John Dvorak: "Crummy UCITA Legislation is Back"

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Wulf Losee <qx49 () attbi com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:33:12 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: John Dvorak: "Crummy UCITA Legislation is Back"

Dave:
I guess the Business Software Alliance and their allies are making another
push to get UCITA enacted. John Dvorak has an insightful (and crusty)
commentary at...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,892284,00.asp

cheers,
--Wulf


------ End of Forwarded Message

Crummy UCITA Legislation is Back
February 17, 2003
By  John C. Dvorak 


There is good news and bad news. The good news is that the American Bar
Association refused to endorse the horrible Uniform Computer Information
Transaction Act (UCITA), which is designed to standardize the total legality
of rigid licenses for software and more. The bad news is that the promoters
of this vile law are still at it, hoping that a long-term push will win out
because a fickle public loses interest over time. Many of the anti-UCITA Web
sites, for example, are suffering from a failure to update and will soon be
offline or ridiculously out of date due to fatigue and boredom.

UCITA is seen by most critics as an onerous end run around the legal system
so software companies can do whatever they want without fear of any legal
action whatsoever. Here is a good FAQ on it from a very credible group. And
for a good argument try this site. Good, but dated.

Only two states have, stupidly, passed this law‹Maryland and Virginia‹and
the law they passed incorporated earlier wacky provisos that could make it
illegal to review or criticize software! This, to me, is incredible. I
always thought the people of Virginia and Maryland were some of the smartest
in the nation, but this sure proves me wrong.


In an attempt to get this moronic legislation passed in the rest of the
country, the promoters have softened a number of provisions, hoping they can
turn the tide. The new changes, made at the beginning of 2002, included,
among other things, a softening of the wording that made software reviews
illegal. The perpetrators also gave up on the notion that there's no problem
with software companies remotely going into your computer and disabling
software and possibly anything else they want if they think you're a pirate.
And the controversial edict against reverse engineering was only softened
enough to allow limited reverse engineering for cross-platform
compatibility. 

The rest of the nonsense is intact. If this law were passed, essentially any
idiotic licensing notion imaginable would be enforceable by law. At
Dvorak.org I've added a Terms of Use agreement that might be typical. A
friend of mine, attorney Steve Davidson, read it over and immediately posted
a license agreement and a unique proposition on his e-mail. To wit: I have a
new policy concerning e-mail. I offer to accept unsolicited e-mail from you
in return for your promise to pay me $1,000 each time you send mail to me.
Your future use of my address to send e-mail to me will constitute your
acceptance of this offer.

By my reading of UCITA, this sort of thing might well be enforceable if the
act were passed, and might already be so in Maryland and Virginia. Attorneys
are welcome to chime in.

When I first saw the Davidson message (which was upping the ante on the
monetary proviso in my Terms of Use agreement) I thought that this might not
be a bad way to stop spam. Unfortunately, UCITA is written to benefit large
corporations, not users. One of the main promoters for the law is the
Business Software Alliance, a front organization for the largest software
companies. Although they haven't had much to brag about since 2000, they are
currently feeling the wrath of users, who blame them for the Opaserv worm.
When you visit the BSA site you get this message.

URGENT MESSAGE: 

The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is not responsible for the Opaserv
worm. This is a malicious act that tricks victims into believing that the
Business Software Alliance has shut down their computer [sic] due to
licensing issues. BSA is disappointed that anyone would send a virus intent
on inflicting damage and condemns such actions.

Definitely worth a laugh. I'm particularly amused by the BSA being
"disappointed." The irony is that UCITA promoters would love to have this
power. 

Your comments on this law and similar activities are welcome in this week's
forum. 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/