Sorry about the awkward beginning …
With the adoption of UCITA as law in the United States
apparently having dropped out of sight & without resolution, I
thought the following account of a hearing on this proposed law
would be of interest. This hearing of the Judiciary Commitee of the
state of Oregon House of Representatives took place on 18 April,
2001 at the state Capitol building, from 3:40p to 5:00p.
Prior to attending this hearing, I felt I would be one of a very
small group to speak against this measure: at best, it would be me
& some librarians against computer industry lobbyists who were
trying to sneak this law under the radar & into enactment.
First to give testimony was Rep. Phil Barnhart. Rep. Barnhart
has been the point man against this legislation, & his aide,
Damon Clay Elder, was indirectly responsible for my knowledge of
this hearing. Barnhart announced that he had introduced a “dash
one” amendment to the measure, which would in effect gut HB 3910
and replace it with a provision to shelter Oregonians from UCITA
until 2006.
Next were the trio apparently responsible for getting HB 3910
introduced in Oregon: Jim Craven of AEA, John Woodard a corporate
lawyer for Intel, & Ray Nimmer, who was the scribe maintaining
the proposed UCITA legislation during its gestation. Nimmer
provided most of the testimony, stating that UCITA is a
misunderstood piece of legislation, making law where there was
neither law or useful precedent, by simply writing down what the
current practice is. This current practice he stated was that
software is & always has been released as to the users as a
licensed item. He also stated that the section on “electronic self
help” is misunderstood, & that the section that deals with
actually limits its use by prohibiting it’s use in mass market
versions.
Another participant in this hearing, Gary Miller, felt that
Craven & Woodard’s support of this measure was less than
enthusiastic: “ The AEA guys testimony was so lukewarm he had to
return to the mike to say `Oh, by the way, we are for this’.
Similar lack of enthusiasm from Intel.”
From this point on, the testimony was less friendly to this
bill. The entire meeting can be heard on the Web at
http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/archive/archive.2001s/HJUDCV-200104181527.ram
Paula Holm Jensen & Peter Bragdon spoke next. Jensen spoke
for the Computer and Electronic Information workgroup of the Oregon
State Bar, & stated that the workgroup had not expected UCITA
to be introduced this session, & had instead devoted their
energies to HB 2112, which concerns electronic signatures. The
workgroup’s position was that they were leaning against passage of
this bill, & needed more time to study it.
After this, the testimony can be divided into “concerned
citizens” (into which group fell your faithful narrator, & Gary
Miller a feelance computer consultant from Bend, OR), & the
establishment players. These latter types were the ones who
recognized each other as they entered the hearing room, &
either shook each other’s hands or introduced their associates to
each other. What was even more amazing to watch than this
networking was how they, to a man, spoke against the proposed
law.
One such group was the spokespeople for public libraries.
Although Cindy Gibbon of the Multnomah County Central Library
spoke, my notes focussed on what Deb Carver, who is a librarian at
U of O. She elaborated on the fact that this bill would cost more
money, because it would take more work to negotatiate a license
& contract with HB 3910, than without it. She explained how
books with floppies or CDROMs would restrict the libraries’ right
under copyright to share the material with their patrons &
other libraries.
People for several private corporations spoke against the
measure. Todd Thacker spoke for Prudential Insturance. He focussed
on the shrinkwrap license, & stated that UCITA would cost his
company an additional $20 million dollars. Lenon Johnson, in charge
of the MIS department at Boeing’s Gresham branch likewise was
against the bill, & stated that he understood Weyerhaueser (a
major Oregon corporation) was also. While Boeing was in favor of a
uniform law involving software, UCITA would increase the cost of
doing business not only for Boeing, but for their 500 vendors in
Oregon. Steve Tefler represented some professional association of
insurance companies, whose name I did not catch. He merely
mentioned that his association had sent a letter opposing UCITA to
the House Judiciary committe, & mentioned an article in the
magazine _Business Insurance_ that raised a number of questions
about UCITA.
What is worth noting is who did not appear at this hearing.
First was the sponsor of this bill, which is usually taken as a
sign that the bill will not get passed. My feeling is that all of
the groups involved have pushed this bill as far as they can
towards getting it accepted as law, but it is not far enough: too
many other major corporations who do business in the state of
Oregon have figured out that this will cut into their profit
margin, & clearly want it to die. What their response might be,
had this only affected non-business consumers, is left as an
exercise for the reader.
Two groups I was surprised that did not appear were the EFF
& IEEE. While the EFF have only been mildly against this, the
IEEE have devoted some resources to fighting this measure. However,
when I attempted to reach the president of the Oregon chapter of
the IEEE & ask for help to talk with other members who were
against this measure, I failed to get any sort of response. I can’t
help but wonder if both groups, by seeing how many of their members
were working for corporations that would benefit from this bill,
decided to duck the ethics of this “model law”.
My thanks to Gary Miller <gem@rellim.com> for sharing his
version of this hearing, & to Russell Senior
<seniorr@aracnet.com>, for the link to the Real Audio file on
the Oregon Legislature Web page.
Geoff Burling