rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU (12/15/85)
[ food for thought ] Hey, all of you out in micro-land! Look what ADAPSO has foisted on the Illinois Legislature! This law virtually wipes out what rights you have regarding your software. In my next two postings, I'll include analyses of this law by attorney Keith Hays of Champaign. Enjoy! :-) Russell J. Price USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St. Champaign, IL 61820 The Illinois Software License Enforcement Act Taken from LawBoard, Champaign, IL, (217)352-6118 Operated by Grosser and Hays Law Offices, Champaign, IL BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 53 REPRESENTED IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known and may be 55 cited as the Software License Enforcement Act. 56 Section 2. Definitions. For purposes of this Act the 58 following terms shall have the meanings set forth below, 59 unless the context clearly requires otherwise: "Computer software" means a set of statements or 61 instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer 62 in order to bring about a certain result in any form in which 63 such statements or instructions may be embodied, transmitted 64 or fixed, by any method now known or hereafter developed, 65 regardless of whether such statements or instructions are 66 capable of being perceived by or communicated to humans, and includes associated documentation and materials, if any. 67 "License agreement" means a written document on which the 69 word "license", either alone or in combination with other 70 words, appears conspicuously at or near the top so as to be 71 readily noticeable to a person viewing the document. "Reverse engineering, decompiling or dissambling" means 73 a process by which computer software is converted from one 74 form to another form which is more readily understandable by 75 human beings, including without limitation decoding or 76 decrypting computer software which has been encoded or 77 encrypted in any manner. Section 3. Requirements for enforceability. A person 79 who acquires a copy of computer software will be conclusively 80 deemed to have accepted and agreed to those provisions of the 81 license agreement accompanying the copy which are described 82 in Section 4 below, if: (1) A written legend or notice is affixed to or packaged 84 with the copy of computer software and states clearly that 85 use of the copy of computer software will constitute 86 acceptance of the terms of the accompanying license 87 agreement, or that the opening of a sealed package, envelope or container in which the copy of computer software is 88 contained will constitute acceptance of the terms of the 89 accompanying license agreement; and (2) The legend or notice is affixed to or packaged with 91 the copy of computer software in such a manner that the 92 legend or notice is clearly and conspicuously visible so as 93 to be readily noticeable to a person viewing the copy of 94 software and related packaging; and (3) The legend or notice is prominently displayed in all 96 capital letters and in language which is readily 97 understandable; and (4) The legend or notice states clearly that a person 99 who receives the copy of computer software and does not 100 accept and agree to the terms of the accompanying license 101 agreement may, within a reasonable time, return the unused, 102 unopened copy of computer software to the party from whom it was acquired, or to some other identified party, for a full 103 refund of any money paid for the copy; and 104 (5) The terms of the accompanying license agreement must 106 be clearly and conspicuously stated in the license agreement 107 in language which is readily understandable, and the license 108 agreement must be attached to or packaged with the computer 109 software or copy thereof in such a manner that the terms are 110 readily noticeable before the act which is deemed to constitute acceptance occurs; and (6) The person acquiring the copy of computer software 112 takes such action as is stated in the legend or notice to 113 constitute acceptance of and ageement to the terms of the 114 accompanying license agreement; and (7) No agreement relating to the use, return, resale, 116 copying, decompiling, dissambly or other right related to 117 the computer software has been entered into between the 118 person acquiring the computer software and the person holding 119 the title thereto; and (8) The computer software has not been developed 121 according to the acquirer's specifications or otherwise 122 custom-made either by an outside vendor or an internal 123 department of the acquirer. Section 4. Terms deemed accepted. The following 125 provisions will be deemed to have been accepted under Section 126 3 above if the provisions are included in a license agreement 127 which conforms to the provisions of Section 3: (1) Provisions for the retention of title to the copy of 129 computer software by a person other than the person 130 acquiring the software. (2) If title to the copy of computer software has been 132 retained, provisions for the prohibition of any copying of 133 the copy of computer software for any purpose, limitations on 134 the purposes for which copies of the computer software can be 135 made, or limitations on the number of copies of the computer 136 software which can be made. (3) If title to the copy of computer software has been 138 retained, provisions for the prohibition or limitation of 139 rights to modify or adapt the copy of the computer software 140 in any way, including without limitation prohibiitions on 141 translating, decompiling, disassembling, or creating 142 derivative works based on the computer software. (4) If title to the copy of computer software has been 144 retained, provisions for prohibitions on further transfer, 145 assignment, rental, sale or other disposition of that copy or 146 any other copies made from that copy of the computer 147 software. (5) If title to the copy of computer software has been 149 retained, provisions for prohibition on the use of the copy 150 of computer software on more than one computer at the same 151 time or use of the copy of computer software by more than one 152 individual user at the same time. 152 (6) Provisions for the automatic termination without 154 notice of the license agreement if one of the foregoing 155 provisions of the license agreement is breached. (7) Provisions for award of reasonable attorneys' fees 157 and court costs to the prevailing party in any action or 158 proceeding brought in connection with an alleged breach of 159 one of the foregoing provisions of the license agreement. Section 5. Enforceability. The provisions of this Act 161 will not limit in any manner the effectiveness or 162 enforceability of any of the other provisions of a license 163 agreement accompanying computer software under other 164 provisions of the laws of this State, whether statutory or common law. The provisions of this Act and the 165 enforceability of a license agreement will not be nullified, 166 curtailed or limited by the manner in which the ownership 167 rights are held in the medium on which the computer software is embedded. Section 6. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 169 alter any rulings of the Illinois Department of Revenue on 170 the taxable status of computer software under the "Use Tax 171 Act", approved July 14, 1955, as amended, the "Service Use 172 Tax Act", approved July 10, 1961, as amended, the "Service 173 Occupation Tax Act", approved July 10, 1961, as amended, or the "Retailers' Occupation Tax Act", approved June 28, 1933, 174 as amended, or any of their related Acts. Section 7. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 176 affect or alter any existing individual or business rights 177 granted by the copyright laws of the United States, as now 178 or hereafter amended, that such individual or business would 179 have were such individual or business a purchaser of a copy of the computer software that is the subject of the license 180 agreement. Section 8. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 182 alter or amend any provision of the Consumer Fraud and 183 Deceptive Business Practices Act. 183 Section 9. This Act shall take effect July 1, 1986. 185 Approved September 25, 1985 Effective: July 1, 1986
rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU (12/15/85)
[ more food for thought ] Here is the first of two discussions of the Illinois Software License Enforce- ment Act by attorney Keith Hays, Grosser and Hays Law Offices, Champaign, IL. Taken from the Tranquillity II BBS, Urbana, IL, (217)384-8173. (from the TQ II magazine) P.S. Please excuse the 40 column text. The article is reproduced exactly as it appears on TQ II, which runs on a TI-99/4A (yes, those machines still exist :-) ) Russell J. Price USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St. Champaign, IL 61820 /// / Q II ------------------- | | | | THE | The Bar | | | | | | at _LAW_ & _YOU_ | OLD BAILEY | ||||||| ---------------------------------------- The Illinois Software License Enforcement Act Dec 1, 1985 Last week I looked into the application of the general law of Warranty and the Uniform Commercial Code as applied to software purchases. The software publishing industry does not agree with my analysis. The industry takes the position that software is not "sold", but rather it is licensed to the user. While this may seem like arguing about semantics, the resolution of that disagreement can have far reaching results. If the industry prevails in its position, then the general law of implied and express warranties does not apply to computer software distributed through the marketplace. The Illinois Software License Enforcement Act is major victory for the software industry. Although the subject matter is not warranty law, this legislation legitimizes the shrinkwrapped license agreement. Prior to the enactment of this legislation the concealed terms of these so-called agreements was in grave doubt. When it becomes effective on July 1, 1986, the Act will bind the software purchaser to the terms of these hidden contracts. While the language of the act disclaims any application of its terms to alter express or implied warranty law, its implicit definition of the transaction as a licensing arrangement rather than a sale has the effect of drastically reducing the consumers remedy for shoddy and inoperable commercial programs. We, the end users, are in the middle of a conceptual debate. The question is whether a computer program is an article of merchandise or the expression of an intellectual idea. The former concept regards programmatic material as a tool. A hammer, for example is an article of merchandise that has a specific purpose. When you buy that tool, the law recognises that you have the right to expect that it will perform the function for which it was intended. The latter concept regards the program as though it were a composition. Books and works of music may be intended to convey a specific message, but they do not come with a warranty that the reader or listener will derive the meaning that the author of the work intended to convey. When you look at the nature of software, you begin to see the problem. Software is a tool. We acquire it to accomplish a particular function. We part with our cash in the expectation that it will perform its intended task. On the otherhand the courts have held that software is not patentable, but rather it is an article of intellectual property, similar to books and music. Patented devices have a built in protection against duplication. Most of us have not the necessary skill, equipment nor raw materials to duplicate a hammer. Most of us do have the skill and equipment to copy the tools we use on our computers. The evolution of legal mechanisms to protect the legitimate concerns of software developers will require legislative solution. The danger, as represented by the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act is that it will tip the balance of interests between developer and user too far to the developers benefit and gives no protection to the consumer. Indeed, the software company is not only given the protection of the hidden contract terms, but the act encourages lawsuits against individual consumers. The prevailing software company is to be awarded its attorney's fees and costs but the sucessful defendant gets no such reward. The Illinois Software License Enforcement Act is a ticking time bomb, set to go off next July 1. When it explodes, any rights you may have to expect that the program you buy will do what it claims to do, may well be a casualty of the blast -==< * >==- L Keith Hays Grosser Hays Law Office 702 Bloomington Rd Champaign IL 61820 (217)) 352-2784
rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU (12/15/85)
[ still more food for thought ] Here is the second discussion of the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act, by Keith Hays, Grosser and Hays Law Offices, Champaign, IL. Taken from the Tranquillity II BBS, Urbana, IL, (217)384-8173. (from the Magazine section) Russell J. Price USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St. Champaign, IL 61820 /// / Q II ------------------- | | | | THE | The Bar | | | | | | at _LAW_ & _YOU_ | OLD BAILEY | ||||||| ---------------------------------------- The Illinois Software License Enforcement Act, an Anaysis --< Dec 8 1985>- The Illinois Software License Enforcement Act (approved Sept. 25, 1985, effective July 1, 1986) imposes the provisions of a contract by operation of law upon the purchaser of computer software. The law often imposes duties and confers rights upon contracting parties, but in most instances where it does so, those provisions are spelled out by the legislation and provision is made for the exclusion of those terms by the parties in their formation of the contract between them. The provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code concerning the imposition of express and implied Warranty are an example. In this case, the specific terms of the contract which the law imposes are not specified by the legislation, but rather are left to the discretion of the dominate party in the transaction. The legislation permits the software manufacturing concern to draft its own contract and imposes those terms by operation of law. In analysing the effect of the law we must assume that the software manufacturer will impose the most restrictive provisions that are permitted. With that in mind, the following is an analysis of the provisions Section 4 of the Act. Paragraph 1 of the Act insures that title to the software will never pass to the purchaser. This provision will operate in all instances to define the transaction between the manufacturer, retailer and user as a licensing transaction. The impact of this definition has more far reaching consequences than the question of controlling software piracy. The definition of the transaction as a license rather than as a sale will render the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code inapplicable to the software marketplace unless it is accompanied with additional legislation to protect the user. Paragraph 2 imposes an outright ban on making copies of the software for any purpose. In my view the provisions of Section 7 with regard to the effect of general copyright laws does not alter the effect of this provision. It is axiomatic that the partes may alter the rights provided for by the general law by contract. The provisions of this section are specific to the question of copies and would be construed to limit notions of fair use and the right to make copies. Unless it is the purpose of the legislature to abrogate the general copyright law of the U.S., then this section should read: "Except as permitted by rights granted under the copyright laws of the United States,***". Paragraph 3 limits the right to customise the software to your own purposes. As an example, programs developed for the IBM-PC could not be purchased and adapted for use on the Tandy 1000, even though the purchaser paid the full price for the program and intended only to run it on his own machine. The development of patches and enhancements to published software would be unlawful. Public Domain patches would be a thing of the past. Paragraph 4 would prohibit the transfer of programs by the original retail purchaser. Software libraries could not be sold or given away with the sale of a used computer. Under the terms of the Act, this section's limitation would apply to even to sofware installed in ROM by the equipment manufacturer. It would be unlawfull to sell your used TRS-80 Model 100. Paragraph 5 limits the use of purchased software to one user at one computer. It would make unlawful the purchase of one program disc by a two man office. Paragraph 6 permits confiscation without notice of the program you bought if the manufacturer discovered a violation of any of these terms. Paragraph 7 provides that the user will pay the cost of the company suing the individual user. This provision encourages the manufacturer to file suit against the user for even the most petty violation of the license "agree- ment!" L KEITH HAYS Grosser and Hays Law Office 702 Bloomington Rd Champaign IL 61820 (217) 352-2784
rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU (12/15/85)
[ why is the line eater still around? ]
As you see, the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act sets a dangerous
precedent. If you live in Illinois, WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND PRESS FOR THE
REPEAL OF THIS SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED SLAP IN THE FACE OF COMPUTER USERS!
If you live elsewhere, WRITE YOUR LEGSLATORS AND ASK THEM NOT TO PASS ANY
SUCH LAWS! Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! <<
Russell J. Price
USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St.
Champaign, IL 61820
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (12/16/85)
> Here is the second discussion of the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act, > by Keith Hays, Grosser and Hays Law Offices, Champaign, IL. Taken from the > Tranquillity II BBS, Urbana, IL, (217)384-8173. (from the Magazine section) > ---------------------------------------- > > The Illinois Software License > Enforcement Act, an Anaysis > > --< Dec 8 1985>- > > The Illinois Software License > Enforcement Act (approved Sept. 25, > 1985, effective July 1, 1986) imposes > the provisions of a contract by > operation of law upon the purchaser of > computer software. ... > > In analysing the effect of the law > we must assume that the software > manufacturer will impose the most > restrictive provisions that are > permitted. With that in mind, the > following is an analysis of the > provisions Section 4 of the Act. > ... > > Paragraph 3 limits the right to > customise the software to your own > purposes. ... > The development of patches > and enhancements to published software > would be unlawful. Public Domain > patches would be a thing of the past. This could be a major disaster! > > Paragraph 4 would prohibit the > transfer of programs by the original > retail purchaser. ... This could be applied to the operating system, and then the manufacturer could have a lock on the sale of used equipment! (Don't laugh, this has been done in the minicomputer area.) > > Paragraph 5 limits the use of > purchased software to one user at one > computer. It would make unlawful the > purchase of one program disc by a two > man office. I disagree with this interpretation. Paragraph 5 clearly states the one user at one computer to be *at one time*. > ... > L KEITH HAYS --henry schaffer
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (12/16/85)
In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes: > >As you see, the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act sets a dangerous >precedent. If you live in Illinois, WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND PRESS FOR THE >REPEAL OF THIS SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED SLAP IN THE FACE OF COMPUTER USERS! >If you live elsewhere, WRITE YOUR LEGSLATORS AND ASK THEM NOT TO PASS ANY >SUCH LAWS! Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! > >>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! << > I'm afraid I don't see what you object to in the law as distributed. All it says is that the purchaser has the obligation to comply with restrictions imposed on the use of the software by the distributor. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy the product. This is called the "free market," and I think most people are in favor of it. Personally, I certainly do not plan to buy any software which restricts me from disassembling or modifying it. When the legislature decides to force me to buy such software, then I will object. In the absence of a monopoly or cartel, which the software industry is not, competition should serve to enforce the desires of the marketplace. -- David desJardins
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (12/16/85)
In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes: >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! > >>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! << > I've never noticed the letters "ADAPSO" before. Perhaps we could start by identifying who these ADAPSO members are.
jp@lanl.ARPA (12/16/85)
Who are the members of the organization responsible for promoting this legislation?? Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (12/16/85)
In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes: >... Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! Good idea, with no members ADAPSO won't be able to lobby for riciulous laws like this. By the way, what's happening in California? Last I heard they were about to outlaw shrink-wrap licensing agreements. What finally happened? I'll work on getting the boycott list together, so that the threat of a boycott will seem more serious if we have a list of members. First I'll call ADAPSO to try to obtain a membership list. If that fails I'll start calling publishers and asking them directly. - Ralph -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa) Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp Fido: Ralph Hyre at Net 129, Node 0 (Pitt-Bull) Phone: (412)578-2847,578-3275
magik@chinet.UUCP (Ben Liberman) (12/17/85)
[^^o^^} In article <9400012@uiucuxa> you write: > >As you see, the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act sets a dangerous >precedent. If you live in Illinois, WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND PRESS FOR THE >REPEAL OF THIS SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED SLAP IN THE FACE OF COMPUTER USERS! >If you live elsewhere, WRITE YOUR LEGSLATORS AND ASK THEM NOT TO PASS ANY >SUCH LAWS! Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! > >>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! << > > Russell J. Price > USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St. > Champaign, IL 61820 Maybe it's time to strike at the root of the problem, the ADAPSO member companys. It seems logical that a REAL threat to their future business viability might get them to use as much muscle to undo these laws as they used to have them enacted. The greatest threat to any of these companys would be products that do at least as much or more and are put in the public domain. If we show the ability to wipe out only 1 major product, these companys will take notice. I, for one, am willing to put some money behind such a project (it would take the time and efforts of some good freelance developers to do the trick). Is anyone else out there interested? If so, send me your path and a list of what you are willing to contirbute (such as time, development efforts, legal expertise, etc.) I will keep net.micro posted on progress if there is enough interest. ----------------------------------------- Ben Liberman ihnp4!chinet!magik -- ----------------------------------------- Ben Liberman ihnp4!chinet!magik
hammen@gumby.UUCP (12/17/85)
> In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes: > >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! > > > >>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! << > > > I've never noticed the letters "ADAPSO" before. Perhaps we could start > by identifying who these ADAPSO members are. *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE *** ADAPSO stands for something like Association of Data Processing something or other. One of the big guys in ADAPSO is Mitch Kapor of Lotus. You know, the guy who said he wouldn't even sell an unprotected version of 1-2-3 to his grandmother. Anyway, anybody who tries to shove this law down people's throats should have their products boycotted. I completely resent the fact that under this law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will RUN on my machine. For example, I have a couple of software packages for the Macintosh that will not run on the Mac XL due to their protection scheme: if it is removed, the programs work perfectly! Another example: I know someone who has an IBM EGA and was trying to run 1-2-3 on it. While there was a patch out there to do it, Lotus forced people to stop distributing it. Their "solution" to his problem involved him paying the $150 or so to upgrade to Release 2. Ridiculous! Robert J. Hammen U of Wisc. CS Dept. Manta Software Corp. !uwvax!gumby!hammen
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (12/17/85)
> In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes: > >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! > > > >>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! << > > > I've never noticed the letters "ADAPSO" before. Perhaps we could start > by identifying who these ADAPSO members are. I don't know who the members are, but The Association of Data Processing Service Organizations 1300 North Seventeenth St. Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 522-5055 is an organization (including many software houses) which is fighting software piracy. They also have a free pamphlet on this subject, write for a copy - or call and ask for Priscilla. I imagine they would also give you a list of their members. --henry schaffer
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (12/18/85)
In article <1808@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: > > I've never noticed the letters "ADAPSO" before. Perhaps we could start >by identifying who these ADAPSO members are. > ADAPSO is an association of software publishers who are trying to work together on copy-protection schemes. Among other things, they have proposed a hardware-based protection system based on a box attached to the serial port and a ROM-based key with each program. They haven't been very successful with this, in part because the Justice Dept. has not (so far) given them permission to develop a standard (since so many competing software houses are part of ADAPSO, its actions could be anticompetitive). Note that this will not prevent such schemes from eventually being used, but may mean that they will have to be developed by non-software publishers. ADAPSO has also spent money on advertising and to promote legislation. -- David desJardins
sienkiew@louie.udel.edu (12/18/85)
The unhealthy part of this law is that appears to grant publishers the right to claim any license agreement that they want. I have NEVER NEVER NEVER seen a license agreement that guarentees some measure of reliability for the software. If it doesn't work, you have NO RECOURSE AT ALL. If you don't buy software that has license agreements like that, you probably won't be buying much at all. Imagine what it would be like if you bought a new car and the manufacturer didn't even have to guarentee that it could move under it's own power! Example from Apple's license agreement: 5. Limitations on warranty and liability. Except as expressely provided above for media, APPLE, is Software Supplier, Distributors and Dealers make no warranties, either express or implied, with respect to the APPLE Software, its merchantability or its fitness for any particular purpose. The entire risk as to it's quality and performance is with you. Should the APPLE Software prove defective, you (and not APPLE, it Supplier, Distributor, or Dealer) assume the entire cost of all necessary serviceing, repair or correction and any incidental or consequential damages. etc... Now suppose that this was a shrink-wrap license under the Illinois law. And suppose you bought the software by mail-order. You cannot determine if it works without accepting the license agreement. ---- A point to ponder: Why doesn't the law require that the software must live up to all the claims made by it's publisher???
desj@brahms.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) (12/19/85)
Certainly I agree that software should be subject to the certain implicit warranties as other products. But I think this is a separate issue. Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license agreement. -- David
jlg%a@lanl.arpa (Jim Giles) (12/19/85)
In article <35030@lanl.ARPA> info-micro-request@BRL.ARPA writes: >From: David desJardins <desj@brahms.berkeley.edu> > Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to >return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license >agreement. Unfortunately, this applies only to unopened software. You still can't return the software if it doesn't do the job you bought it for. As someone already pointed out - you don't know if it's going to work until you've tried it. J. Giles Los Alamos
schuler@gondor.UUCP (David W. Schuler) (12/19/85)
With these facts in mind, I think that the first thing the Ill. legislature should do is lock up ALL of the people in the government who use computers. Everyone has violated at least one of these sections of the proposed bill at any one time. Let's hit hard at home. Make them enforce the laws with their own people. Arrest ALL Ill. state workers NOW.
oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (12/19/85)
> The danger, as represented by the >Illinois Software License Enforcement >Act is that it will tip the balance of >interests between developer and user >too far to the developers benefit and >gives no protection to the consumer. >Indeed, the software company is not >only given the protection of the hidden >contract terms, but the act encourages >lawsuits against individual consumers. > . > . >L Keith Hays >Grosser Hays Law Office Are you still wondering why Richard Stallman blasts off to the ceiling when the topic of "software developers" come up ?? His GNU effort is looking more and more attractive every passing day, in light of such laws that protect the "developer" to an extent that "user" is now a true synonym of "luser" !! UH ?? YOU BOUGHT OUR SOFTWARE ?? NOW WE GOT YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [add soundtrack for maniacal laughter, giggles and a thud for the user's body hitting the floor.. he/she just passed out..] Oz -- Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti] In the beginning, there was Word all right, except it wasn't fixed number of bits.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/19/85)
In article <1@gumby.UUCP> hammen@gumby.UUCP writes: >> >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! > > Anyway, anybody who tries to shove this law down people's throats should > have their products boycotted. I completely resent the fact that under this > law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will > RUN on my machine. Actually, I am already effectively boycotting ADAPSO members, I simply refuse to buy copy-protected software! My own method of combating software piracy is to simply have nothing to do with it. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa Relay-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcrdcf.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Your software rights are in danger Message-ID: <916@psivax.UUCP> Date: 19 Dec 85 16:02:57 GMT Date-Received: 19 Dec 85 18:41:41 GMT References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa> <1808@uwmacc.UUCP> <1@gumby.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 18 In article <1@gumby.UUCP> hammen@gumby.UUCP writes: >> >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! > > Anyway, anybody who tries to shove this law down people's throats should > have their products boycotted. I completely resent the fact that under this > law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will > RUN on my machine. Actually, I am already effectively boycotting ADAPSO members, I simply refuse to buy copy-protected software! My own method of combating software piracy is to simply have nothing to do with it. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
ins_aeas@jhunix.UUCP (Earle A .Sugar) (12/19/85)
> Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to > return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license > agreement. > -- David Yes, but is this grace period after purchase but before opening the package or is if after opening the package and verifying that the software does indeed work? Remember, most software "licensing agreements" require you to accept disclaimer of all implied warranties BEFORE you open the package to verify that the software runs. Another thing that makes me queasy is that the law requires that you accept the provision in licensing agreements that that prevents you from customizing the software for your own use. A good analogy for this would be if you had a Chevy and could be sued by GM for putting a Die-Hard (TM) in your car to replace the weak stock battery. Or, better yet, buying sheet music, and writing notes in the margin, and getting sued by the publisher.[ One final question: Ashton-Tate's license agreement states that the DBASE III package is a "non-published, copyrighted work". Aren't these two terms contradictory under U.S. copyright law? If not, how can something that has scores of thousands of (legal) copies in the field be considered "unpublished"? -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Earle A. Sugar Disclaimer:"I doubt anyone else here agrees with me." USENET: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_aeas CSNET:ins_aeas@jhunix.csnet ARPA:ins_aeas%jhunix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa BITNET: INS_BEAS@JHUVMS (as a last resort) "If you don't expect anything, you'll never be dissappointed." or call 301-889-0815 after 6 P.M. EST
RStallworthy%pco@cisl-service-multics.arpa (12/20/85)
>In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes: >> >>As you see, the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act sets a dangerous >>precedent. If you live in Illinois, WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND PRESS FOR THE >>REPEAL OF THIS SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED SLAP IN THE FACE OF COMPUTER USERS! >>If you live elsewhere, WRITE YOUR LEGSLATORS AND ASK THEM NOT TO PASS ANY >>SUCH LAWS! Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members! >> >>>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! << >> > I'm afraid I don't see what you object to in the law as distributed. All it > says is that the purchaser has the obligation to comply with restrictions > imposed on the use of the software by the distributor. If you don't like > the restrictions, don't buy the product. This is called the "free market," > and I think most people are in favor of it. > Personally, I certainly do not plan to buy any software which restricts me > from disassembling or modifying it. When the legislature decides to force > me to buy such software, then I will object. > In the absence of a monopoly or cartel, which the software industry is not, > competition should serve to enforce the desires of the marketplace. > > -- David desJardins Well, I beg to differ. This is not called a "free market". This is called a special law conferring special privledges or rights on one group of people (sellers) by taking certain rights away from another group of people (purchasers) -- rights which by law cannot be taken away without the special law in question. These rights are so enshrined in law that the sellers, and the special law itself, must pretend that a product is not being sold, that only a licence is being granted for use of the product, when anyone can see that a product is being sold. It is this pretence, I think, that is the "slap in the face" being referred to above. [The rights I am referring to are the right to place somewhat arbitrary restrictions on what a purchaser can do with a product once the product has been purchased]. It is presumed that the reason ADAPSO wants such a law is the "problem" which the software industry has with purchasers of software making illegal copies of software on their personal computers at home, and giving those copies to their friends. I don't see how this law will have much direct effect on that activity. I don't see it affecting reverse engineering either--it will just prevent the publication of the results of such efforts. I understand that there is a similar, if not more potent law which has been passed in the state of Louisianna, and that Vault corporation had brought suit against Quaid Software (re CopyWrite), charging reverse engineering of Vault's copy protection scheme. [Last I heard, the judge had trouble accepting jurisdiction of the case.] This shows the real use to which the law is intended to be put--to prevent the sale of programs which make it possible to defeat software protection schemes. Of course they have attempted to prevent this before, but the rights of the individual to make archival copies have thus far prevented this. As copy programs have escalated to the hardware arena, if such a suit eventually succeeds, it may be a hollow victory. Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. None of this is to be taken as legal advise. None of this is to be taken as the opinions of my employer. RStallworthy%pco at CISL
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (12/20/85)
Several posters have lamented the poor warranties accompanying most software products for the micro market. It's worth looking at this from the publisher's point of view: In our litigious age warranting the performance of software invites lawsuits for millions of dollars in consequential damages. Would you be willing to bet your whole company that a complicated program you sell is completely free from any and all bugs, that the documentation is in no respect misleading, etc. etc. etc.?? On the other hand, I certainly do think that software that fails to perform up to the publisher's claims should be returnable for a full and immediate refund. And contrary to what someone suggested, there is a great deal of software sold on this basis (Mark DeSmet C springs to mind). We should encourage these publishers and work for legislation extending the Magnusson-Moss "implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose" to all software. By the way, most of these comments have pertained to US law. How are things elsewhere? -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
irwin@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (12/20/85)
>> Paragraph 4 would prohibit the >>transfer of programs by the original >>retail purchaser. Software libraries >>could not be sold or given away with >>the sale of a used computer. Under the >>terms of the Act, this section's >>limitation would apply to even to >>sofware installed in ROM by the >>equipment manufacturer. It would be >>unlawfull to sell your used TRS-80 >>Model 100. .......and if the above is true, you can't sell your used car, until you remove the micro and throw it in the garbage can, (you can't smash it with a hammer, as that alters the firmware in the rom) and you can't sell your house, because the heating/airconditioning system is micro processor controlled and contains a rom.......... :-)
msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (12/20/85)
David DesJardins writes: > Certainly I agree that software should be subject to the certain implicit > warranties as other products. But I think this is a separate issue. > Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to > return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license > agreement. Maybe you haven't read the law. It says the software must be returned *unopened*. It also says that opening it is deemed acceptance of the licence terms. However until you open it and try it you can't be sure it will do the job you want. By then it is too late. And since the seller refuses to guarantee it will do what they claim you are up shit creek without a paddle. In contrast, if you buy a tool at, say, Sear's and it doesn't do the job you wanted -- not a powerful enough drill, for example -- you can take it back and exchange it or get your money back. The same rights should be available to purchasers of software tools. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.uucp, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc "Boards are long and hard and made of wood"
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (12/20/85)
> Certainly I agree that software should be subject to the certain implicit > warranties as other products. But I think this is a separate issue. > Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to > return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license > agreement. > -- David > "(4) The legend or notice states clearly that a person who receives the copy of computer software and does not accept and agree to the terms of the accompanying license may, within a reasonable time, return the unused, unopened copy of computer software to the party from whom it was acquired, or to some other identified party, for a full refund of any money paid for the copy; and" It is still absolutely legal to sell a blank diskette if the license agreement says that you have no recourse, and you cannot find out that you own a blank diskette till you (1) open and attempt to (2) use the software. However, at least they give you this: "(5) The terms of the accompanying license agreement must be clearly and conspicuously stated in the license agreement in language which is readily understandable, and the license agreement must be attached to or packaged with the computer software or copy thereof in such a manner that the terms are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ readily noticeable before the act which is deemed to constitute acceptance ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ occurs;" ^^^^^^ i.e., no more "By opening this package you have accepted all the terms of our incomprehensible license agreement, copies of which only exist in a 16-ton steel safe at the bottom of the Marianas Trench." ``"License agreement" means a written document on which the word "license", either alone or in combination with other words, appears conspicuously at or near the top so as to be readily noticeable to a person viewing the document.'' Which "words"? How about: "THIS IS NOT A LICENSE AGREEMENT" And finally, a reposting of a message from earlier in the year: > is the original } is the original reposter }From: phco@ecsvax.UUCP (John Miller) }Newsgroups: net.micro }Subject: Re: The next generation of software licences }Message-ID: <303@ecsvax.UUCP> }Date: 23 Aug 85 01:52:32 GMT }References: <1222@ubc-cs.UUCP> }Reply-To: phco@ecsvax.UUCP (John Miller) }Organization: Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill }In article <1222@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) writes: > > *HEY, SCUZZBAG* > *IF YOU OPEN THIS PACKAGE, YOU AGREE* > *TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS.* > >1.Flubber Systems Inc. (THE VENDOR) provides this program for use on a > single machine, insofar as it may be used on any machine at all. > >2.THE VENDOR does not warrant that this program will perform the function > or functions it is advertised to perform, that it will perform any function > at all, that the documentation is correct, or that there is even a > diskette and/or documentation (PROGRAM MATERIALS) in the box. The > purchaser assumes all responsibility for determining whether he or she > got rooked or not. > >3.THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING > BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS > FOR A GIVEN PURPOSE. SHOULD THE PRODUCT PROVE DEFECTIVE, IT IS UP TO THE > PURCHASER TO DETERMINE THAT THE PROGRAM IS DEFECTIVE AND PROVIDE TO THE > VENDOR THE SOURCE CODE CHANGES NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAM > FUNCTIONS CORRECTLY. > >4.In respect of condition 3, THE VENDOR will not furnish any source code > to the purchaser even should the purchaser be willing to repair PROGRAM > MATERIALS at his/her own cost. > >5.THE VENDOR agrees to provide technical support at a scale of fees to be > determined once THE VENDOR has written the software. Such technical support > shall consist of telephone support conducted from an unlisted number in > Malawi. THE VENDOR does not warrant that such support will be responsive, > or that any advice furnished to the purchaser shall be correct, complete, > or even vaguely useful. > >6.This agreement shall remain in force until THE VENDOR gets tired of it. > At the termination of the agreement, the purchaser agrees to destroy > all PROGRAM MATERIALS, and to give to THE VENDOR the results of all use > of said PROGRAM MATERIALS. THE VENDOR may choose to give or sell such > results to any person, but assumes no liability for the correctness or > usefulness of such results; all liability remains with the original > purchaser. > >7.The following actions, or similar, shall result in immediate termination > of this agreement, as provided under condition 6: unauthorised duplication > of the software (even for backup purposes); possession of any program > whose purpose is to defeat copy protection mechanisms; advocacy of > so-called ''consumer protection'' legislation, which restricts the > freedoms of software vendors; any public or private utterance which > disparages THE VENDOR, the PROGRAM MATERIALS, any other product marketed > by or endorsed by THE VENDOR, or the software industry in general. > >8.This agreement shall be governed by the laws of The Republic of Albania, > and by the philosophy of its now-departed leader, Enver Hoxha. > >BY READING THIS FAR, YOU HAVE ALREADY CONSENTED TO THIS AGREEMENT. IT'S TOO >LATE NOW, SUCKER! }I must have missed something. How does this differ from the license }agreements currently prevailing? (;-) } } John Miller (ecsvax!phco) } Dept. of Pharmacology, Univ. of N.C.-Chapel Hill } Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 966-4628 -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Out of my way, I'm a scientist! War of the Worlds
mball@noscvax.UUCP (Michael S. Ball) (12/21/85)
In article <826@brl-tgr.ARPA> sienkiew@louie.udel.edu writes: >I have NEVER NEVER NEVER seen a license agreement that guarentees some >measure of reliability for the software. If it doesn't work, you have NO >RECOURSE AT ALL. > : >A point to ponder: Why doesn't the law require that the software must live up >to all the claims made by it's publisher??? There are companies who try to be fair, but the lawyers frequently limit what they can say. Consider the following, from Oregon Software's License agreement: "Oregon Software warrents that the Software conforms to the product description applicable at the time of the order. Oregon Software will refund the License fee if, within 30 days of first receipt of the Software Licensee returns the Software accompanied by evidence that it does not conform to the product description. Oregon Software will provide written response to documented reports of Software errors and will make any announced Software ipdates available to Licensee for one year from receipt of the original Software; however, Oregon Software does not guarantee that all Software errors will be corrected or that updates will be compatible with previous versions. The charge per update shall be the costs of media, handling and shipping plus twenty-five (25) U.S. dollars. Licensee's Softwere Support Contact Person will present any warranty claims and receive any notices or updates. "Except for the express warranties stated above, Oregon Software disclaims all warranties on the Software furnished hereunder, including all implied warranties of merchantability ond fitness. The stated express warranties are in lieu of all obligations or liability on the part of Oregon Software for damages, including but not limited to special, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of the Software." Of course in this case the software costs several thousand dollars, comes with support, and isn't shipped until after the license agreement is signed. It gets a bit harder with $50 items. What you really want to say is "we do the best we can, but all software has bugs and we can't claim to be any different." It's an interesting and very hard problem, given our current legal climate. Mike Ball TauMetric Corporation 1094 Cudahy Pl. Ste 302 San Diego, CA 92110
ugthomas@sunybcs.UUCP (Timothy Thomas) (12/21/85)
> I completely resent the fact that under this >law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will >RUN on my machine I agree. I feel if I have purchased some software, I should be able to do anything I want with it provided that I do not distribute it to other people. I dont know of anything else in the world that you can buy which prohibits your modification or destruction of it. Modifying the programs you purchase can not affect the distributer in any way as long as you are the registered owner of it. Sometimes I like to change simple text and help screens in a program to make it easier to use and understand. There is no way anybody can prevent me from doing this. If they want to take the responsibility of making program modifications to suit every owners needs, then fine. But no reasonable sized (even small) company can afford the time and effort (obviously) to do this. -- ____________ ____/--\____ \______ ___) ( _ ____) "Damn it Jim!, __| |____/ / `--' I'm a programmer not a Doctor!" ) `|=(- \------------' Timothy D. Thomas SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science UUCP: [decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath,rocksvax]!sunybcs!ugthomas CSnet: ugthomas@buffalo, ARPAnet: ugthomas%buffalo@CSNET-RELAY
lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) (12/22/85)
In article <963@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >On the other hand, I certainly do think that software that fails to >perform up to the publisher's claims should be returnable for a full and >immediate refund. This only applies for clear-cut cases, such as gross misrepresentation (e.g. fallacious benchmark figures, missing features). However one can certainly do text processing using a Paint program. I think it is more often the case that a program is ILL-SUITED. Can we really expect a legal imposition of "Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" warranties? Does this really apply to software which you tried out at your friendly neighbourhood computer shop? Or would it only apply to the "mail-order" category (Under Quebec laws returning a merchandise within 7 days in it's original packaging (which you are allowed to open) intitles you to a full refund -- I do not know if this would override the licensing agreement). I find it amusing that a lot of software is sold the same way miracle medicines are... >extending the Magnusson-Moss "implied warranty of merchantability or >fitness for a particular purpose" to all software. Eh? (for American readers: Huh?). -- Jean-Francois Lamy Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal. CSNet: lamy@toronto.csnet UUCP: {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy CDN: lamy@iro.udem.cdn (lamy%iro.udem.cdn@ubc.csnet)
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (12/22/85)
<<<< < Now suppose that this was a shrink-wrap license under the Illinois law. And < suppose you bought the software by mail-order. You cannot determine if it < works without accepting the license agreement. < If you don't know what you are buying then you shouldn't be using mail order houses. A dealer will let you try out the software and answer your questions before the sale so you will know what your getting. You can even ask (before handing him your check) "If this doesn't work on my machine will you refund my money?" Dealers charge more but they offer more services. If you can't afford it then find a local users group to help BEFORE putting down your money. < A point to ponder: Why doesn't the law require that the software must live < up to all the claims made by it's publisher??? For the same reason that you can't sue an after shave manufactor because their product didn't help your love life. John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (12/22/85)
In article <1478@jhunix.UUCP> ins_aeas@jhunix.UUCP (Earle A .Sugar) writes: > One final question: Ashton-Tate's license agreement states that the >DBASE III package is a "non-published, copyrighted work". Aren't these >two terms contradictory under U.S. copyright law? If not, how can something >that has scores of thousands of (legal) copies in the field be considered >"unpublished"? (1) Used to be a work had to be published to secure copyright in the US; that changed with the new copyright act that took effect in 1978. (2) This business of dBASE being a "non-published, copyrighted work" is an example of a lawyer playing CYA[1]. A non-published work can be protected as a trade secret. (One of the reasons for prohibiting "reverse engineering" in licence agreements is to give credence to the trade secret argument.) The idea is that even if Ashton-Tate can't get you for copyright violation (if you can somehow squirm out on a technicality), they have trade secret violation as a fallback position. The law is still a little vague, but there seems to be no reason a work can't be protected by both copyright and trade secret. (3) I think the claim that dBASE is non-published is a ludicrous corruption of the meaning of the word, but you can't blame them for trying. (4) Again, I'm not a lawyer; my interest in copyright law is purely amateur. See a real lawyer if you need legal advice. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (12/23/85)
> >> Paragraph 4 would prohibit the > >>transfer of programs by the original > >>retail purchaser. Software libraries > >>could not be sold or given away with > >>the sale of a used computer. Under the > >>terms of the Act, this section's > >>limitation would apply to even to > >>sofware installed in ROM by the > >>equipment manufacturer. It would be > >>unlawfull to sell your used TRS-80 > >>Model 100. > > .......and if the above is true, you can't sell your used car, until > you remove the micro and throw it in the garbage can, (you can't smash > it with a hammer, as that alters the firmware in the rom) and you can't > sell your house, because the heating/airconditioning system is micro > processor controlled and contains a rom.......... :-) The > >> material was quoted from an analysis that "assume[s] that the software manufacturer will impose the most restrictive provisions that are permitted" [by the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act.] The > response therefore *could* actually be true under this law. (Of course automobile manufacturers would not do this because they would dislike having any control over your ability to sell your used car. :-) --henry schaffer
jp@lanl.ARPA (12/23/85)
Your ability to return/exchange things at Sears is not a right but a matter of company policy. Satisfied customers come back and more money is made from the good will generated than would be made if they insisted on the terms of the original sale. Apparently software companies don't see you as a repeat customer. The most they are ever going to make off you is what they have in their pocket just after the sale. If you have a problem solving it reduces their profit. Unless you can convince other people not to buy the product by word-of-mouth advertising (Bad will??) So use this forum and any others to let everyone know whose product works and whose doesn't, who treats you right and who does'nt. Only the one's with no sales will get the message. Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (12/24/85)
> > > I completely resent the fact that under this > >law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will > >RUN on my machine > > I agree. I feel if I have purchased some software, I should be able to > do anything I want with it provided that I do not distribute it to other > people. I dont know of anything else in the world that you can buy which > prohibits your modification or destruction of it. ... > Timothy D. Thomas SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science The software houses argue that they are not selling you a "thing", but a license. Note the title, "Software License Enforcement Act." Among other effects this removes many responsibilities that the vendor might have to you if you purchased a "thing". There are many license or rental contracts which prohibit modification, etc. I also have never heard of restrictions of modifying a "thing you have purchased, but such things as apartment leases usually prohibit modifications, including putting tacks in the walls, and signing the lease means you agree with the terms. I checked with an attorney about the possibility of voiding the more objectionable terms in a license. I was told that one way to do that was to show that a term was "unconscionable", but that it would have to be pretty far out to meet that test. When I summarized the what I remembered of Section 4, I was told that these terms didn't sound unconscionable. The vendors will probably argue that in order to modify the software, that you have to get into it, and therefore jeopordize their trade secrets. The Illinois law has modification in the same paragraph with "translation, decompiling, disassembling, or creating derivative works". While I detest prohibiting modification as much as you do, I am not sure that there is anything novel or unlawful about it. The answer is to read the license before purchase, refuse to purchase anything which has terms you don't like, and follow the conditions of the license of any purchases you make. Of course this may mean passing up alot of otherwise desirable software! --henry schaffer
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (12/24/85)
In article <1950@gondor.UUCP> schuler@gondor.UUCP (David W. Schuler) writes: >With these facts in mind, I think that the first thing >the Ill. legislature should do is lock up ALL of the >people in the government who use computers. Everyone >has violated at least one of these sections of the >proposed bill at any one time. > The point is that the law permits the application of licenses prohibiting various activities, not that it actually forbids all activities described in the law (this would be both absurd and unconstitutional). The whole assumption that "software companies will incorporate every possible restriction into their licenses" is simply unfounded. Clearly restrictive licenses reduce the value of the product, and thus the sales (except if they are ignored, in which case it is irrelevant what they say). Also, in response to another article, the law does clearly state that the purchaser must be able to examine the terms of the license agreement before committing the act that indicates acceptance of the contract; i.e. one can always read the license and decide to return the product for refund. -- David desJardins
ugjohna@sunybcs.UUCP (John Arrasjid) (12/25/85)
It seems that all the laws that I have seen only protect the Software Company. New York and various other states have what is called a Lemon Law for motor vehicles that protects the buyer from defective merchandise (granted, this is for used vehicles). If you buy a piece of software and it crashes or doesn't even work the first time then what can you do? Most (not all) companies will charge you for a replacement and some will even require you to purchase the product again. As there are more software users out there than companies, then it would appear to me that an organized lobbying effort on the part of the users should have a greater effect on legislators than the software companies. After all, we do vote for them! John Arrasjid SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science UUCP: [decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath,rocksvax]!sunybcs!ugjohna CSnet: ugjohna@buffalo ARPAnet: ugjohna%buffalo@CSNET-RELAY
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (12/26/85)
In article <826@brl-tgr.ARPA> sienkiew@louie.udel.edu writes: > >If you don't buy software that has license agreements like that, you probably >won't be buying much at all. Imagine what it would be like if you bought a >new car and the manufacturer didn't even have to guarentee that it could move >under it's own power! > Why would you buy such a car? Don't all the proposed lawa require the agreement to be clearly visable and labeled? If you see a product with an agreement you are not willing to follow, then don't buy it! >Now suppose that this was a shrink-wrap license under the Illinois law. And >suppose you bought the software by mail-order. You cannot determine if it >works without accepting the license agreement. Even without a license agreement, a store is not required to take back purchased items ( I think ). For example, if I buy a book, read it, and then decide that it was a lousy book, it didn't live up to my expectations, and I will never, ever, want to re-read it, I can't take it back to the bookstore and get my money back! Isn't it now the same with software? Sure, many dealers let you return something if you are not satisfied, but I think that they are doing this to try to get you to buy from them, not because any law says they must. At least under the Illinois law, they are required to take back a product if you see that the shrink-wrap license is not suitable. So you are gaining, not losing. What I really don't understand is why people object to being required to honor voluntary agreements. You are not forced to buy a product with a license agreement you do not like. You are allowed to return it if you buy it by mistake. What's the beef? -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
bet@ecsvax.UUCP (Bennett E. Todd III) (12/27/85)
It has been said before in this forum, but allow me to repeat: as long as the laws aren't forcing you to buy the software, then don't worry so much about the laws themselves; instead, boycott those companies that use abusive licensing agreements, or copy protection. Ideally, we should all boycott sponsors of legislation that renders software exempt from consumer protection laws (anybody have a list of ADAPSO members to post?). Better still, go out of your way to take your trade to software companies that show some concern for their customers; letters to companies which you are avoiding might also be a good idea. As long as we are permitted to choose which software we will buy, restrictive licensing agreements can be considered flaws in the packages. A vendor who denies me the reasonable permissions granted under the "fair use" terms of copyright law is offering a package that isn't fairly useable. -Bennett -- Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695 UUCP: ...{decvax,seismo,philabs,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!duccpc!bet
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (12/30/85)
<> In the current software licensing discussion (most of which has been highly entertaining, if not informative), there have been several recurring points which I haven't seen dealt with to my satisfaction. From Henry Schaeffer (sorry if I misspelled your name; my fingers work faster than my brain): >...such things as apartment leases usually prohibit modifications, including >putting tacks in the walls, and signing the lease means you agree with the >terms. True, but a lease can be read beforehand, and there is the important legal aspect of the possibility of negotiation, which seems to be absent in the Illinois law. Another thing about a lease is that you can see the apartment beforehand. Does the law in question (or any existing law) provide for "seeing" (using) the software before "signing the agreement" (opening the package)? From Tim Smith: >Why would you buy such a car? Don't all the proposed lawa require the >agreement to be clearly visable and labeled? If you see a product with >an agreement you are not willing to follow, then don't buy it! ... >What I really don't understand is why people object to being required to >honor voluntary agreements. You are not forced to buy a product with >a license agreement you do not like. You are allowed to return it if >you buy it by mistake. What's the beef? As for buying the car, see the above regarding apartment rents. The car in question can be examined before buying it. Not so for software. The other question doesn't seem relevant to me. The law will make legal the currently questionable shrink-wrap agreements. It will make acceptance of an utterly non-negotiable license mandatory upon opening a package which can contain absolutely nothing. So I either accept it, or buy nothing. Returning to the car analogy, the kind of "lemon law" referenced was passed to protect the unsuspecting and unknowledgable average consumer from being taken by dishonest used car salespeople. A knowledgable auto mechanic should have no need of that law. Most people using this forum are fairly knowledgable about computers and software, and hence are in the same position regarding software as the mechanic is regarding cars. Can you accept that even though *we* may be too smart to be duped, most people aren't? Which brings me to the following, from Bennett E. Todd III: >It has been said before in this forum, but allow me to repeat: as long >as the laws aren't forcing you to buy the software, then don't worry so >much about the laws themselves; instead, boycott those companies that >use abusive licensing agreements, or copy protection... And if a law is passed which seems to encourage use of "abusive licensing agreements, or copy protection [a separate issue, to my mind]", what do we do with our computers? I certainly don't have the time, inclination, or resources to write a C compiler, spreadsheet, word processor, or text adventure every time I want one. When all software use is uniformly restricted, what can we do? It makes a helluva lot more sense to try to stop such laws, rather than live with 'em once they're here. - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)
lrj@lasspvax.UUCP (Lewis R. Jansen) (12/31/85)
>Better still, go out of your way to take your trade to software >companies that show some concern for their customers; letters to >companies which you are avoiding might also be a good idea. ... Lest we forget, make sure you also write letters to the companies whose policies you like, whether they don't use copy-protection, have good sevice depts or whatever. If they get letters of praise from satisfied customers, they will be more likely to continue such policies. Postive reinforcement is also a good training tool... And that's what the free- market system is all about; the buying public 'training' the vendor to do what they want... ;^) >Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695 ----- -- Lewis R. Jansen UUCP: {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,vax135}!cornell!lasspvax!lrj ___.-.___ Bitnet: uxhj@CornellA.BITNET [' `(o)' `] Arpa: lrj@lasspvax.tn.cornell.edu.ARPA Fire for'd phasers! (My opinions are mine alone, but are for sale...)
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (01/02/86)
In article <35259@lanl.ARPA> jp@a.UUCP (James Potter) writes: >Your ability to return/exchange things at Sears is not a right but a matter >of company policy. Not strictly true (in the United States, anyway), thanks to the federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (which specifies what "full" and "limited" warranties are, how they can be worded, and so on) and the Uniform Commercial Code (the basis for the system of trade law in most states, embodying concepts like "implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose"). To sell something with NO warranty, a retail store must expressly declare that it is selling the product "as is" - otherwise, most of the time, you have a legal right to return the merchandise for a refund no matter what the store's policy might be. By the way, one of the reasons software publishers want to characterize software sales as licensing and NOT "sales" is that in so doing they can escape from the Uniform Commercial Code. The other main reason is that some legal authorities feel they can also avoid the fair use provision of the Copyright Act that says you can make backup copies of software you own. If you haven't "bought" it you don't "own" it, you see... Usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. If you need specific legal advice, see one. One way of determining if someone is a lawyer is to see if he or she will tell you stuff like the above for free. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary