Virginia House Passes UCITA 427
Keith Kris writes, "Looks like Virginia [its House of Representatives] has passed the UCITA, got it through unanimously, too. This needs to be stopped quickly. Many people don't even know what this act is. Spread the word." Microsoft, AOL and the Business Software Alliance are pushing this heavily. Virginians, you need to call your state senators immediately since they're still considering the bill. Tell them who you are, tell them you're a constituent, tell them you oppose passage of UCITA because it will destroy consumer rights.
Re:I, for one, will keep reading Slashdot (Score:2)
But I'm leaving the whole mess in Rob Malda's hands, and I am sure he will come up with a fair and equitable solution to the spam dilemna - and I am also sure that no matter what he does, he'll get hundreds of e-mails telling him his solution sucks.
;-)
- robin "roblimo" miller
Re:sid=moderation (Score:2)
Mmmmph. I don't know about this. Is it substantially different from using a +1 score threshold if you don't want to see the "unvetted" AC comments? I suppose one might miss less with your solution, but instructing moderators to focus on raising good AC posts above 0 and increasing the number of points + moderators available might alleviate that.
Possibly, depending on the implementation.
If AC posts are relegated to "purgatory" rather than the main message board, and access to purgatory were limited to registered users, registered users of sufficient karma, or active moderators, then the positive reinforcement cycle of trolling (look at what I did to the board) is lost. ACs can't see their own trolls, and the larger public doesn't see them either. Not that the AC boards can't be spammed, but the psychological reward of doing so is greatly reduced.
Technical protections (post lockouts, redundancy filters, etc.) may still be required, but the main board problems should be much reduced.
Also agreed. Along those same lines, and somewhat aside, I'd like to see stories be assigned more than one topic (eg a story about SGI supporting Linux doesn't just get in the "Linux" category or just the "SGI" category.) Along with which users should be granted more flexibility in filtering what stories they see on the main page.
That's getting toward keywording rather than departmentalizing stories. IMO it's a good idea, and becomes necessary when either traffic or classification schemes become sufficiently rich. Face it, the world ain't heierarchical.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Subpeona (Score:2)
There would be a link between a user and an anonymous post in the database, which would allow that information to be subpeonaed into court, should it be required. That defeats entirely the whole philosophical point behind anonymous postings.
Sorry, I don't follow.
There is no link between the identity of the AC posting, and the comments posted by the AC. There is a link between the Slashdot ID of the person signing the post, and the post, but this implies absolutely nothing WRT origin of content.
What specific legal threats do you see as originating from the signing of anonymous posts to allow general viewing? AFAIK, there is no transitivity of libel from the person writing it to a person who allows it to be generally posted. The original poster's anonymity is preserved.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Disputed (Score:2)
There are two reasons I disagree with the "off topic" classification:
I have a serious problem with Slashdot community threads being marked off-topic, as they generally emerge in response to a blatantly evident problem, and no alternatives exist. Moderating these threads down shows an overly literal reading of the moderation guidelines, IMO.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Some info... (Score:2)
If it locks consumers into a licence like current ones, that basically sound more like a slum-lord rental agreement (no guarantee of service, and you don't own it either, and if you [your computer] gets sick because of it, it ain't their problem) then that's an argument I can make.
This is certainly part of it. UCITA would make EULAs much more enforceable. In its current form, it would probably even allow clauses such as those that prohibit criticism or public disclosure of flaws in the software. I would hope that such things would be overturned in court, but why let it get that far if we can fix it before then?
If all it does it prevent the "warez kiddies" from their little pirate cottage industry, as said elsewhere, then how can you be against that.
If that was all it did, then I'd have no problem with it, except that it would be redundant. What "warez kiddies" do is already illegal under current law, so there is no need for further legislation for that purpose. It would only serve to confuse matters.
Sure, some software may seem overpriced, but it is the right of the company to charge what they want for it, and it is your right not to install it. If you did without paying it, UCITA or not, you just broke the law.
The problem is not the price or EULAs in and of themselves, but the fact that UCITA seems to disregard current contract law and current consumer rights. Some of this is explained in the docs I reference below.
There are a bunch of letters and papers written by various lawyers, consumer organizations, industry groups, and others on this site [badsoftware.com]. Might help you out to read through some of them. Most of them seem pretty well thought out and usually emphasize that one of the worst aspects of UCITA is that it is not based on current law and will cause a lot of confusion and expensive litigation. I think this one [2bguide.com], this one [2bguide.com], this summary [2bguide.com], and this article [thestandard.com] by Lawrence Lessig were some of the most informative.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
I guess I should have put rational in quotes. I'm not advocating an irrational approach. I'm saying that this needs to become much more public than it currently is. While there are many specific problems that can be pointed out in the UCITA, that isn't what gets news time. We need to claim that it is anti-consumer and that it should be voted down for that very reason. All the problems with UCITA point to it being anti-consumer, so that's not a false claim. Such a claim is more likely to get news time than someone trying to make a point about how UCITA doesn't adhere to current contract law, or some other argument that is likely to contain much legalese. I'm all for people making those arguments and for them being made visible to the public, but we need to generalize a bit so that people start making the association "UCITA == BAD".
Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Are you saying that there haven't been a ton of people out there already opposing UCITA and offering constructive criticism and alternatives?
Did you read this stuff [badsoftware.com]? If all of this has had no effect, then I'd say the rational approach has indeed failed, and that short of realizing an imminent threat to their reelection, there is probably nothing that will deter the various state governments from passing this legislation. Something must be done to make manifest this threat. Otherwise, this will be quietly passed and most of the country will never realize it until the lawsuits start flying and the initial damage is done. I think that the long-term damage will be much, much worse.
Re:Unanimous? (Score:2)
High Karmas (Score:2)
Wibbbbble!!!
Thank you, and good night. :)
Re:Unanimous? (Score:2)
--
Re:Unanimous? (Score:2)
There seems to be a pattern developing here. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and it passed the House with an unknown number of votes because it was a "voice vote" where no record is kept of who voted how.
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Re:sid=moderation (Score:2)
No, no, no, no, no.
There would be a link between a user and an anonymous post in the database, which would allow that information to be subpeonaed into court, should it be required. That defeats entirely the whole philosophical point behind anonymous postings.
Just lobby for abolition of anonymity and be done with it - subverting the purpose of it is just evil.
Here's the problem... (Score:2)
The problem is, if one state passes it, more will follow. And companies, realizing they got away with this travesty, will push for more laws, and these will be passed too. I would be ashamed to see my home state be the one which touched off the destruction of consumer rights. I'm already ashammed that no one in the House seems to have heard the people's pleas. Normally I'm politically neutral, but I can't stand by while this happens. This law serves no one but Big Business; it's been universally denounced by every consumer group I know because it's a self-serving law, created by businesses to increase their gluttony on the backs of their customers. Why can legislators not see this? Do businesses really have enough money to bribe every legislator in every state?
Re:Inaction in action (Score:2)
Even handed? (Score:2)
Now if they fail to live up to their end of the deal, by say not providing a new standard of reliability, what can I do? If the bill is really promoting even handed treatment of both the purchaser and the seller of the software, then shouldn't I should get some free cycles on their machines.
I'm sure you can think of something good to do with them.
you anarchists are nuts (Score:2)
Zorro
I have contacted Senator Ed Houck's office! (Score:2)
I also sent an e-mail opposing UCITA.
Capitol Phone:(804) 698-7517
Ed's E-Mail: ehouck@fls.infi.net
I did my part.
Re:This is a Very Bad Thing. (Score:2)
The rot has already begun to set in here. Only yesterday morning I heard a report on BBC radio 4 news about how piracy of music CD's, videos and software CD-ROMs is on the increase, about how it was ruining media businesses and so on. The figures quoted by industry spokemen in support of these wild claims were so extreme as to be literally unbelievable.
Given the timing and the outrageously Geobbelsian "Big Lie" tactics, it's fairly obvious that this is just the opening salvo in the media industry's campaign to sew up the UK market just as they've done in the US.
But what is really shocking is that the BBC news service would sink so low. I used to believe they had a degree of integrity. I guess I was wrong.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Your Rant (Score:2)
Just a deja vu:
Wasn't Virjinia the state that tried to push sales tax on Internet goods?
Re:Trolling (Score:2)
Nope. I can't agree with this one. People should be encouraged to be thoughtful and only post when they truly have something to say. A karma decay as you've described it would encourage continous posting simply to keep your slashdot account "alive".
Re:Trolling (Score:2)
because they can.
the problem in the last week is not related to quality of anonymous posting. it is related to volume. the moderation system was set up to deal with people writing comments for the purpose of discussion, and for this it works rather well. It was not designed to deal with people specifically attempting to destroy the converstion. (people attempting to disrupt the conversation, it can deal with. destroy, no. MEEPT!!)
therefore if someone wishes to prevent slashdot from being used for legitimate purposes, they very easily can, because nothing is in place to check them. if a moderator sees one or two garbage posts he/she will probably spend the mod points to take at least one of them off the map so that others will have a better time reading
if the moderator sees 15 in a row, probably they aren't going to moderate any of them. The sheer volume is so overwhelming they will probably not even attempt to do something about it, and instead just hit pgdn until they don't see the problem anymore. The system simply doesn't deal with that kind of problem.
blatantly offtopic posting for the sheer purpose of preventing people from actually using slashdot to discuss things isn't something that began until Segfault shut off their comments, thus shutting off these people's playpen and forcing them to find a new one. (why is this called "troll" posting so often? that isn't the real definition of troll, right? i mean, a troll by the definition i've always used wants to hijack the conversation, not keep conversation from taking place) Bulk blatant offtopic posting really isn't something that's appeared until the last two weeks or so. You shouldn't shut down all anonymous posting after however many years because of a really extremely small group of people abusing it at unheard of levels for two weeks. instead you should take measures to control that small group of people.
anonymous posting is really rather important to slashdot. if you silence the voice of the lurker, you silence.. well, everyone but the karma whores. You silence the people who don't care if they get to feed their ego by seeing ooh, look, i have score:92, i must be a worthful person. You especially silence the people who refuse to enable the cookies in their browser just because one single site on the entire internet uses them. Actually, reading slashdot with cookies disabled is something the slashdot sysops have always tried their hardest to prevent; after all, even after all this time you __STILL__ can't click "preview" and then "submit" without it forgetting what you logged in as at the time of clicking preview. And i don't see any point in frequently forcing everyone without a cookie to switch from the hell that is Flat to threaded other than harrassing them into activating cookies and getting a login. I of course would want a login anyway just because i want to have the score:3 thread breakout so badly, but i still can't come up with a good reason or making the non-logged-in comment things Flat. I've gotten way offtopic here haven't i?
ANYWAY. I don't care so much about allowing people to post without fear of retribution; i just know that a lot of people out there are unwilling to either deal with cookies or sign up for an account and remember a password if they aren't going to be posting regularly, yet once, at least once, in all the time they read slashdot intermittently they will hit something they know a lot about, post, and you'll have a real gem. and i really wouldn't trade missing that one gem a week for not having to look at ten NATALIE PORTMAN posts an article.
if you do not agree with me, and would rather not look at the ten portman posts even if you don't get to see the one gem a week, remember that THIS IS THE ENTIRE REASON THE MODERATION SYSTEM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. You see that little "threshold" thing? USE IT. Go to score:1 and you will probably never see another Anonymous Coward post again unless the post deserves to be seen.
In the meantime, i hope cdmrtaco thinks of something that can deal with people posting mass amounts of "troll" stuff in an attempt to keep people from carrying on an intelligent discussion. If for no other reason than that the moderation system cannot work if the moderators cannot use threshold:0. I'm sure Taco can come up with something; he's getting paid to do this shit now anyway.
-mcc
nobody will read this post, i know it.
This could be a real test (Score:2)
I like to think so
--
grappler
"Wholly owned property" (Score:2)
or remotely disable their wholly owned property?
The catch, of course, is that software is not "property" that is "owned" by the customer. As every EULA today already says, the software itself remains owned by the copyright holder, and one has simply executed a contract giving one certains rights of use.
Of course, in your database example, the data within a database would certainly be the property of the database software customer, so if that's the "property" that you meant you are correct.
I wonder, if UCITA really does pass in most states, if part of a normal disaster recovery backup scheme would have to become exporting databases to some open format, in case the vendor decides to exercise "self-help." I can see it now -- the emergency tape of CSV-formatted data, so that one can "Whirl That Perl" without bringing down the wrath of lawyers ...
Re:Your Rant (Score:2)
Excuse me? Uh... look, the federal government is all that stands between us and domination by the corporations. Do you seriously believe that you would become more powerful or have more rights if the federal government were less powerful? Of course you wouldn't! Decreasing federal power means increasing coporate power, not increasing individual power. Unless you happen to be a CEO or something. I guess you can ignore this if you are. Now, why, you ask, would I prefer government to rule me instead of the corporations? BECAUSE THAT IS WHY GOVERNMENT EXISTS. I have a vote in the government... a corporation can screw me six ways from Sunday if I need their product and there's nothing I can do about it. Nothing at all. If the government screws me, I don't vote for that person! Maybe one person doesn't make much difference, but at least I have some say! I'll say it again: if we take power away from the federal government, we will give power to the corporations. There is no middle ground. It's us (the people, ie, the government remember? Government of the people, by the people, and for the people) or them (the big corporations, who don't even pay stock dividends!). You decide...
Re:False alarm? (Score:2)
Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:2)
Greg
Re:sid=moderation (Score:2)
I want to be able to moderate myself DOWN. Not just with the 'No +1 Bonus', I want to be able to remove points I've been given. A while ago I got a 4 for a post I regretted posting at +1 after I submitted - it didn't say anything substantial or add to the discussion and I was emarrassed to have the points for it.
Moderating yourself up should be out, but moderating yourself down hould certainly be in - and permanent. If I don't think I deserve points, I should be able to reject them.
Greg
Re:sid=moderation (Score:2)
Anyway...
The main problem we've had recently is the tiny number of points getting used for some reason. Whether we've simply had a week where no-one's been using them or whether the system hasn't been gving them out properly I don't know, but it's not good. Getting better now, fortunately.
But, long-term, we've still got a problem with karma: persistence. Right now I've got reasonable karma - 41 or so. That would give me, what, 20 posts trolling at +1 if I wanted?
Now, imagine some of the others. Signal 11 and Bruce Perens (the legit one...) both had 2-300 points before karma viewing was disabled. Both could troll at +1 for really quite a while if they wanted. But why should they be able to (hypothetically), just because they're a good contributor now?
Karma needs to fade. By making it degrade over time, the user's worth is related to their recent posting record and so their current worth to the community, not their historical worth.
It's also make it almost impossible to get karma in the 100s and make +1 posting a truly rare achievement. Whereas right now it seems almost anyone can get it given enough time.
You're going to want to make the karma fade relative to posting volume as well as time so you don't lose too much while on holiday but could with a large number of banal posts in one day.
The other idea - how about true mass moderation? Everyone rates a post on a scale of (say) 1 to 5, scores are expressed as a percentage? Logged in users post at 50% by default, ACs at whatever we want?
Greg
Re:sid=moderation (Score:2)
Anyway, gotta go
Playing nice will get you ignored (Score:2)
In other words, Mr. Greenberg's suggested method has been a complete failure.
The thing lacking in the above process was substantial involvement from the population. The pro-UCITA forces didn't care to advertise the issue, and the anti-UCITA groups generally felt the issue was too complex to take to the populace and harbored hopes of tempering the draft through their own actions. The DMCA was similarly passed with zero fanfare.
Well, they chose wrongly.
Mr. Greenberg is correct in one thing: the huge amount of money being poured in by the pro-UCITA corporations. Rational, reasoned arguments do not counter large campaign contributions. What does counter them is the threat that a Yea vote will sufficiently piss off a large sector of the population that Politician X will not be re-elected. Politicians ARE afraid of this; thus the voice votes on the DMCA and this vote in the Virginia House which make it difficult to assign blame.
A call-in campaign to stop UCITA is the only thing that has a chance of stopping UCITA right now. If the general population had gotten involved earlier in the process, it might have been corrected at that time. But what the Virginia and other politicians need to hear now is that voting yes on UCITA will cost them votes.
Mr. Greenberg is of course welcome to grovel, write some scholarly papers, or perform some other useless actions as he wishes.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Unanimous? (Score:2)
--
Re:Unanimous? (Score:2)
UCITA, the DVD-CSS, RIAA. On one side you have large companies dealing in products that the Internet devalues incredibly, since distrubution and reproduction move to zero. These are MS(NBC),AOL/TW,All Movie Companies(including Disney/ABC/UPN(?)),the RIAA (including Sony), etc. If you include iCrave that adds sports franchises and ALL media signal distributors.
Why are these people fighting? Because something has come along to replace them. All of them. This thing is called the Internet. The only way to stop it is to control it. The only way to do that is to legislate it. The only way to do that is to lobby and minimize public awareness.
Do any networks or major media providers have ANY reason to publicize these issues? No, none at all, although any Hacker story helps to stir up anti-Net FUD. Which furthers the goals stated above.
Talk to your friends, your family, your representatives, help them to understand what is happening and why. It's about control, it's about money, it's NOT about the consumer.
--
Re:This is a Very Bad Thing. (Score:2)
Re:I wish I had the script ready, but... (Score:2)
Of course becoming a registered user should be enough to get past any controls on ACs. So if you are on a subnet with an asshole, you can still participate by regging.
Easier Way to do it (Score:2)
Re:Playing nice will get you ignored (Score:2)
When your boss comes to you with today's complicated and tricky problem that's going to a couple of weeks of hard thought and work to get started on, do you get cracking right away?
I thought not. If its easy, you do it. Otherwise you apply the rule of three (do nothing until he asks the third time).
Oh, I'm not saying that legislators don't like to solve problems for their constituents. I like to solve problems for my boss. Simple ones, that make me look brilliant, preferably. The basic problem is that you have a well funded, organized and highly intellgent lobby arrayed against a unfunded, disorganized and highly intelligent mob. You just can't sail into your legislator's office when things start to go bad and expect him to jump up and march. It's way too late. The art of getting elected is in knowing who to really listen to and who to nod agreeably at while taking a mental vacation. You listen to people who have done you favors (not just money), or who can do you favors in the future, or who you can't afford to ignore (most of us are politically expendable), or who are telling you something important to your political future, or who successfully manage to push your hot buttons.
OK, you've never done your legislator favors. It's unlikely that you can do anyting terribly important for him i the future. He certainly can afford to ignore you if you look like enough of a lunatic. So, you have to convince him you're telling him something critical to his political future or you have to push his ideological hot buttons.
Unless your legislator is Joe Consumer Protection, it doesn't look to promising, does it?
What may be a more effective approach is to get some muckracking editor hot and bothered. These are people who, unlike you, he cannot afford to ignore. Any ideas for some newsworthy political theater?
Re:This sucks ass. (Score:2)
Open Source aside, if RedHat is marketing themselves as a service company, what's to stop them from cutting off the service if the end user breaks the agreement? (using Redhat only for example purposes here)
Does the GPL offer sufficient protection against this, or more importantly, how will the GPL interact with UCITA in general?
(Not trolling, not playing devil's adocate. IANAL, and I just want to know.)
Do more than email (Score:2)
Re:If UCITA is passed in all states... (Score:2)
You see, UCITA says that by default a software developer or distributor is completely liable for flaws in a program; but it also allows a shrink-wrap license to override the default. Sophisticated software companies that make proprietary software will use shrink-wrap licenses to avoid liability entirely. But amateurs, and self-employed contractors who develop software for others, will be often be shafted because they didn't know about this problem. And we free software developers won't have any reliable way to avoid the problem.
What could we do about this? We could try to change our licenses to avoid it. But since we don't use shrink-wrap licenses, we cannot override the UCITA default. Perhaps we can prohibit distribution in the states that adopt UCITA. That might solve the problem--for the software we release in the future. But we can't do this retroactively for software we have already released. Those versions are already available, people are already licensed to distribute them in these states--and when they do so, under UCITA, they would make us liable. We are powerless to change this situation by changing our licenses now; we will have to make complex legal arguments that may or may not work.
End quote. This was written by Richard Stallman and I assume he has made himself well-versed in the nature of the law and what it defines "shrink-wrap" licenses as. Evidently, at least if I interpret what he is saying correctly, is that the GPL will be, in effect, officially unenforceable, as it is not a shrink wrap license by the UCITA. Seems contradictory to me too, but it seems to be interpreted in that way.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Great, then go ahead with the irrational approach, for all the good it will do you. The nihilism of, "reason failed, let's get rowdy, so the bill won't be quietly passed," is ludicrous on its face. A bad bill that passed raucously or quietly is the same damned bad law.
Make sure the bill isn't passed without notice -- but BE REASONABLE in your opposition. Don't make the same stupid extravagant claims that have made UCC2B and UCITA opposition a laughingstock. Make the few, tighter, good claims that actually win debates and can't be dismissed with a hand-wave, and make sure you have an answer to the question, "so what else do we do about that?"
Or just keep on whining on Slashdot and flaming at me, for all the good it will do.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
I'm alive to this concern, but I think its a losing strategy. You are not going to win this by sheer populism. Either you form a more powerful constituency, so they don't care, or you convince the legislature that it will be bad for the State at the end of the day.
The latter approach is possible, because UCITA has gone over the edge in many respects. But marginalizing ourselves as overreacting knee-jerkers (without a big populist constituency) only makes it EASIER for folks to adopt the powerful constituency's position.
What you must understand is that these hypertechnical positions are simply never going to be understood. Therefore, whoever can afford more PR will win, as folks decide for themselves which of the experts are prettier. Thus, we need to win in a slightly different way.
Here, its easy to make the kind of advocacy you describe work: most folks are highly sophisticated, and most people are inclined to adopt your view. Outside in the "real world," excellent advocacy is a harder nut to crack, and the strategies for the best execution of that advocacy are often far from obvious.
We can fairly agree to disagree, and that's fine. Just so we understand what each other is saying.
Best,
A
Re:Playing nice will get you ignored (Score:2)
To the contrary, the approach I have suggested, where taken has historically been quite successful. Opponents of patent reform ultimately prevailed (despite the law being passed), not by the wild keening of some independent inventors that the law was "bad, bad, bad," but by the quiet patient logrolling of harmless provisions for the troublesome ones. Ultimately, the radical "independent inventor" lobby was marginalized, and more moderate forces prevailed.
Same with UCC2B, which after years of being unable to work compromises, led the empowered lobbies to simply take their ball home and evolve into UCITA, where they got EVERYTHING they wanted. It is precisely Michael's oppose-it-all strategy that led to the present case of a bill being railroaded through so many legislatures. That strategy was foolish, and there was a chance to make a better bill. It was squandered by left-or-right ideologues who now pretend there is a chance to oppose wholesale the UCITA.
Legislators *WILL* pass a bill, because they need to respond to the constituencies supporting it. If you don't give them an alternative, they will pass the bill you are opposing.
I did not propose ignoring UCITA -- I simply said that acting like a raving lunatic will get you ignored, and offering no meaningful alternative, or acknowledging the reasonable UCITA provisions are reasonable will get your ideas discarded. They are *NOT* afraid of losing the vote of what is perceived to be a minority of ill-informed and unhelpful tech-heads.
THEY WILL RESPOND to well-educated counter-proposals articulated with the force of reason.
This worked for the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Congress, the recent battle over patent reform, and it can work here.
But Michael would rather take the sure loss, comforted the he had fought the good fight.
Except not really. (Score:2)
the virginia SENATE has passed it, and the house is still working on it. They are studing it, and deciding if they want to create a committee to look at it.
Check it out for yourself:
HB561 [state.va.us],
HJ277 [state.va.us],
and SB372 [0] [state.va.us]
[0] the last url is sponsered by the senator from my home town
Become exposed to the online community (Score:2)
5) PLEASE change the default comment view to "Highest Scores First!" When important issues come along, I want to tell people "Visit Slashdot, and see that there is a group of intelligent, concerned people who exist in an online community to whom these issues are real. See us firsthand."
However, the default view is "oldest first," leaving the un-logged in reader with the "first posts" and "trollmastahz." This is no way to earn a favorable first impression
We have to make it easy for outsiders to become exposed to our world. We have to be understood if we want the support when we really need it.
Moderate up: Even More detailed VA information (Score:2)
Here is the link to the actual Bill:
Summary: HB 499 Uniform Electronic Transactions Act [state.va.us]
Full Text: HB 499 [state.va.us]
Link to updates to Technology legislation in Virginia:
Virginia Secretary of Technology [state.va.us]
This is extremely important. Today is the big day:
Dates to Remember [state.va.us]:
January 12 -- General Assembly convenes at noon
January 24 -- All bills and joint resolutions filed by 5 p.m.
February 15 -- Cross-over, each house to consider legislation of the other house (except budget, appropriation debt, revenue and VRS bills)
February 22 -- Amendments on the Budget Bill(s) available by noon
March 11 -- Adjourn Sine die
April 10 -- Last Day for Governor to Act on Legislation.
Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:2)
If you read what these people have to say, most of them are pissed off, because they feel they do not have a voice (that they are being unfairly moderated).
Maybe they are?
I think a better start would be for a
For the first time tonight, I had to bump my comment threshold up to get past the noise. That's a drag. One of the things I enjoy the most about
Re:Cease and Disist (Score:2)
And what if they decide to track down my negative comment on
Re:Unanimous? (Score:2)
liability for software faults against the author, and then it allows
shrinkwrap licenses to invalidate these software protections.
It isn't too hard to see this as a way to sue the writers of free
software, without being able to sue commercial distributors of
software, as Stallman argued in linux today [linuxtoday.com].
Lastly UCITA doesn't explicitly introduce measures against reverse
engineering, but the kind of clauses UCITA allows manufacturers to
introduce into their software explicitly include restrictions on use,
and so it is feared manufacturers could forbid reverse engineering of
their products. I don't think this would hold: there are federal laws
explicitly permitting reverse engineering of software, which
autmoatically overrides UCITA, but this only increases the ease with
which bullying lawsuits may be made.
Re:Unanimous? (Score:2)
--
Wasn't SMB proprietary and secret? (Score:2)
Besides, how many years did it take for domain controller support to be added. I thought that they had to reverse-engineer that too.
Hey! Moderator! (Score:2)
Here I go again [slashdot.org], ready to lose my sacred karma for the moderation revolution. If you haven't spent your last point moderating this [slashdot.org] up, then spend one on this guy [slashdot.org]! He's even got a link [charm.net] and a summary of what you'll find! Talk about informative! Did you know about these?
- hb0018f.rtf --> Commercial Law - The Maryland Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
- sb0003f.rtf --> senate version of the House Bill
- hb0019f.rtf --> Maryland Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
- sb0142f.rtf --> senate version of the house bill
- sb0505f.rtf --> Internet Consumers' Bill of Rights (cable access bill)
(The link seems to be down, this index should be a good starting place anyway.)Re:Trolling (Score:2)
And as for the point another person made that "people have enemies" and that they might lose karma due to bad moderators: You down-moderate me and people feel you were unfair, you get nuked in meta-moderation. That's why I said that being metamoderated as unfair should cost you BIGTIME karma.
As for meta-mod nuking your karma: Remember, a single "unfair" in metamoderation means nothing: a large number of the metamoderators who review your moderation have to agree you were unfair.
After I posted the origonal message, I thought further about it, and would also make the following suggestion: If you lose karma due to a downmod, and the downmod is later found unfair in metamod, you should get your karma back (and your post should lose the downmod).
Now, the question is, "Is anyone at /. reading these comments." Perhaps we, the /. public, need to get a petition together, and ask Rob et. al. to review our suggestions and debate them in an open forum. Perhaps this would be a good "Friday Q&A" article?
Re:Trolling (Score:2)
Remember though, that when you have moderation access, you can moderate a given comment only once. If I had moderator access, I can raise or lower your comment by 1 point only, and then I'm locked out.
If I may ask, do you have
Re:Trolling (Score:2)
If I may ask, do you have /. account? Have you ever moderated? If not, may I suggest you get an account? You sound like a person I'd like to see get moderator access.
Re:Inaction in action (Score:2)
(What, you think you're living in a Democracy?)
The best we can do at this point is to make ourselves heard in VA so we can keep it down in other states. The only way to do that is to threaten the law makers' abililty to get reelected... bad press is our only weapon.
However, I *would* be pissed if the voters of VA let any of their representatives last another election. C'mon Slashdotters, if they don't accept the olive branch at least you can beat them over the head with it.
Just my $.02
Re:Exaggeration will get you ignored (Score:2)
A defeatist attitude can only lead to defeat. Your voice can make a difference, a thousand voices can make as much difference as the the bribes paid to Virginia's legislators (bribes that are only effective because they help secure votes - legislators will flee a truly, widely unpopular position regardless of the cash on the table).
If you doubt your effect, here's a story about the Collection of Information Antipiracy Bill:
http://www.l awnewsnetwork.com/practice/techlaw/news/A15771-20
Thanks to efforts in the Open Source community (including Slashdot [slashdot.org]) and growing consumer opposition, the February vote on this ridiculous bill has been delayed as a somewhat more friendly bill is considered.
Educating the media and state legislators about UCITA can and will have an effect.
Resolve to write one dead-tree letter on the issue ever week from now until it's dead.
UCITA and the GPL (Score:2)
Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:2)
Signal 11 has had this theme, and I agree.
Moderation on slashdot has little to do with what you say, but more to do with if you say pro-linux or anti-microsoft stuff.
If I post as an AC, the post will get moderated 1-3. If I post as myself, no moderation.
Why? Because in the past I've responded to the poster and told them what I thought of there idea. And I've been a vocal supported on the BSD licence, as opposed to the pro-linux adjenda. (And yes, you are STILL wacked.)
This place is nothing but one big clique. And there is NO WAY to have moderation solve the clique problem.
There *IS* a way to solve the spammer problem:
1) Deny them the venue. Allow someone to post as much as they want, and, from the IP/browser they are at, the posts are there. The rest of us don't see the posts. (I can suggest #1 because I don't have to write the code to implement it)
2) Delete the spam.
3) Some of the slashdot population is willing to mederated down spam. Give people who want to do this the power to do this.
If [1-3] fails:
4) Track down the spammer and give 'em some Open Sores. A beating with the clue stick should result in some Open Sores.
Re:This sucks ass. (Score:2)
And, you have the freedom to write your own code that functions just like it.
This is a great oppertunity for OpenSource. OpenSource advocates can point at the UCITA and mention how, with OpenSource, you can not have the program shut down from outside vendors.
The OpenSource movement might as well take the lemon that UCITA is and make lemon-aide. Send letters to Micro$oft and point out how the heavy handedness of the UCITA will help move people and companies to OpenSource. Be sure to thank Microsoft and the rest of the supporters of the UCITA.
Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:2)
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:2)
But I'm not convinced that it wouldn't even out right in the middle. Those people who have a high enough karma to start their posts at 4 or 5 better have something damn important to say or they will start getting marked down as boring or dull or unrelated or anything else. And if they know they don't have any 4 or 5 commentary to make, they will not say anything and gain no karma or mark themselves down to 1 or 2.
If you have things to say occationally, they will occationally get marked up to a higher level. And eventually you'll have a three digit karma. Some will get it faster, but it WONT be because they trolled.
And regarding -1, when I moderate...I browse at -1. I really don't see how any moderator could browse at anything but -1. But my point is that is a moderator has to stare at a post that has 1000 spam messages...he or she is going to skip it and not moderate anything at all. Then, no moderation gets done and all we can see is trolls.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:2)
General agreement, but I'd want less emphasis on old / voluminous / high karma posters being moderated up. That would make it more cliquey, less open to interesting newbies and (worst) dominated by the no-life-outside-Slashdot otaku.
How about more moderator points, definitely more often ? I'm always finding myself suprised by moderator status and often don't use them in time. Conversely, whenever I see something that deserves upping, I never have the points. How about points that die with time (as now), but leave 1 or 2 points remaining. That should stop troll hoarding, but still allow a reserve.
Re:Inaction in action (Score:2)
I'm concerned about "reposession" and the analogy between cutting off software and repo'ing cars.
I live in the UK, where it's maybe a little different, but we don't have widespread car repo going on. It's possible, but very complex, to arrange to have a bailiff seize any assets, either those unpaid for, or in settlement of another debt. My concern is that "reposessing" a computer licence is likely to involve pressing one button at Redmond and having Sam Tuttle's copy of Word go up in smoke -- no court order, no independent bailiff, no checks and balances.
Europe also has stringent (sic) laws against "logic bombing" software. Legal precedent is that companies who make software time-expire after 18 months, so as to enforce a 12 month renewable maintenance agreement, are on extremely shaky ground if they're not careful how they phrase the contract.
Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:2)
You have a point (sadly). But your solution would not work. When I moderate, I browse at -1 (of course) I don't moderate down if I can help it since I rather spend my points pointing out good posts. I'm particulary happy to give a new post that first bonus that will get a newbie (which I btw still consider myself to be even after many posts and a decent karma) read by those who browse at 2.
How the heck can I find the gems when /. is filled with automated spamming? Why would anybody bother to filter the low point posts when 90% of them are pure trash? Moderation can deal with human trolling, but I (or anyone I guess) cannot keep up with a trollscript!!
The solution is not more human filtering, the solution must be a killfile to stop the autotrolls.
I wish I had the script ready, but... (Score:2)
Logged in AC's is probably the way to go. Perhaps combined with a "user must wait some time after registration to post"-rule.
Hey how about this:
- AC posts require registration.
- The poster of a AC comment is logged internally
- Moderators (and possibly others) get the option of reporting a poster as a flooder.
- If somebody is reported as a flooder, it is up to the staff to terminate the account.
- After I report someone as a flooder, I don't see posts from that account. Therefore, if I'm moderating, I get the chance to concentrate on other posts.
- If an AC is reported as a flooder, that will not affect non-AC posts by the same person (and vice versa)
This way moderators would have a chance to deal with abuse in bulk. It would (as said) require logged in AC's but that seems like a small cost to keep the discussion going.Comments anyone?
Infoworld is wrong. Here is what actually passed. (Score:2)
Offered January 24, 2000
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study the
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.
----------
Patrons-- Baskerville, Christian, Crittenden, Harris, Kilgore, Melvin and Rhodes; Senator: Miller, Y.B.
----------
Referred to Committee on Rules
----------
WHEREAS, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has promulgated the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), and it is now available for consideration for adoption by the several states; and
WHEREAS, the UCITA is major legislation that would govern transactions of computer information, thereby significantly impacting all Virginians who use computers; and
WHEREAS, the UCITA presents a significant policy decision to be made by the General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth may be one of the first states to consider this major legislation and other states may be looking to the Commonwealth for guidance in considering the UCITA; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth is the leader in technology and relevant laws and it must be responsible in leading other states; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. The joint subcommittee shall be composed of twelve members, which shall include seven legislative members and five nonlegislative citizen members as follows: four members of the House of Delegates, to be appointed by the Speaker, one of whom shall be a member of the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Courts of Justice, and one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Corporations, Insurance and Banking; three members of the Senate, to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, one of whom shall be a member of the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, one of whom shall be a member of the Senate Committee on Courts of Justice, and one of whom shall be a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor; one representative of those who would be considered licensors under the UCITA and one representative who would be considered a licensee under the UCITA to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections; and one representative of consumer interests, one member with an expertise in intellectual properties, and one member from the academic legal community who is knowledgeable in the UCITA and the Uniform Commercial Code, to be appointed by the Speaker.
In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall review the UCITA and make a recommendation regarding the appropriateness of using the UCITA as the proper model to govern computer information transactions and shall make suggestions regarding alternatives or amendments to the UCITA that will assure that interests of both the licensors and licensees are adequately protected.
The direct costs of this study shall not exceed $13,500.
The Division of Legislative Services shall provide staff support for the study. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee, upon request.
The joint subcommittee shall complete its work in time to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 2001 Session of the General Assembly as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents.
Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee. The Committee may withhold expenditures or delay the period for the conduct of the study.
#
See http://leg1.state.va.us/c gi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+HJ277 [state.va.us].
Gross errors such as the one InfoWorld made in its UCITA coverage were frequently introduced into my column during editing and then printed; I rarely had a chance to review the column and catch those mistakes. The editor I worked with there actually resented it when I complained about such errors being introduced. It is thus no surprise that InfoWorld got it wrong.
--Brett Glass
Careful: Misinformation above (Score:2)
HB 561 [state.va.us] is UCITA. It was passed by the House but then appears to have been dropped in favor of this resolution [state.va.us] to study the issue.
--Brett Glass
Re:Default = highest scores first (Score:2)
I just contacted Yvonne B Miller's Office. (Score:2)
1. It would have helped if I had KNOWN the bill's number for the senate. Instead they will have to look it up.
2. The woman was shocked on the other side when I told her the ramifications of this bill if passed. She had no clue as to the fact I would be AGREEING to a licence I had never seen nor could see.
3. She mentioned the basic warrenties Act. Something to the effect that if something is defective when you purchase it you have the right to return it. Since every COMMERCIAL software product I own has bugs, does this mean I get to ignore this new bill?
4. I contacted the people we were told to contact to volunteer. They are SWAMPED and apparently for at least the house bill I was not contacted in time. Being busy like they are, they need I guess basic help!
I am a viginian on a warpath.
If anyone knows the bill's number in VA for the senate, let me know. I probably can get several other people to call in directly.
Let me know by repling to this with the bill number. User preferences is sweet that it tells you you were replied too.
I gotsta get back to work.
- A Virginian who is getting overridden.
My take on this (Score:2)
Stan: You BASTARDS!
THIS IS OFF-TOPIC!!! MODERATE DOWN!!! (Score:2)
But, on one thing I must agree with you, this moderation system has some gaping holes [goatse.cx]. That an off-topic redundant spam as you have sent can be moderated up to "+5, Insightful" twice proves that.
If you want so much to reform slashdot, if you don't want them to get any new users, if you think the old bunch who have been here for years are all the customers they and their advertisers need, why not send in a story [slashdot.org] about this? Why waste our precious bandwidth here?
Remember, this story is about UCITA. We are supposed to discuss a new law that has been approved by the Virginia state legislature. A law that is relevant and important for everyone who works with computers, which means almost eveyone living on Planet Earth today. I feel UCITA is far more relevant than any petty squabbles about a bunch of kids who try to find gaps in the system. Let's have each discussion on its relevant forum, please!
From the /. moderator guidelines: If you can't be deep, be funny
The UK and the Computer Misuse Act (Score:2)
I am not saying that this will prevent it happening in the UK, merely that there is scope for a feeding frenzy here once the lawyers get involved.
Re:Heres the constituents line (Score:2)
http://adiemus.org/ucita.html [adiemus.org]
http://mason.gmu.edu/~cparson/ucita.html [gmu.edu]
(Both pages are the same)
Any editorial comments are welcome, send to cparson@megapipe.net [mailto]... aside from that, tell your friends!
Hopefully we can get this nonsense thrown out.
Yes, AOL HQ is right down the street... I'm sure that has something to do with this (all the politicians practically creamed themselves when AOL moved in... ooh, we're SO technologically savvy, we have AOL in our county!) Also with AOL owning CNN and Microsoft owning NBC, its no surprise that this hasn't shown up on mass media.
folks, it's up to us.
The state of House Joint Resolution 277, etc. (Score:2)
Reverse UCITA (Score:2)
Counter Proposal: we as the technology industry (from Microsoft to FSF) should be thinking just the opposite of UCITA. More than ever we need to be openning data formats rather than clamping down. If we must legislate anything we should push that all data formats be submitted as RFC open standards. Imagine if all word processor, spreadsheet, scheduling, database, network protocols, etc. were avail. as open standards. People would gravitate to the best, most secure format and that format would evolve into a category killer just as open source competitors do. But even if you had an equal spilt, as sometimes happens, anyone could build both competing formats into their client.
The phenomenon that we see here is that applications then become what they really are, clients to the data.
The only "protection" technology needs is to make it so these open standard formats can't be "embraced and extended" by any single entity or client. Indeed, extending an open standard for personal gain should be criminal.
UCITA is like allowing only the Priests access to the Bible even though Gutenberg's press is in full opperation!
This is normal. (Score:3)
This is the normal process.
The rights of the individual have always been protected by the courts, never by the legislature. Legislators do stupid things by nature. They are motivated by popular opinion, funding by lobby groups, or whatever will get them reelected to another term. And if people's freedom gets in the way of that, them fuck them. How important is joe hacker citizen against big business, congresscritter's own career, and the bulk of voters? We simply do not have the numbers to matter at all.
It's the judges and especially the supreme court justices with no special interests and opinion polls to worry about that protect out freedoms. This is exacly why the constitution appoints the latter to life terms. God help us if they should ever fail us though. because it is risky to have the most important protections deciced by a handful of justices. And do people even know these last defenders of freedom? Thomas, Souter, O'Connor, Renquist, etc.?
Re:This is a Very Bad Thing. (Score:3)
We're working on it... (Score:3)
How to Abolish the UCITA in One Easy Lesson (Score:3)
Step 1: Advertise a brand-new program for handling taxes, personal finance, e-banking, secure e-commerce, speech recognition/synthesis and private e-mail.
Step 2: Write a EULA, which indemnifies you if the program fails to do anything at all, and which absolutely prohibits any reviews of the product without prior permission.
Step 3: Write a cruddy application which gives a basic spreadsheet and an e-mail form.
Step 4: SHRINK-WRAP the box, and make it clear on the outside that opening the box is accepting the terms of the EULA.
Step 5: Charge $150 a throw for the box. Under the UCITA, nobody is permitted to review the product, without permission, and this is doubly ensured by the EULA, preventing anyone online or in the press from commenting on the scam.
Step 6: Wait until the fur starts to fly. And it will! Something like this'll end up in court before the week is out.
Is this ethical? Nope, but there's nothing any court can do, without either placing VERY strict limits on the UCITA or (more likely) declaring it unlawful. Given the choice of allowing someone to publicly humiliate Corporate America, or re-writing a law, I'd put the bet on them getting the quill pens out.
Info (Score:3)
The bill is Senate bill 372.
Please call and oppose this! (You can only call if you live in Virginia). It took me less than 2 minutes to call.
--
Don't Whirl That Perl! (Score:3)
A bank cannot repossess your car because you told your friends how high the interest rate was. If I'm not mistaken--and I may very well be, ask your lawyers(ka-ching!)--the moment I breach my contract with the software supplier, they can shut off my software.
I inform my superiors that the database performs only at 50% of the standard rate, in violation of anti-benchmarking clauses in the contract, I can come to work next day and find my database performing at 0%.
Think the story ends here? Oh my, our database is broken and our data is trapped. Tsk, tsk, no reverse engineering, says so right there in the click wrap. So no wading through the propietary database file system to recover your data, and nobody else gets to sell you a tool either--they're just as bound by the No Reverse Engineering clauses as you are.
Forget Don't Copy That Floppy. We're down to Don't Whirl That Perl.
How sad. All the poor schmucks were tryin' to do was be c00l with the e-crowd...
Will somebody please track down the four major candidates and find out what they think about corporations being able to censor the reactions of their customers, or remotely disable their wholly owned property?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:Buh-bye US from the Global Software Economy (Score:3)
Big corporations buy them at whorehouses and donate them to the public.
--
The UCITA Compliant click-wrap license agreement (Score:3)
Re:I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:3)
--
Hey! Moderator! (Score:3)
I'm probably sacrificing my karma for this, but the post to which I'm replying [slashdot.org] sure as hell ought to be higher than this one!
I think it should get points for being informative
and insiteful
Now I've been a good boy and reposted the information. Please don't waste points moderating me down, and instead moderate the other guy up. Thanks.
Re:Trolling (Score:3)
Sorry, but wrong. I ALWAYS read at 2, unless I am moderating. However, too many ACs get moderated up for no good reason. Additionally, too many people with high karma post junk at 2. I feel this is the real problem: people with high karma abusing it. In theory, the moderation system should fix this, since a person who posts junk gets moderated down and the poster loses karma, however this does not happen.
My analysis of the problems with the moderation system is that plus points need to be a scarce resource, and they are not. People like me, who have moderately high karma, have an unlimited number of plus points (because they post at 2). There are too many moderators moderating junk up.
My suggestions are:
I, for one, will stop reading Slashdot (Score:3)
For the past few days, the amount of moderation done has been practically non-existant. It's not just a case of moderation posts being wasted on trolls...I haven't seen very much positive moderation either.
CmdrTaco, if you have any desire to save Slashdot, here is what you MUST do:
1) People should get a rating based on the TIME they have been a Slashdot, not just this "karma". New members posts start at -1, no exceptions. After three months, they start at 0. After three more months, they start at 1. This means that if a troll wants to troll, he'll have to put in his dues for six months. If he then wants to blow it all on a single, grand, troll parade...fine. He can start all over.
2) Karma needs to weigh much, much more. People with karma over 50 should start posting at 2. People with karma over 100 should start posting at 3. People with karma over 200 should start posting at 4 and people with karma over 500 (if they exist) must be worth reading.
3) Each post takes exponentially longer to be posted to the system. First post takes one second to reach the forum. The next takes two seconds. The following takes four. Then eight, sixteen and so forth. In the end, if someone really wants to post more than 20 messages in a single day, they'll have to wait until tomorror for people to see them. That way these floods STOP.
4) More moderation. I'd much rather see a war of moderation than a war of trolls. Give anyone with karma over 100 permanent moderation status. The only way it gets revoked is if them make a posting, and then it is revoked for twenty-four hours (thought on that article permanently).
The fact is that there aren't enough moderators to keep the trolls in -1 land and put READABLE (I don't care if they suck at this point...so long as they aren't trolls) post at 3 or higher. 90% of the posts in the past few days have been 0 and maybe another 5% are the 1's and 2's that regular folks are awarded.
It has to stop.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Buh-bye US from the Global Software Economy (Score:3)
Over here we have a little saying that goes - "Customer is King". That means none of that ridiculous protection for companies selling stuff they know is shoddy.
Actually, I really don't get it.. Is Virginia one of the states also sueing Microsoft for Anti-Trust violations? If so, it just gets better and better.
People from the US - WHERE do you get your politicians? Actually I'm sure most of you reading this will be cringing at what the great mass of people is voting for in your country. I hope for your sake you get it turned around before they REALLY mess things up badly... Though they seem to be trying hard to do that as fast as possible.
Re:Your Rant (Score:3)
Judicial legislation can be just as oppresive as any other kind of legislation, but it is always improper. Your rights are supposed to be protected by the constitution and bill of rights, which were created by the legislature! The interpretation of new laws against these documents by the supreme court is supposed to keep legislatures from oversteping their bounds. This is their proper role, and we should beware of expanding it.
That said, I'm not too worried about this. First, the courts can reasonbly frag the more sinister implications. Second, I'm moving away from comercial software as fast as I can, because certian (MICROSOFT) comercial software makers, already break their softare regularly.
Virginia does not intend for their personal computers to be searched and disabled at will by software manufacturers! Such things will never stand up.
People are not as stupid or evil as you think they are. If their box won't work, they will find another way to get things done. Microsoft will really kill itself if it goes around doing this.
Uniform rules for internet sales...That would be great if applied to vinyards.
_Everyone_ call (Score:4)
On another note, how could they not have passed this bill? I mean, AOL is based there and I'm sure has its lackeys pushing it like crazy. And after all, Virginia is the dot-com capital of America! Apparently that means they cater to dot-com corporations and care little, if at all, for the rights of their own constituents.
Ahh, the beautiful stench of politics as usual. Don't we elect these people to DEFEND OUR RIGHTS??? Ugh, don't get me started, I will get into my gun-control mania again.
I noticed there is nothing regarding UCITA's passing on CNN.com (as of 9:30 am). I wonder if that's an order from Case himself...
___________________
This is a Very Bad Thing. (Score:4)
--
Here are the Maryland UCITA Bills (Score:4)
For anyone who wishes to read the Maryland version of the Bills they can go here [charm.net] and grab the Rich Text Format (.RTF) version. I haven't HTML'd them 'cause WordPerfect does such ... oops no rant -- maybe I'll html them.
So, here is the index;
hb0018f.rtf --> Commercial Law - The Maryland Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
sb0003f.rtf --> senate version of the House Bill
hb0019f.rtf --> Maryland Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
sb0142f.rtf --> senate version of the house bill
sb0505f.rtf --> Internet Consumers' Bill of Rights (cable access bill)
-d
sid=moderation (Score:5)
There is a "hidden" forum at sid=moderation [slashdot.org] on the topic of moderation. While useful, comments posted to it have the unfortunate tendency to disappear after time.
There are obviously several very broken things about /. which are defeating the moderation system. These include troll posts, the apparent inability to restrict nonsensical or repeated posts, and an serious shortage of moderation points to posts. With karma 44, I've had moderation privileges once this millenium -- prior to December, 1999, it seemed I had mod priv typically once or twice a week. Comments get caught in a vicious cycle of failing to be moderated up once an article topic has reached a hundred posts or more -- for meaningful use, I'm forced to read at score=1, score=2, or higher.
Repeating comments I've made (and have since slipped from) sid=moderation:
Essentially, the idea is that AC posts would require vetting by at least one registered user. The user would face the karmic consequences of any moderation of the post, and would grant the AC post any karmic benefits: If the post is moderated up or down, the signer's karma is increased or reduced, and whatever default posting level the signer has is given to the post. This preserves anonymity while allowing a modicum of control over the AC process.
To do this, there would have to be a seperate viewing field for unvetted AC posts. Once vetted, the posts would enter the main forum and be subject to moderation. Only one vetting would be required to transfer the post to the main board.
There are other problems. Karma whoring, gullibility traps (posts written to look informative but actually false), etc. I believe that as other issues in the moderating system are dealt with, the magnitude of these issues will be diminished. Or they won't <g>. But there are bigger fish to fry first.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Unanimous? (Score:5)
Not a single legislator dissented?
Not one?
Lemme get this straight. I'm sorry, this verges on the unprecedented:
A highly controversial bill with extremely distrubing implications against every single consumer, small business, and corporation in the country doesn't manage to get a single dissenter in the Virginia House?
Not one?
I don't buy it. I can't buy it. A resolution commemorating the life and work of Charles Schulz wouldn't pass unanimously, yet something that makes Virginia the battleground for hundreds of millions--if not billions--of dollars worth of lawsuits...
Oh. You've gotta be kidding me. You've seriously, truly, really gotta be fucking kidding me. Not even the worst trial lawyer would sink to *that*.
People, grass roots are great, but we need trees right now. Does your school use Samba? Does your company? Guess how long Samba gets to stay legal if UCITA passes?
Managers, do you want to be liable for asking your employees which database would serve your company better? Do you like reading unbiased reports? Maybe you don't. Maybe you're masochistic. Maybe you prefer the lose-lose scenario of years in court vs. solutions you've just been banned from knowing are inferior.
Unfortunately, that's just not your choice. As ever so many are happy to mention, a company's primary obligation is to its shareholders. You've gotta maximimize profit, right? Does UCITA help you to maximize profit? Or does UCITA expose you to a constant stream of risks from which only years of litigation is the possible relief?
Consumers gain nothing. Businesses gain nothing. Software companies get the right to shut down...everything, with the full force of the law behind them.
Managers, whose company is it anyway?
CEO's, ready for hackers to start using those backdoors that software companies are gonna be able to legally put in their software?
Lawyers, ready to start drafting feverish defenses? Treasurers, ready to go for broke?
Virginians, wake up. You're under attack. Under the flag of the geek, you're about to get bit hard by a rattlesnake. Now, you might be able to suck the poison out, but it might be a better idea to whip out a shotgun and give UCITA's tounge a few more forks.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Cease and Disist (Score:5)
You have used our software in an attempt to encourage others to take a stand against UCITA, and therfore violate your license agreement. A signal shall be sent shortly to disable your software under our regulations.
Thankyou
Exaggeration will get you ignored (Score:5)
In case you haven't noticed, this strategy hasn't worked to stop DMCA, Copyright Extension or Dilution. It didn't work to stop the NCCUSL, and it won't likely stop UCITA.
Trying to oppose UCITA on the ground that it is the source of all evil, and devoid of all good will simply get you ignored. While such demagoguery may be a useful way to build up the negatives on issues all the population cares about, it isn't going to raise enough votes to scare a legislator who wants to have a "technology-friendly" state. This is particularly true in the face of an organized, well-monied, lobby of UCITA supporters.
If you *are* interested, you need to get out there with simple, rational and well-articulated amendments directed to what you feel are the worst points, and argue them with somewhat more substance and less sensationalism. To argue that UCITA will "destroy" all "consumer rights" invites a calm, rational rebuttal on the facts by the other side. In the face of specific amendments targeted at specific problems, it would be much harder to defend some of the places where UCITA overreaches.
This was an opportunity to make some changes. To have a think-in as to what changes are needed to actually make life better for the open source community. Instead, we took the role of "antis," and lost our place at the table, and will probably end up with UCITA in two or three dozen states, perhaps more, all with nothing else to show for it. Hopefully, the next time NCCUSL or the government shows an inclination to make wholesale changes to the laws most closely relating to what we do --if that happens again in our lifetime-- we'll be less silly about it.
With all due respect to the community, a call-in campaign to say that UCITA is all bad is probably the best way to assure that UCITA will ultimately pass exactly as drafted.
Moderate up: More detailed VA information (Score:5)
Here is the contact info for the sponsoring senator:
Senator Stephen D. Newman (R) - Senate District 23
In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 305
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523
email:snewman@inmind.com [mailto]
Mailing address: General Assembly Building, Room 305 Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523
Here are links to the bills :
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 277 [state.va.us]
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239 [state.va.us]
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239 [state.va.us]
Member in charge of the study:
Delegate Viola O. Baskerville (D) - House District 71
In-session address: General Assembly Building, Room 525
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-1071
email: del_Baskerville@House.state.va.us [mailto]
Mailing address:
P. O. Box 406
Richmond, Virginia 23218
(804) 698-1171
This is incorrect (and InfoWorld is not reputable) (Score:5)
Why did they do this? Because, as they say in the resolutions (which, by the way, is both HJ277 and SJ239), "the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding," among other reasons, which are listed in the resolution.
So all I say is shame on Slashdot, michael, Keith Kris, and those prominent people who posted such as Dan Kaminsky. Shame on you for creating yet more sensationalist journalism because you didn't bother to check your references. Any geek with half a brain knows that InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and the like are not very reputable sources.
-Todd
---
Inaction in action (Score:5)
A law that has been universally (except by the sponsors, of course) derided as anti-consumer and potentially dangerous to the industry gets passed unanimously?
I honestly believe that there are a lot of people who assume that "someone else" will be the person that makes the call/writes the letter/publically takes a stand. Everyone looks at eachother, no one does anything, and the law passes.
Don't let this happen! If you need to know more, there's a very accessible and interesting series of articles on the topic by Ed Foster at InfoWorld [infoworld.com] -- look at the GripeLine column (just ignore Metcalfe, K?)
Seriously. Make a call. Make a difference.
------
Heres the constituents line (Score:5)
(800) 889-0229
Please all virginia voters please call and voice your opinion, Before the senate gets a chance to vote on this. One thing to note is AOL headquarters is Dulles, VA right over there near ashburn. So instead of letting the big companies like AOL and they're lobbiers deciding this for us pleae let your legislator know.
-Brian Peace