Slashdot Log In
UCITA is passed
Posted by
Hemos
on Thu Jul 29, 1999 07:57 PM
from the it's-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it dept.
from the it's-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Embedded Software (Score:1)
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?
Hackers and remotely disabling software (Score:1)
Evan Reynolds evan@evan.org
news at 11 - hackers shut down all M$ computers .. (Score:1)
Re:Two Choices (Score:2)
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.
Re:No, it is not a great news... (Score:2)
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.
Here's what I'm sending to my State Senetor (Score:2)
- 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.The Difficulty of Overstating the Case (Score:3)
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?
well, not exactly... (Score:2)
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.
Great News! (Score:5)
Yes, it certainly IS great news! (Score:2)
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.
Reverse Engineering - Who owns the data? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Not all fun and games for free software (Score:2)
Re:Tyranny of the majority (Score:2)
Draft of the legistlation available (Score:2)
See this for the full (889k) 1999 draft text.
http://www.law.upenn.edu/lib rary/ulc/ucita/citam99.htm [upenn.edu]
Re:How can this hold up in court? (Score:2)
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).
Could be worse... (Score:3)
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).
Re:Not all fun and games for free software (Score:2)
Re:Two Choices (Score:2)
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.
Re:Great News! (Score:2)
Re:The Difficulty of Overstating the Case (Score:2)
The purist view is, simply put, naive. Nothing good, and much bad can come of such absolutism.
Madison insisted until the bitter end that both houses of the legislature must be numbered, even as it seemed that the Constitutional Convention would be all for nought. Thank the lord Franklin and Washington prevailed upon him, so that eventually he agreed to compromise.
Northern states insisted that the Southern states accept abandonment of slavery in both the Constitutional Convention and the Continental Congress. And while the horror of that institution survived through and ultimately caused the great Civil War, it was important that they compromise, or else we might all still be British subjects today (No offense or sleight intended to our friends across the pond).
In short, even as we undertook the greatest feats of our time in making strides toward democracy and liberty, serious and egregious compromises were necessary to accomplish the result.
Particularly with the UCITA, we are presented with a mixed bag. There is much good (and some very bad) stuff in between the pages, and taking the view that the entire work is a travesty -- that none of it is commercially necessary -- or blaming UCITA for permitting the status quo to continue in other respects will simply cause you to lose credibility. Sure, you're philosophy will be pure -- and it will make fine reading in the textbooks.
At the end of the day, however, UCITA will become law, and it will be far worse than it had to be for all of us. It didn't have to be as bad as it presently is, and it doesn't have to be as awful as it probably will come to be.
As an aside, I disagree with the author's presupposition that this Act "causes a loss of freedom." It's a Contact Act, for goodness sake! If you don't want to be bound by the terms, don't contract for them. Indeed, by permitting parties to engage in contracts they would not otherwise have been able to enter, the Act is arguably pro-liberty, not anti.
For the record, I was a staunch supporter of UCC2B in the abstract, noting that it had some serious problems. I was the centrist trying to fight for reason, to mitigate the bad and to maintain so much good as could be kept. Unfortunately, the polar views taken by the two extreme sides made those efforts futile. Eventually, those with power gave up on compromise and began to take more. Ultimately, they drafted a harsher Act, abandoned ALI, and we now have what we have. Count me as someone who still sees UCITA as a mixed bag, and who is lamenting what it could have been had cooler minds prevailed.
How can this hold up in court? (Score:2)
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
Re:Great News! (Score:2)
Re:"Absolute power..."? bah (Score:2)
Case in point: Linus Torvalds. All he wanted to do was putter around on a 386, and he finds himself "leading" millions of geeks into a place that Microsoft has already laid claim to.
As far as I can tell, this sort of power hasn't seemed to corrupt him in the least. He has something resembling a regular job. This is because power doesn't corrupt, it attracts the corruptable. But this power didn't attract him; he just produced it, almost by accident.
BTW, this is an advantage a monarchy has over a republic (though not enough for me to want a monarchy). In a monarchy, the leader does not attempt to become the leader; they just are by birth. In a republic, anyone running for office has selected themselves as a potential leader, as the power has attracted them. Thus, the fact that you want to lead is the first strike against your ability to do it well.
Re:Not all fun and games for free software (Score:2)
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
--
Re:Outlaw reverse engineering? (Score:2)
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).
It had to come to this. (Score:2)
Two Choices (Score:3)
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"
By the corporation for the corporation --- (Score:2)
Not all fun and games for free software (Score:4)
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.
Re:The Difficulty of Overstating the Case (Score:2)
UCITA is not law, but may soon be (Score:2)
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 [badsoftware.com], 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.
CraigCan't wait for those exploits (Score:3)
Fortunately I'll still be able to laugh at them online thanks to free(dom) software.
Re:Lawyer: Repeat after me: "It's not a law." (Score:2)
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.
Re:This sucks hard. (Score:2)
I'd be more concerned with crackers figuring out the protocol and remotely disabling your software for you. As if they didn't have enough ways to do that without the companies building backdoors in.
Re:Is reverse engineering legal? (Score:2)
--
Re:Not all fun and games for free software (Score:2)
badsoftware.com (Score:2)
--
Michael Sims
Outlaw reverse engineering? (Score:2)
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
OpenSource addition? (Score:2)
Flame away.
There is hope (Score:2)
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 [savepacifica.net]
http://www.infoshop.org [infoshop.org]
http://www.protest.net [protest.net]
http://www.commondreams.org [commondreams.org]
http://www.zmag.org [zmag.org]
http://www.fair.org [fair.org]
http://www.foodnotbombs.org/ [foodnotbombs.org]
http://jya.com/crypto.htm [jya.com]
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointel.htm [icdc.com]
http://www.urban75.com [urban75.com]
http://www.oneworld.org [oneworld.org]
http://www.mediafilter.org [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.
eh? (Score:2)
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.
This only affects the *US* (Score:2)
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
Re:Two Choices (Score:2)
I've got a question for you: have you heard of the libertarian party? That's where all my support goes. It's the only political party in America based on PRINCIPLES.
More precisely, the principle that the sole function of government is to protect the liberty of its people. That means national defense, a court system, police, etc, etc.
That does NOT mean the government has a right to:
- Dictate what we can and cannot eat and drink (FDA)
- Jail us for consensual "crimes" like drug posession, and prostitution, and confiscate our property without a court trial (DEA, FBI)
- Claim that we're to stupid to save for our own retirement and force us to pay into a system that is a total scam (social security)
- Tell us what we can and cannot buy for our kids (CPSC)
- Enact trade and immigration barriers
- The list goes on an on...
ALL of which our current "democracy" currently DOES DO.OK, pardon my rantings, I get a little excited sometimes
- jonathan.
"The system gives you just enough...
to make you think that you see change...
it will sing you right to sleep...
and then they'll screw you just the same."
- ani difranco
If Microsoft were to shut down NT servers... (Score:2)
Microsoft already shuts down our NT servers regularly, and they aren't even trying.
Re:No, it is not a great news... (Score:3)
I doubt they would have gone to the effort if they didn't have some use planned for it. And what about the remotely actvateable serial # that the Pentium III's all carry. It seems to me that several companies have been getting ready "just in case" for quite awhile now.
I uninstalled Win98 and went back to Win95 in part because Win98 kept dialing the MS site (and mixing up drive letters whenever I changed ZIP drives... the install trackers kept going haywire!) But that install tracker was going to the MS site and checking in with them to see whether or not "I" had upgraded my system OS to the latest version. And since it later turned out that all of the packets had my GUID stamped on them... if they had cared to track it they could have.
I don't think that its only, or even mainly, the large firms with fleets of lawyers that need to worry!
Re:Outlaw reverse engineering? (Score:2)
Software producers generally try to make an end run around copyright law. If you buy a book, you own the book. When you buy software, do you own it? No, says the software producer, you just have a license to use it. Most software sold today is actually a license transaction, where the producer allows you to use the software in exchange for you agreeing to certain terms. After all, this is how the GPL works. Licensing in itself isn't always evil.
A license is essentially a contract between the user and the producer, and thus contract law may apply instead of copyright law! As long as both parties agree, almost any terms can be binding in a contract.
Okay, so are you bound by shrinkwrap licenses? In that case, there is no explicit negotiation between merchant and purchaser. So maybe shrinkwraps are enforceable, maybe not. What if the terms aren't even on the box (as UCITA permits)? Remember the poor Toshiba owner who couldn't read the Microsoft EULA until he opened the computer box, but by doing so agreed to the EULA?! UCITA makes such practices more legimate.
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.
Some open source developers may not be able to afford such a court battle.
Craig
Re:Great News! (Score:2)
Lawyer: Repeat after me: "It's not a law." (Score:2)
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 . . .
Re:This only affects the *US* (Score:2)
Brother, I'm starting to wish I wasn't an American after we pull a massively boneheaded stunt like this. I say we build one of those floating islands in the equatorial Pacific. Who's with me?
Sanity check (Score:2)
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.
--