Maryland, Virginia Consider UCITA 172
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.
Maryland Legislators (Score:1)
This sickens me. (Score:1)
free speech (Score:1)
The future of reviews (Score:1)
Re:free speech (Score:1)
Re:Maryland Legislators (Score:2)
Re:The future of reviews (Score:1)
Re:Maryland Legislators (Score:1)
future? (Score:1)
"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?
Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:2)
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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re:An Ode to Threaded Posts (Score:2)
UCITA in Oklahoma (Score:1)
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.
Free speech: Use it or lose it! (Score:1)
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.
the facism starts (Score:1)
Well.... (Score:1)
""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?
Re:SB 1337?? oh oh (Score:1)
Re:Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:1)
If you throw away the license, you throw away your right to use it.
Re:This sickens me. (Score:1)
If this comes to CA (Score:1)
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.
Re:Well.... (Score:1)
Re:This sickens me. (Score:1)
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.
Don't use 'Read More' (Score:1)
the ## of ## and you get threaded. At least it
works for me.
Bulworth (Score:1)
Re:Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:2)
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).
Push to Linux (Score:1)
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.
Re:Well.... (Score:1)
// 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);
}
--
Actual useful links for maryland. (Score:1)
Contact A legistlator [state.md.us]
To find the person in your district.
Maryland legislative maps [state.md.us]
Re:Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:1)
Who do I e-mail? (Score:1)
I'm in Virginia, btw...
Opposing the UCITA in other states? (Score:1)
I've looked at www.badsoftware.com, and from what I can tell the site resembles a long dead battlefield...
Re:Who do I e-mail? (Score:2)
It could be just fair enough (Score:2)
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.
writing to legislators (Score:1)
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.
motivation (Score:1)
Re:Actual useful links for maryland. (Score:2)
It pains me to see the slashdot response (Score:2)
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.
Re:motivation (Score:2)
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.
Re:writing to legislators (Score:1)
Moderate this down (-1, You Are Not Even American)
--
How you can use the UCITA to get even! (Score:1)
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?
Well, the above might not fly, but you get the idea. Come up with something you can enforce, and stick it in there.
Re:motivation (Score:1)
Re:Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:2)
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.
USE THIS TO OUR ADVANTAGE! (Score:2)
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"
Ow! My head's gonna explode! (Score:1)
Re:Ow! My head's gonna explode! (Score:1)
What is the discerning Slashdotter to do?
Re:My governor can... blah blah blah (Score:1)
Re:It could be just fair enough (Score:1)
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?
Re:Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:1)
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.
Re:It pains me to see the slashdot response (Score:1)
You can get a refund for the whole computer (Score:1)
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
Re:the facism starts (Score:2)
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.
Useful email addresses (Score:1)
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.
Re:It pains me to see the slashdot response (Score:2)
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.
Disinformation in the 21st Century... (Score:2)
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.
Re:You can get a refund for the whole computer (Score:1)
Re:It could be just fair enough (Score:1)
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?
Is it just me? (Score:1)
More Information on UCITA... (Score:1)
Re:Ow! My head's gonna explode! (Score:2)
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?
Re:future? (Score:2)
In a case like this UCITA would be ruled unconstitutional.
Congress shall make no law...
Five immortal words.
Unenforceable? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Disinformation in the 21st Century... (Score:1)
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".
Re:future? (Score:1)
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. . .
Don't just Complain. (Score:1)
Complaining get's you nowhere. Action is what is needed.
What do I email about ???? (Score:1)
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. . .
Re:the facism starts (Score:2)
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.
An ambiguity. (Score:1)
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??
Re:Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:2)
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.
Off docket in VA? (Score:1)
Re:Disinformation in the 21st Century... (Score:1)
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.
Not Just Legistlators (Score:1)
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?
What two states obstained? (Score:1)
Does anyone know what the two states that obstained where?
Wrong emphasis? (Score:2)
If this bill were simply:
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!
Re:Disinformation in the 21st Century... (Score:1)
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)
Isn't a free market driven by investment fun?
Weird reporting (Score:1)
What drug had the reporter been smoking when he wrote this? Does anyone else find this hard to believe?
Contact legislators in every state! (Score:1)
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!
Re:the facism starts (Score:1)
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.
Re:UCITA in Oklahoma (Score:1)
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Re:Disinformation in the 21st Century... (Score:2)
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
Re:Free speech: Use it or lose it! (Score:1)
Re:Weird reporting (Score:1)
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.
Virginia Information (Score:1)
If you live in Va and want to find out who your delegate and senator is go here [206.246.254.9].
Re:My governor can... blah blah blah (Score:1)
This is so cool! Let it pass. (Score:1)
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
UCITA == huge blunder for closed source vendors! (Score:1)
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
Re:Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:1)
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
Re:Here's what you do after UCITA (Score:1)
Don't Panic: It won't stop free software (Score:1)
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.
Re:Maryland Legislators (Score:1)
Who's next (Score:2)
Re:writing to legislators (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Free speech: Use it or lose it! (Score:1)
http://www.badsoftware.com/nondisc.htm [badsoftware.com]
Contact legislators, watch UCITA pass (Score:1)
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.)
Re:Disinformation in the 21st Century... (Score:2)
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:
Three points:
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
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.
What License? (Score:1)
Not DoS. (Score:1)
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.
To Bill Gates. (Score:1)
Yes: DoS. (Score:1)
Misconception about GPL (Score:2)
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.
--