etc. You do not have a choice to use the software without accepting the license.
    --

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Close