Ask Slashdot: What can we do about UCITA?

Ben Woodard asks: "I've read several articles describing the evils of the UCITA and the fact that it has passed (and this article from LinuxTicker), but not one of them has said anything about what we can do about it. Since it is now only a suggested law and has to be adopted by each states isn't there time to do something? What can we do? Who should we contact? Is anyone organizing a lobby against it? Have the Open Source companies taken a stand regarding it? Is it time for the Open Source community to band together and hire lobbyists to represent our issues to the government?" The UCITA isn't law yet, but you can bet folks are going to try to push it through. Sounds like its high time to go on the defensive.

Yes, we need to fight it

Unfortunately, the prohibition on reverse-engineering only helps keep Microsoft entrenched. Had this law existed a few years ago, there would have been no Samba (at least in the states where it applied), and nobody but Microsoft would be allowed to read Word and Excel files.

It's something we need help from the large Open Source companies on - the Red Hats, etc., of the world. I'm not sure it fits in the Linux International charter, though - it might have to be through a different organization. A number of us were discussing how to go about this today at LinuxWorld Expo.

Thanks

Bruce

Boon To Open Source Not Enough

Good folk, I respectfully submit that this issue is of gargantuan importance and that we must mobilize ourselves at once to inform our state legislators that this proposal is an astonishing step backwards in consumer protection, from the standpoints of both product liability and baseline consumer protections in the implied contracts governing retail sales.

As I see it, this legislative proposal is a transparent attempt to completely re-write the rules governing retail sales of copyrighted works. By enacting UCITA, purveyors of "information" -- which includes not only software, but digital recordings of music, books, movies, etc. -- can exempt themselves from consumer protection laws and fair use provisions in copyright law. I do not believe I overstate the issue when I assert that this is absolutely unacceptable. Advocates of software publishers (like the SPA) would counter that unfair provisions would not stand in court. The argument falls apart, however, when one observes that litigation is still obscenely expensive, giving the publishers an almost insurmountable advantage; and that such cases would be tested in the nauseatingly complex world of contract law, rather than in the (relatively) simpler and more straightforward arena of copyright and consumer protection law.

Moreover, I further argue that there is no compelling reason for this legislation to exist at all. Existing copyright law has proven more than adequate protection for software vendors and, to date, no one has offered an undesirable (not to mention realistic) scenario whose only solution is legislation of this kind. Many of the arguments I've heard run along these lines:

• "Someone could disassemble our software and clone it."
  • Correct. This is also true of just about everything else you can buy in a retail venue, from power drills and washing machines to cars. All of these devices can be taken apart by their owners and inspected, tweaked, and learned from. None of the corresponding industries is in remote danger of going out of business.

    People are going to take apart your software. Deal with it. If you don't want your product taken apart, you have precisely the same option as everyone else in all other industries: Don't sell it in a retail space.

• "People don't need to disassemble their software."
  • How the fsck would you know? People don't "need" to take apart their cars, either, but it's done every day. General Motors is still in business. This is a non-argument.
• "We spent $(LARGE_SUM_OF_MONEY) developing this software; that gives us the right to dictate how it may be used."
  • No, it doesn't. Again, the example of General Motors suffices. Indeed, if dollar figures are to be quoted, General Motors has an even more "compelling" argument to constrain use of their products after the fact, as their R&D investment easily dwarfs even Micros~1's. GM still hasn't made such demands on their customers, and GM continues to be profitable. Non-argument.
• "It's our ball; you have to play by our rules."
  • Ah, the real reason emerges, and it is a valid one. However, you may find life more rewarding if you grow up. You are not an island. The most casual inspection of the Open Source movement illustrates that hoarding software is not only silly, it dooms you to stagnation.

However, there is the, I think, more important issue of how this would affect users of "non-traditional" computing systems. Think "Internet Appliance" here. All the proposals on the table for Internet Appliances are extremely closed systems, WebTV being the most obvious example. Do you know all the data the WebTV box is squirting back to Micros~1? With UCTIA in place, Micros~1 can make it illegal for you to find out. Want to install a proxy to filter out all the fscking ad banners? Sorry, that's not allowed, go to jail, do not pass Go...

Heck, forget the Internet Appliances, think Nintendo. Right now, Nintendo is laboring under the delusion that they have the right to dictate who can and can't write software for their machines. UCITA will allow them to enforce this idea. Same deal with cell phones, PDAs, and other "small-scale" "dedicated" devices where the user "doesn't need" to get in and fiddle with it. There are a lot of organizations with a lot of money trying to make these devices happen, and they are drooling all over the UCITA, which will allow them to lock down the box, screw the user, and absolve themselves of any responsibility.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong, and I challenge anyone in the industry to argue convincingly otherwise. Anyone who wants to take apart their software and computers should be able to. Anyone who wants to write software for a particular platform should be able to, without having to justify themselves to the vendor. How would Gutenberg be remembered today if he had forbidden people from using his printing press to print anything other than "approved" writings?

While I agree widespread adoption of this travesty would be a boon to Open Source solutions, Open Source is still not the primary solution that comes to mind for all classes of computing products. Moreover, the average consumer doesn't understand the subtle implications of selecting Open Source over Micros~1 or Nintendo or whatever. While we could argue over whether they should understand such issues, I personally don't feel that Caveat Emptor needs to be raised to such stratospheric heights.

This is your mom and dad we're talking about here; people who think they will be protected from exploitation by existing hard-won consumer protection laws, when in fact they'll be "signing" their rights away. This isn't just us techno-geeks who will be screwed, it's everyone.

I urge active opposition to the UCITA.

Schwab

Re:Ban on Reverse Engineering may be the worst par

I am not sure you people are
aware of the magnitude of
reverse-engineering that has
taken place in Linux. In short,
Samba is lossed but this is only
the beginning. Much of the kernel
code was and even is being reverse-
engineered as well as very key
hardware drivers. Also, some of the
compiler coding was reverse engineered.
To make matters worse, any exiting
data/file format that is labeled
proprietary would have to be reverse
engineered to employ it. So, with no
Samba, no kernel, no drivers, no compiler
what is left of the open source
movement. This is a clear reinforce
existing monopoly law that affirms
the government's ability to enforce
anti-competitive behavior. Also, think
about this, who would dare to use
any proprietary software and be locked
into proprietary formats forever.
But with not alternative remaining
what choice would anyone have.
My point is don't be naive to think
that you only lose Samba. There is
reverse engineering at many levels
which was in fact necessary as the
coders did not have enough money to
buy the protocols outright and release them.
And even if they did this what would
prevent an existing monopoly to change
protocols after they sold out the
rights to previous ones. Think of the
ramifications of this law as it extneds
not just to software but also to
hardware as well. It really only serves
to maintain the current anti-competitive
status quo. The real question is why money
is allowed to buy out this government
despite its purported (but not actualized)
obligations to its citizens.

Write your state legislator!

The ACM [acm.org] has a page on the UCITA [acm.org] and other copyright concerns. There are links to several other good sites. Also, check the Consumer Project on Technology's Protest Page [cptech.org] for excellent links to articles and sample letters.

At this point, it's up to the 50 states to individually ratify the UCITA into state law. So write your state legislator. Snail-mail counts most, short letters with useful arguments are easier for staffers to handle. Basically, (I think) you want to have 'em amend or strike UCC Article 2B. The remote-deactivation provisions will be the most odious and easiest to fight. You can even cite the fact that it will be bad for the commercial software indistry 'cos it'll pressure s/w-dependent businesses to switch to free and homegrown s/w just so they don't have to fear pissing off their s/w vendor.

To find your state legislator: Project Vote-Smart [vote-smart.org] or the Democracy Network [dnet.org].