Comments To FTC On UCITA Due Soon 44
Luyseyal writes "Comments to the FTC regarding the Warranty Protection for High-Tech Products and Services forum are due by September 11. This was originally mentioned here on Slashdot in June. I've submitted my 2 cents to the FTC on UCITA. Have you?"
my response (Score:1)
------------
1. Personal Background--I am the Internal Systems Administrator for a small internet company in Austin, TX. Our business both consumes and produces software, so I am very familiar with the issues at hand. In many instances, I have to evaluate software for purchase so warranty regulation is a concern for me in the workplace. I like young girls and small farm animals. Additionally, I use a computer at home and software reliability is a concern there as well.
2. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I should disclose that I believe the notion of "intellectual property" is patently absurd (pun intended). However, as current law is based on said notion, this response will address the issue as given. Eben Moglen, attorney for the Free Software Foundation, http://fsf.org, and Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia Law School, has written an excellent paper on this very subject at http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism
3. Occupationally and personally, I am very involved with Free Software. Typically, licenses for such software disclaims warranties of any sort as the authors usually give the software away including human-readable source code (e.g., http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html). The authors of such software often have neither the legal expertise nor the financial backing to warranty their software. Rather, they give the source code itself away as a replacement for a warranty. The source code gives the consumer the ability to examine for herself whether a given program is reliable and well-engineered. If the consumer is not capable of reading source code, or is simply too busy to do so, she has several options available. Many Free Software projects have homepages, mailing-lists, and large numbers of current users. Some even distribute pictures of RMS and his goat. It is not difficult to find information on the reliability of the software, even if forced to email the original author (which is sometimes the case if the project is a niche project of interest to only a few people).
4. Additionally, many companies offer "support" (telephone help-desk support, specially tested packages of Free Software, security auditing, custom software development, etc.) for Free Software (e.g., http://www.redhat.com, http://www.linuxcare.com, etc.), even though the software itself is not warranted. This suggests that the companies are confident enough in Free Software such that they may reap profits from unused support.
5. It could be argued that these companies would want the software to be shoddy so that more consumers would pay for support. However, this view ignores the fact that support companies are more like insurance companies: they are there when you need them. Legality aside, it is not in the best interest of a medical insurance company to pay ruffians to maim their customers in order to drive up demand as the payout for each claim is significantly higher than the loss of demand for medical insurance. Similarly, it is significantly cheaper for a support company to pool its resources into providing good software in the first place rather than providing costly telephone or emergency source code-level support.
6. While it still might seem that Free Software is more likely to need warranting against ill-effects than proprietary software, one need only witness why many Free Software projects arise in the first place. Often, a proprietary product that fills a particular niche is unstable, less than featureful, or generally not well-supported. An industrious coder will want to "scratch that itch," so to speak, and starts a project to create a free alternative. The Linux kernel, http://linux.org, SAMBA, http://samba.org, and many other Free Software projects are good examples of this. Linus Torvalds was unhappy with the sad shape of consumer operating systems available for his lowly 386 and set out to create an alternative kernel to run on the tools created by the GNU project, http://gnu.org. SAMBA exists due to users unwilling to run an unstable operating system or pay insane amounts in licensing fees simply to serve files to others still using legacy proprietary systems.
7. In essence, Free Software exists in part due to market failure. Instead of wooing customers with good products and good service, many proprietary software sought to lock consumers into their products and intentionally implanted incompatibilities to force customers to upgrade or be left behind, less able to effectively communicate with their partners who were licensed newer versions. Unwilling to sacrifice money or features to these ingrates, coders like Torvalds opted to create their own software and license it in such a way that it couldn't be coopted by unfaithful companies. Although Linux did not come along until 1991, the aforementioned GNU project was founded by Richard Stallman in the Eighties to combat the same sorts of tactics used by the old Unix vendors before the advent of the near ubiquitous consumer desktop. bzrp
8. Consequently, it is only because of negligent proprietary software vendors that laws requiring software to be warranted appear necessary. Not surprisingly, they are the same people pushing bills like UCITA which require nominal warranties on software as they are betting they can have Free Software effectively outlawed. In exchange for their granting of nominal warranties to consumers, they demand draconian rights such as legal remote removal of so-called "pirated" software. Masturbation a fun and exciting way to spend my excess time. If this sort of government-corporate collusion is allowed to pass, then I am moving myself and my tax dollars elsewhere.
9. Lastly, many Free Software projects are collaborations involving individuals in many different countries. It would seem the height of folly to require them to follow stringent legal requirements, such as those detailed in UCITA, for distributing their products in the USA. As foreign coders cannot be expected to understand the vagaries of English legalese, they would have to hire a US-based attorney to review the warranty on their product. One can imagine the likelihood of that given the cost of such attorneys. It would be a shame to lose foreign contributors as, unlike in many physical object trade disputes which affect trade deficits and surpluses, software cum source code increases the intellectual wealth in all countries involved.
10. I would like to thank the FTC for allowing citizens to comment in such a convenient format as email. Hopefully, all such government agencies will one day be able to gather direct feedback from the citizenry so easily.
--
Stephen Waters
Austin, TX
raise your voice (Score:1)
Slashdotters really must learn that, to make things better, they should take time out of their day and put pen to paper and write to their elected officials.
Hell, it doesn't even take a full-blown letter campaign, just the thoughts of a few concerned citizens. You must realize that for every letter you write, you counter the efforts of a corporation plus some (you are not only a concerned individual, you are also a constituant and a voter).
If the corp. decides to bring out the big gun lobbyists and big $$$ contributions, that weakens you but you should use the opporitunity to bring in your friends and associates and fight harder.
Have you ever put your name on one of those internet petitions? I have. But in reality, if I was a Senator or the cabinet I would put as much weight on two or three written letters from my constituents as I would on a net petition, even if it was signed by 500 or 5000 and printed out on HP laser jets and sent FedEx. The letter really has that much more weight.
Its time for the bitching and rhetoric on these
So, write the FCC, write to your elected legislators to change the laws, and have a nice day.
Thanks Tiro [slashdot.org]
Re:I have no comment. (Score:2)
Software and Other Computer Information Products and Services
Today, many of the issues that were important three decades ago in the context of written consumer product warranties are being debated in the context of mass market "shrinkwrap" or "clickwrap" software licenses. For example, software licenses may be written in technical, or otherwise complicated language that some consumers might find difficult to understand. Additionally, just as written warranties prior to 1975 were sometimes used to disclaim substantive implied warranty protections provided by state law, some of today's mass market software licenses contain provisions that seek to disclaim similar state-implied warranty protections (e.g., fitness, merchantability). Moreover, some mass market software licenses may not be available for consumers to review until after the consumer has paid for the software. Thus, consumers may be unaware of the terms and conditions until after the product is purchased.(3)
In seeking public comment and holding a public forum, the Commission hopes to facilitate discussion of how government, private industry, and consumer advocates can work together to ensure that consumers receive adequate information when purchasing software and other computer information products and services. Additional concerns include how to ensure that consumers are able to retain existing protections afforded by state law and compare warranty protections when shopping for software and other computer information
In other words, it is vitally important that UCITA not pass and that the FTC know how upset the consuming public is over this corrupt legislation.
3. Many of these issues have recently been debated in the context of the drafting of a proposed state law, drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). That proposed law, entitled the "Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act" (UCITA), would, among other things, affirm the enforceability of mass market software licenses. Many of the provisions of UCITA, including the provisions dealing with mass market licenses, have raised concern among some consumer groups and law enforcement officials, including the staff of the Federal Trade Commission.
A Warranty we can all live up to (Score:2)
WARRANTY
The accompanying software is guaranteed to operate in exact accordance with the source code provided, under condition that it is compiled using an error-free compiler and executed on bzrp error-free hardware.
Thanks Brett [slashdot.org]
This post is (P) Public Domain. Any sources quoted are "fair use" and retain their original copyright.
what to do (Score:5)
2. Speling counts (pun intended). We want to present the impression of responsible, concerned people who are worried about how this law may affect them. a bunch of peoplz riting like this wil get no responses. We don't want to make the impression that the opposition consists only of crackers and 14-year-olds.
3. Almost without a doubt, someone will post an example letter showing the correct way of showing your opposition. Use this, but don't copy it word for word. Hundreds of identical letters will inevitably be dismissed as a campaign. Be unique and your voice will count.
4. State the facts. Using plain english, explain why this bill is bad. No technical terms, no hyperbole, and no distortion of the facts. We have enough evidence that there is no need to make something up, and the negative results from that could be devastating.
5. And again, be polite. I've said it once before but I'm saying it again, in order to get it thoroughly drilled into people's heads. I cannot stress this enough.
thanks harmless
bzrp
Not bad... (Score:1)
um, yes UTICA. (Score:2)
UTICA is certainly a relevant issue, and it's even identified as one. Why would comments about it not be taken seriously?
--
Virginia UCITA Meetings (Score:2)
On a side note, Virginia's Joint Commission on Science and Technology [state.va.us] is holding meetings regarding UCITA. Here is the schedule [state.va.us]. The next one is in Lynchburg VA on September 12. The next one is at George Mason on October 17.
This is your opportunity to let the people in charge know.
Meeting with Sen. Emily Couric (D-VA) (Score:4)
From: Waldo L. Jaquith <waldo@waldo.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2000 3:59 PM
To: peacefire-technical@iain.com
Subject: Results of Meeting With Senator Emily Couric Re: UCITA
I thought you'd be interested to know how my meeting with VA Senator Emily Couric went. I sat down with her and Josh Chernila of the VPTC and Colin Learmonth from BNSI and talked for about an hour this afternoon.
Essentially, Emily was wholly unfamiliar with UCITA. This is not a criticism -- she has 3,000 bills put before her every year. This is a fairly esoteric one, although it obviously impacts all of us strongly.
She'd done her homework the previous night, and had a thick packet of pages she'd printed out from various UCITA-related websites. We explained to her some of UCITA's impacts, but tried to keep things simple. Our message was basic: UCITA makes digital contracts binding while offering no real limitations as to what the contents of that contract can be. It forces consumers to become attorneys. Almost everything else that UCITA does is a by-product of that portion of UCITA.
Another important message to get across is that UCITA is not an incentive for software companies to move to Virginia. They can take advantage of UCITA from any state, possible other countries, if they specify that in the contract.
Those two main points (bad for consumers and businesses, not beneficial to Virginia) were the ones worth driving home. Although you and I may live and breathe OS software, that's not a useful topic when talking to a senator. (In fact, it's confusing.)
Emily felt strongly, at the end of our meeting, that UCITA is bad for consumers. She suggested that we get more people to talk to their representatives, and suggested that we start some sort of an awareness campaign to get people in Central Virginia, and even beyond, to know more about what UCITA could do.
She's right: that would be the most effective path. It also happens to be the one that requires the most work. She promised to keep her eyes open for UCITA-related news and bills, and asked that we keep her informed. But her conclusion was telling: UCITA isn't going anywhere. No matter what we do, it's not going to go away. We need to assemble a list of amendments that can be introduced as a bill to modify the way that UCITA works. Complaining that we don't want to have our computer hijacked by Microsoft works on a publicity front, but it doesn't get far in the legal world.
I'm hoping that the VPTC will adopt this project, because I know that I don't have the energy or the time to make this happen. Now that the geeks of the world are opposed to UCITA, we have to get businesses and everyday Virginians. It'll be a lot of work, but I think that we can pull it off.
Best,
Waldo
-------------------
Re:Two things to mention. (Score:1)
These are good points in general regarding UCITA, but they do not appear to address how UCITA would effect software warranties.
---
[OT] Do moderators even read these things? (Score:1)
[OT] 'bout that .sig (Score:1)
Might explain the odd behaviour that appeared a while ago. Modding up wasn't being added to my Karma, modding down was reducing it.
They really have had better iedas than that one, haven't they? Oh well...
Must admit I've long thought that the best thing to do with karma is to make it fade. Partially related to time, partially to posting volume. That way, it becomes a more accurate measure of an individual's worth to the slashdot community.
IMO
Re:Interesting how we are against this bill... (Score:2)
The business types are the ones who pay the lobbies (or appropriate funds for same), and they are the ones that are pushing fo rthis. The geeks have a different view.
Slashdot is full of the software geeks, not the software business types.
Re:Not UCITA (Score:2)
Writing a detailed criticisim of UCITA would probably damage credability of everything you said, because it's not what they're asking for. They're asking for more general warrenty related stuff, and that's what any comments sent there should refelect.
[0] Pot-kettle thing. Sorry Taco.
Not UCITA (Score:4)
7. What developments are underway by private or public entities at the international, national, state, or local levels that would have an impact on consumers's rights in the context of transactions involving software or other computer information products and services?
a. How would the proposed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) affect consumers?
In other words, ONE part of this (7a, out of 16) is requesting comments of UCITA.
If your comment only talks on of subquestion, then it's worth is 'obviously' less than one that address most of the points they will comments on.
READ the article. (That goes for Taco too)
Need "Talking Points" (Score:3)
Can anybody post links to a good summary of what's wrong with the law? I'm looking for bullet-points, not a novel.
Re:UCTIA Killing the GPL (Score:1)
merchantibility waranties and, KILLING the GPL (Score:2)
Previous state laws, in many states, have disallowed exclusions of warranties of merchantability and suitiability. In any state where the UCTIA is passed without serious editing, consumers may actually loose their rights.
In my reading of it, one of the things this law is about is entrenching click-through licenses, and the way that they remove rights from consumers.
UCTIA Killing the GPL (Score:2)
SECTION 307. INTERPRETATION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANT.
-
a) A license grants:
- (1) the contractual rights that are expressly described; and
- (2) a contractual right to use any informational rights within the licensor?s control at the time of contracting which are
necessary in the ordinary course to exercise the expressly described rights.
....
- (d) A party is not entitled to any rights in new versions of, or improvements or modifications to, information made by the
other party. A licensor?s agreement to provide new versions, improvements, or modifications requires that the licensor
provide them as developed and made generally commercially available from time to time by the licensor.
- (e) Neither party is entitled to receive copies of source code, schematics, master copy, design material, or other
information used by the other party in creating, developing, or implementing the information.
Dunno about you, but this would seem to be a direct frontal attack on the intent and purpose of the GPL. If nothing else, this would make the question of whether or not this law applies to GPL code a matter of life and death. If it does apply, then core values within the GPL would be negated.If I'm right here, I think that this calls for some serious investigation and response.
Re:UCTIA Killing the GPL (Score:2)
Re:what to do (Score:2)
So the FTC can do some things which override UCITA. That's the direction to ask them to go.
See my other posting in this thread for what I submitted to the FTC.
Software is a consumer product today (Score:3)
1. VISIBILITY OF WARRANTY MARKINGS
[1.1] Hidden disclaimers of warranty have been a widespread problem in the computer software industry. It has become almost a standard business practice to conceal such disclaimers to the greatest extent permissable by law, and in many cases, further. Usually, warranty terms are not disclosed on the outside of packaging, and disclosure is sometimes deferred until after the software is actually installed. The facts in this area are beyond dispute. The question is what should be required by law.
[1.2] The FTC has dealt with this issue before, in the used car arena. It would be appropriate to apply many of the labelling standards of the FTC's Used Car Rule to software packaging. Placement on the outside of consumer packaging should be required. The large type and black color requirements of the Used Car Rule should be required for at least the words "AS-IS" or "LIMITED WARRANTY". Such high prominience of the markings is needed to establish clearly to consumers that simple, clear, understandable warranty rules do apply to software. Failure to apply the required marking should of course imply a full warranty as defined in the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.
[1.3] Used cars have borne large, highly visible warranty markings since 1985, and this has not seriously impacted the used car industry. The FTC, in 1995 re-examination of the used car rule, chose to retain the Rule by a 5-0 vote. The auto industry has generally accepted the rule and the minor costs involved. Thus, objections from the computer software industry that such labelling requirements are unreasonable should be viewed as self-serving and disregarded.
[1.4] Rather than mandating warranties, this marking requirement makes it a consumer choice whether to buy software with reasonable warranties or products marked "AS-IS". It simply makes it an informed choice. This is consistent with the aims and history of Magnusson-Moss and with FTC policy in other areas.
2. MASS-MARKET SOFTWARE IS "GOODS IN COMMERCE"
[2.1] The software industry has tried to evade the usual regulations on goods in commerce by claiming that software is something else. In reference to the Commission's question 13A, "Is it appropriate that software be treated as a "consumer product" subject to the Act?", the answer is "Of course it is." Any other answer is a clear attempt to evade the legal obligations of a manufacturer. The FTC should act to clarify this point. Software has to be brought squarely under Magnusson-Moss, assuming it's not there already. It's time for the industry to grow up and accept the obligations of a consumer-products industry.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
John Nagle
Animats
Menlo Park, California
Interesting how we are against this bill... (Score:1)
I for one believe I am against it, but do not feel I have enough information about the law to write an "intelligent" letter.
I think it was already mentioned here, but some people could post some bullet points for issues to touch on (and moderators..mod them up!), you would be doing the slashdot community a great service.
Thanks,
-Pete
Is this just software warranties ??? (Score:1)
Anything that the US government gets involved in, or tries to "regulate" gets totally jacked up. There is no need for them to get involved with anything like this, if you don't like the warranty, don't buy/use the product or services. All this will do is to open up more unneccessary lawsuits, especially when the government's laws are made to be so vague that you can decipher them to mean just about anything. They just need to stay out of it.
Re:Two things to mention. (Score:1)
Yes... Anyone know how whether UCITA will allow this one?
Microsoft's clickwrap agreement works only one way. That they say you can return it if you don't agree, but when you try to get a refund
Sounds reasonable. They break the agreement. You get your rights back.
It strikes me that there are considerably more barriers to selling your soul to the devil than to a software company. And selling your sould to the devil usually results in the acquisition of something tangible and useful (if overpiriced)
Two things to mention. (Score:2)
1. The cuecat. That they are claiming that their rights are being violated by someone who used the software. Cuecat took away the user's rights to use the hardware by the opening of the software. These right to the hardware existed prior to the software being opended
2. Windows. Microsoft's clickwrap agreement works only one way. That they say you can return it if you don't agree, but when you try to get a refund, you only get ran around.
software warranties (Score:2)
Look at CPHack, you can't check the list too see if they really are filtering smut, not just anything that Mattel does not like.
Re:Not UCITA (Score:1)
Re:A Warranty we can all live up to (Score:1)
That's great, but if you don't disclaim the warranties that UCITA implies then you really haven't done your customers any favors.
Here's what you really want:
The accompanying software is guaranteed to operate in exact accordance with the source code provided, under condition that it is compiled using an error-free compiler and executed on bzrp error-free hardware. The parties disclaim all other warranties, including any implied warranties under state law derived from the NCCUSL's Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.
Or something along those lines. Once again, a cavalier and righteous attitude toward lawyers will only get you in trouble.
Could someone (Score:1)
Re:Meeting with Sen. Emily Couric (D-VA) (Score:1)
For the record, Emily Couric is a Democrat. She is also the sister of Katie Couric of the Today show (if you didn't know that already). You have definitely made progress if she will truly work to repeal UCITA in Virginia.
However, I must add that Senator Couric was a patron of this bill [state.va.us] along with the majority of the Democrats in the Senate. She also voted to pass the bill [state.va.us] along with 38 others [out of 40] in the Senate.
Because of this, I find it hard to trust what she (or any other Senator) said about UCITA. Senator Couric may indeed have had a change of heart, but I doubt it. However, only time will tell.
If the Richmond Times-Dispatch (Central Virginia's major newspaper) reports on anything regarding UCITA, especially Senator Couric's involvement (probably early next year), I'll be sure to pass it on.
- Armage Bedar
The STATS Man
Warrenty Protection (Score:3)
Warranties don't make sense for software (Score:1)
1. Conclusions
Warranties don't make sense for software. Vendors don't provide them, and consumers don't rely on them.
2. Manufacturing defects
Manufactured goods--e.g. garments, refrigerators, automobiles--are subject to defects in materials and workmanship: manufacturing defects. These occur essentially at random. Manufacturers can typically reduce defect rates by spending more money; however, defects can never be entirely eliminated.
3. Selling and buying
On this analysis, a manufacturer does not sell a product per se; rather, a manufacturer sells a product with some defect rate. Similarly, a buyer does not buy simply a product, but a product with some defect rate.
4. Large quantities
This situation causes no special problems as long as the buyer is purchasing a product in large quantities. A manufacturer sells a product with some defect rate; the buyer discovers through experience what that defect rate is. Knowing the defect rate, the buyer can assess the true cost of the product, and take that into account when budgeting or making competitive purchase decisions. In short, the buyer can buy what the seller is selling.
5. Small quantities
This model breaks down when a buyer is purchasing a product in small quantities. For example, consumers typically purchase automobiles in quantity one. A manufacturer may sell automobiles with a 1% defect rate, but a consumer who buys one automobile does not get a 1% defect rate--they get one automobile, and it either works or it doesn't. In an important sense, the buyer cannot buy what the seller is selling. This is a kind of market failure.
6. Warranties
Warranties remedy this market failure. A warranty binds the seller to repair or replace defective units. This allows the seller to sell a product with an effective defect rate of zero, even though it is not physically possible to manufacture such a product. By providing a warranty, the seller can sell something that the buyer can buy, even in quantity one.
7. Non-purposes
It is important to emphasize that the sole purpose of a warranty is to remedy this market failure. A warranty does not force manufacturers to bear the cost of their manufacturing defects: the cost of warranty service is passed to the buyer in the original purchase price. Neither does a warranty force manufacturers to produce high-quality products. In fact, a warranty allows manufacturers to produce low-quality products, if that turns out to minimize the total of their manufacturing and warranty costs. (Sofa-bed manufacturers appear to take this approach.)
8. Software
Software is not tangible, it is not a manufactured good, and it is not subject to manufacturing defects. Furthermore, each copy of a software product is, by definition, identical.
9. Distribution media
Some software products are distributed on physical media, such as floppy disks or CD-ROM. These distribution media are tangible, manufactured goods, and are subject to defects. The actual defect rate is quite small; nonetheless, virtually every commercial software product warrants its distribution media. These warranties are simple, straightforward, and uncontroversial; buyers and sellers have a common understanding of them. Warranty service usually consists of exchanging defective media for a working copy, usually at the place of sale.
10. No warranty
Virtually no commercial software product warrants its functionality. The reason for this is that there is no market failure for a warranty to remedy.
11. No market failure
As discussed above, there is a market failure when a consumer buys a manufactured product: they cannot know whether the one they get will be defective. This cannot happen with software. Every copy of a software product is identical: every buyer will experience exactly the same benefits and suffer exactly the same deficiencies, whatever they may be. Good or bad; working or broken: every buyer gets exactly what the seller is selling, even in quantity one. The market failure that a warranty remedies simply does not occur with software products.
12. The grapevine
In principle, a consumer takes a risk when they buy a software product, because they do not know whether it will do what the seller claims. In practice, information about the performance of software products is available from many sources: vendor demonstrations, consumer testing organizations, reviews in industry publications, web sites, on-line discussion groups, mailing lists, friends, colleagues. In any case, there is no reason to think that the markets cannot provide whatever information about software products consumers may demand. If consumers have information about the performance of a software product, and every copy of the product performs identically, then consumers know exactly what they are buying, and again there is no need for a warranty.
13. Structural differences
Many commercial software products are unreliable--they have bugs. Their is some view that software vendors do not warrant their software because they are, variously, too inept to product reliable products or too greedy to bear the cost of warranty service. However, this view is inconsistent with the low defect rates and near universal warranties provided for distribution media. A better explanation is that there are fundamental structural differences between distribution media (tangible) and software (intangible), and that warranties are appropriate for the former but not the latter.
For those of us as yet unfamiliar with the UCITA.. (Score:1)
. Rather, Congress mandated that any company that chooses to give a written warranty on a consumer product must follow some basic ground rules.
It doesn't seem like anyone is being FORCED to warrenty their software, just provide an adiquate one should they decide to warrenty it - which is not what the linked slashdot story implied. Mehr Info Bitte.
Why is this bad? (Score:1)
Software has TWO components: speech AND function (Score:1)
As part of my contribution, I'm pointing out that the law has a schizophrenic view of software. In the encryption-as-speech cases, the Courts decided that source code was "speech" for the purposes of the First Amendment. In the DeCSS case, though, the judge said that software was not expressive, but functional...even in source code. In other words, the Courts can't make up their minds.
How doe that apply to the warranty question? Warranties can be applied only to functional things. This is part of the question "should software be a 'consumer product'? 'tangible personal property'? 'sale'?" (Q13) In order to have a need for a warranty, you have to recognize the functional nature of the thing you are warranting. Software publishers don't want to do that in order to reduce the exposure to litigation. Hence the current problem.
My answer: it's both. Source code is expressive, while binary executables are functional. (We cover the problem of piracy separately from the problem of product liability.) Until Congress comes to grips with the duality of software, all the problems will continue.
(Consider that a magazine is really two separate businesses under one roof: an editorial department that sells regular delivery of ideas to readers, and an advertising department that sells readers to advertisers. One creative, one functional. It works as long as you recognize the situation.)
Can I...? (Score:1)
I'm in Norway and I do have an opinion. The opinion is that I won't shop in a netshop of any kind that is based in a state where UCITA has been accepted, because it takes away fundamental consumer rights and because IANAL, I don't know how this will affect me. Just the proposal of UCITA has caused a lot of FUD, and it has hurt netcommerce a lot allready as it has had some attention.
So, how can I voice my concern?
What is this for? (Score:1)
I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance here, but...
What exactly are they requesting comments on? Is this an open forum on why we think UCITA is wrong, or is this a discussion about what recourses a current consumer (pre-UCITA) has if a software product fails?
I saw a brief reference to UCITA in question 7a, but I would prefer to know what I'm responding to before submitting an offtopic email to a gov't agency. OT emails might (IMHO) do more harm than good.
Re:For those of us as yet unfamiliar with the UCIT (Score:2)
It doesn't seem like anyone is being FORCED to warranty their software, just provide an adequate one should they decide to warranty it - which is not what the linked slashdot story implied. Mehr Info Bitte.
From my understanding (which admittedly may be flawed) what this basically amounts to is a set of "lemon laws" for high tech products (hardware, software, etc.).
If this is the case what it tries to enact is a set of base standards that a warranty must abide by. Those companies that don't use a warranty at all leave themselves wide open since they are then subject to the implied warranties created in any transaction with a consumer. Namely fitness for purpose and merchantability (i.e. it does we advertised it'll do)Traditionally software licence agreements have been used as a vehicle to disclaim any and all warranties, express or implied as opposed to providing information on what warranty is actually available (usually none). What this law hoped to do is remove the companies right to disclaim implied warranties and to force them into a minimum standard for the warranties they do provide.
Inevitably the software industries response to this will be that such laws would make it imposable for them to do business. I can't help but laugh at this since it is the exact same argument used by the auto industry years ago when there own lemon laws were enacted...and they still seem to make a mint while at the same time loosing there ability to screw consumers.
The only gotcha about this proposed law is that we as concerned citizens will have to make it very clear to congress that there must be some kind of exemption for free software. A "good Samaritan" clause if you will. If your getting something for free and your given the right to mess with its internals (whether you have the technical skill to pull it off or not) you should honestly have no right to sue anyone but yourself if it breaks
--
Microsoft sucks (Score:1)
Microsoft sucks.
Microsoft sucks.
Microsoft sucks.
I think this says everything they need to hear.
Why does Microsoft suck?
Hmm... that would be a much bigger paper! /d
Where are all of the DMCA posters? (Score:1)
I hope we've learned a lesson from the DMCA. I'm not going to even start with the other legislation us geeks have ignored.
bm :)-~
My $0.02 (Score:1)
Of course, if the software makers like Micro$oft, etc. don't want to do this (and lobby against it), then, hey... more reason to use freeware and Open Source products. Because with those, if it's bad, it's not like you spent any money on it, so you're not really out anything. Also, because it's free, there is a greater tendency to make sure it works right, because who knows how many people will be using it? (I can't see a whole lot of market tracking on freeware.)
Ideally, it should be a combination of both. Software makers should use the same standards as other makers of consumer goods. But, Open Source should also be at the forefront of this, putting their $0.02 out and showing what software should be like... (you know, free...)
Kierthos
Mandatory warrenties. (Score:1)
"Mam no matter what you do for the rest of your life with that PC, your going to have to install those damn drivers"
-me breaking down
Haiku (Score:1)
in times of success
bad laws and fat citizens
clog doors of Congress
----
--
Spindletop Blackbird, the GNU/Linux Cube.