Slashdot Log In
Fighting UCITA
Posted by
michael
on Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:25 AM
from the guerilla-war dept.
from the guerilla-war dept.
On Oct. 1, UCITA will become law in Maryland (Virginia passed a version of UCITA too, but delayed the effective date of the law until July 1, 2001). Infoworld has an article about Iowa considering "bomb-shelter" legislation to protect Iowans from UCITA-based laws passed in other states, and offers a few helpful hints for software purchasers. My suggestion is this: don't buy software from any UCITA-state company, or any national company whose licensing says you are bound by the laws of a UCITA-state. There's simply no reason to take risks like that.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Fighting UCITA
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 177 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Oh and BTW.... (Score:3)
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
More reason for choice... (Score:3)
Don't buy stuff from UCITA bound companies eh? Good luck! The advantages that using UCITA laws give are so great that we're going to be lucky if companies don't at least try to release their software under UCITA provisions. Are best bet is to hope that for comercial software some companies will recognise a market for non-UCITA software and provide for that market. But with the current state of the computer industry that seems unlikly. There just aren't that many software companies for critical stuff.
All the more reason to use OpenSource... Maybe this could end up being a big boost to OpenSource? Lets hope so...
Fighting UCITA (Score:5)
But there's something interesting about UCITA, the idea that someone can be held to a "clickwrap", or "shrinkwrap" when the usual contractual element of "meeting of minds" may in fact not be present.
Send a 6 year old into a s/w store to buy a copy of "Learning to Read v1.0". If they have the cash, the store will certainly sell the s/w, but did the kid read the shrinkwrap? What if (obvious in this hypothetical) they can't read?. Were they *legally competent* to agree to the terms? Can the store clerk make those determinations?
I suggest that many of us who operate web sites put up notices: "by entering this web site (beyond the main page) you agree ..."
If a "clickwrap" agreement can be made to stick, then stick it to them!. We have a lot more of the web than they do, they must agree to our terms to access it.
And our terms should be to make UCITA onerous, so that it's tossed out.
State vs. Using State Laws (Score:3)
However, Michael's point regarding companies that say that you're bound to UCITA regulations should definitely be boycotted. Hell, boycott might be too weak of a word. I will not only boycott these products -- I will actively encourage others to stay the hell away from them.
But please, let us Virginians (and Marylanders) be. We don't like the law either!
-Waldo
Re:Let me take that one farther... (Score:3)
You can disclaim all liability under current law. The only trouble is will a "shrink wrap" license hold up in court. I'm betting that GPL will hold up where as licenses that restrict your rights beyond what you're granted under copyright and fair use will not. GPL grants you additional rights that you are not normally allowed under current laws if you are willing to abide by a few conditions placed on the exercise of those additional rights.
I've also argued here before that UCITA is good for Free Software, since it makes the GPL equally as enforceable as any other license. I'm not arguing against UCITA. I'm arguing against the use of software that comes with restrictive and exclusionary licensing, in other words, software that is not free.
Re:civil disobedience (Score:4)
Any better ideas?
Yes. Only use Free Software. That is the ultimate in civil disobedience, refusing to go along with the game of market economics as applied to software, where such economics do not strictly apply.
Before you condemn, RTFB (Score:5)
A brief discussion occured on the bill after its Maryland passage at TECHNOCRAT.NET [technocrat.net]. People might also be interested on what Del. Kumar Barve, chair of the House subcommitee that examined the bill, had to say:
I'm not saying that the Maryland law is perfect, just that you ought to know what your talking about before you express an opinion.
Bob Kopp
But is it legal? (Score:4)
But who is reading this? Even in the US? Is it 1% of people who actually read those acres of mumbo jumbo. (Even Carmack in a post on slashdot indicated his belief that nobody really read that stuff). Can a company in good conscience claim they have a "deal" with their customers when said customers don't read it because they believe it is their property since they have payed money for it.
Some people then say, that you don't buy the program, you "license" it - that i also think is slightly suspect. Hell no, i don't license it - I BUY A COPY. Its mine - go away!
Hmm..i wonder if it would work with other products You don't buy a car, you license it.. and agree never to run a red light, speed or look at girls while in the car! (You break the rules they come and take it back)
Or the license agreement for this DVD says you must behave properly infront of the TV while you watch it, so no fondling the wife!
Hmmm, i wonder if there is a future in being a "i agree" clicker. Ie, Person A has shelled out hard earned cash for a new program, he then calls person B. Person B comes over, installs the program and click on the "I agree" button and leaves again. Person A now runs the program without having agreed to anything, eh? *G*
--
Re:civil disobedience (Score:4)
The UCITA gives you the oportunity to return software that you don't like the license agreement for. So go into your local Best Buy (which has a no-return policy on opened software), buy something, open it up, and return it to Best Buy demanding a full refund. Get lots of your friends to do it too.
Target a particular company, say microsoft, to purchase things for. Have a specific complaint about the license agreement. (like demanding arbitration only or allowing the company to remotely disable the software.) It is far less effective if you target non-noxious EULAs. (Like the old Borland "like a book" license.)
It's legal. It will piss of Best Buy, and it will send a message.
Furthermore to make things really interesting insert a piece of paper into each package you return that looks like it came with the software but really didn't. Write on it "You have just purchased a used piece of software. I hope you didn't buy this as new.".
Then you can turn around and sue the chain for selling used merchandise as new merchandise.
Have fun!
W
UCITA won't last. (Score:5)
We mostly portray UCITA as software companies vs. consumers. But when it comes down to it, it's a way for big software companies to shaft other companies, including smaller software companies.
Further, my limited experience with jury duty leads me to believe that the vast majority of lawsuits in the USA are suits between two companies, rather than a suit between a consumer and a company.
The net result is that a few very powerful software companies have set themselves up to shaft all but the largest companies in the state (who will exempt themselves by buying under a non-shrinkwrap contract). Small businesses cannot afford to operate under the conditions imposed by UCITA, and it happens that small businesses have enormous political clout in the USA.
I suspect that we'll soon see some suits against UCITA companies from small businesses, at which point either the UCITA will be found unconstitutional and struck down, or else the small businesses will be told that the law requires them to bend over and learn to enjoy it, at which point a sort of grass roots movement with much more clout than we geeks have will come into play, and state legislators will earn a spot in Guiness for their astonishing speed at backpedaling.
States are smart to want to appeal to big high tech industries. But what will they gain if the rest of their businesses move to Iowa? Someone in Iowa deserves kudos for figuring this out.
--
Re:What about VA/MD residents? (Score:3)
Your plaint is legitimate. You should write your elected officials, from the state level down to the local.
>So I guess its off to Silicon Valley, WHERE THERE ARE NO BIG SOFTWARE INTERESTS, huh.
I understand that Iowa is looking for a few good software startups.
I don't mean to bash you; I just want you to realize that you have to make your state legislators realize that there's a cost associated with UCITA. Perhaps they understand the concept of brain drain.
--
Upcoming events... (Score:5)
If anybody's looking for a good day to protest UCITA (or even out-of-control intellectual property rights in general), I would recommend May Day, on May 1, 2000. Chances are, if you're near a relatively large city, they're going to be having a May Day celebration.
The focus of May Day is going to be anti-globalisation/anti-corporate rule, with an emphasis on labor rights. UCITA ties in with this because most of these bills are meant to help out a few corporate interests despite screwing people (I refuse to call people "consumers").
I, personally, would love to see an anti-copyright contingent at one of the mayday celebrations.
Here's a couple links for you:
http://www.mayday2k.org [mayday2k.org] - Has a list of which cities have celebrations planned, as well as links to the history of May Day and contact information.
http://mayday.indymedia.org [indymedia.org] - The same autonomous collective that brought you independant coverage of the Seattle and Washington D.C. anti-globalization protests will be helping to cover May Day around the world.
Even if you're not interested in protesting, I'd recommend you check May Day out anyways, since it should be just an all around fun time.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:Before you condemn, RTFB (Score:5)
Under UCITA, this practice is outlawed on home computers by our consumer protection laws and is heavily restricted in the commercial market.
As the article points out, you're only a "consumer" if it's for personal use and explicitly *excludes* commercial/professional users.
Read the article for more little nasties that slipped past the MD legislature.
Dealing with the crooks in Annapolis.... (Score:3)
...on a regular enough basis over the last 14 years, I know that legistlation follows the cash in this state. Delegate Kumar Barve isn't fooling anyone who happens to have dealt with legislators on topics dealing with childbirth choice and other matters where personal rights have been trampled into the mud by powerful special interests.
UTICA is going to screw over the people of Maryland and frankly, I'll join the boycott. Someone put up the website with the software list. I'll tell my family what not to buy and start raising awareness so that we can vote the schmucks out of office.
UTICA can't limit my right to free speech, nor can it prevent me from voting for sensible representatives in November. At least not until the morons in Annapolis make amendments to regulate -that- too.
1 Billion Dollars (Score:3)
What is more likely is that vendors will include backdoors and time bombs for anti-piracy or other purposes. Should a customer discover that the remote disabling capability is there -- perhaps after suffering a disaster due to it being triggered accidentally -- UCITA protects the vendor from liability.
If this is true I am going to write a small shareware program and at end of the 10 day trail it will demand 1 BILLION DOLLARS and if it is not paid it will "lock" the user from their computer and dial up to a sex chat line in Brazil for $12398.75 per minute to their phone line (convently enough I own the chat line)
But lets think about this (assuming it just isn't FUD) Micro..uh.. Microhard sells a text edtior
user installs text edtior
text editor ask user for serial number
user enters the serial number on the box
text editor says it is the wrong serial number
user learns that they mistyped the serial number (had caps lock on)
To late, text editor deletes entire hard drive and then plays a wav "You Suck user"
user has lost all data and his feelings hurt
judge says "you suck user, that is legal for them to do"
user switches to GNU/Linux
user is happy...
Ahh so this is a good idea after all, we could use more GNU/Linux users in our quest for Total World Domination, so this works quite well.
Trampling on our rights (Score:5)
With all the obvious opposition to laws such as the UCITA and the DMCA so evident in places like Slashdot, it's a wonder to me that people haven't stormed the Washington Mall demanding that their rights cease to be trampled on. Perhaps the reason for it is the same that made the Clinton Impeachment trial so much of a non-issue. America's economy is better than it's ever been, and no law maker wants to take responsibility for a crash by making the wrong decision.
In this case, Maryland wants to keep software companies happy and ensure that their economic success continues even more. Consumers are apathetic to a blatant loss of their rights because they too are blinded by economic boom. Americans have become content with the status quo, and see little reason to protest "business as usual" in their state capitals when everything has so far been working out so well.
The only way the American people will become concerned enough about this and other loss of rights will be for them to lose their contentment and realize what's actually going on. Until then, these grevious errors in our lawmakers' judgement will continue to go relatively unopposed by the general public.
Re:Upcoming events... (Score:5)
I feel that these people have a very small world view. I just don't understand them.
Unfortunately, you're showing to have a very small world view, yourself.
Why corporations? Why a totalitarian, heirarchial organization where all the wealth and power ends up in the hands of the few at the top?
Why not worker-run and worker-owned cooperatives? Why not community initiatives? Why not open source? Corporate involvement in open source software was after-the-fact. People created it first, and then corporations got into it in order to make money.
There's no reason that cablemodem access couldn't be provided by a cooperative or a collective as opposed to a corporation. There's no reason that different collectives and cooperatives around the world couldn't work together towards the common goal of international access. Voluntarily cooperating towards a common goal... Sound familiar?
Another thing to remember is this: I write code for a living. No, I'm not digging ditches or putting up drywall. Am I still a laborer? Yes, I am, and I still care more about other laborers than I do CEO's and stockholders. The working class creates the wealth, the employing class merely consumes it.
And furthermore, a lot of people who are going to be at Chicago May Day are going to be day laborers. You know, guys who make $3.00 an hour to work in fields with pesticides being sprayed on them? Do you think that they shouldn't be fighting for better wages and more rights?
It's very easy for a privileged upper or middle class male to say "find another job!" but for the other 90% of the world, it's not that easy. Go to Haitian sweatshop workers and tell them to "find another job!", or to Guatamalen bean pickers (who picked the beans for your StarbucksTM coffee), or to young Indonesian boys who make soccer balls for Nike. Better yet, go to an inner city, where the average McDonalds gets 12 applicants for each open position, and tell people there to "find another job!" How do you think those people would feel?
Do your best to think outside your own personal sphere of understanding. There's a lot of serious, serious crap going on out there, and to ignore it, and call those who address it as "silly" is, in many ways, an act of criminal negligence.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:Before you condemn, RTFB (Score:3)
But can you get your money back if you disagree with the license?
The way I read the bill is that nothing changes the status quo in this regard. Sure section 21-109 gives you the 'Right to Return'. However, it doesn't say who has to give the refund. Leaving us exactly where we are now.
Accorcing to Mr. Zellmor of the Maryland Retailers Association, retailers are allowed to set whatever conditions they want as long as their return policy is prominantly displayed. So Best Buy can continue to refuse to offer refunds on any opened software because they put their disclaimer on the back of the receipt.
And Refund Day has shown us what the vendors response will be.
You can see my letter [aufait.net] to Senator Munson for a more detailed explaination of why I feel the 'Right to Return' is illusionary.
On another note, Maryland's version of UCITA allows beta software and software that is given away for free to disclaim warrenties. This means that writers of GPL software can still disclaim warrenties; but vendors of distributions, e.g. Red Har, can not.