Talk:Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Two problems with this article[edit]

1. It doesn't describe what UCITA regulates or governs. There is no description of the actual law. 2. It is biased heavily against UCITA. I'm guessing there is some sort of astro-turf lobbying effort going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.92.19 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple questions[edit]

A) Software license agreement mentions that some states have passed 'anti-UCITA' acts. What states, and how do they work? (From there:)

In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that's passed UCITA.

B) 'Self-Help' provisions: What are these, and what do they allow?

C) External links: Should probably have at least one to a pro-UCITA article. A neutral analysis would be good too. (Is it standard to link to full texts for legislation and similar?) Abramul 14:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of improvement[edit]

This article is currently being worked on by students in the Politics of Piracy course. So far, I like the tone of the article. It is both encyclopedic and neutral. Here is some feedback for how they can improve the article:

Structure: The article should be broken up into sections with a lead section to summarize the information presented. The sections might be something like History, Details, and Criticism.
Expansion: The article should provide more details regarding what the UCITA actually changes and the history of the act and its predecessors.
References: All information should be verifiable in reliable third-party sources.

Hope this helps! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more details on why the UCITA is so controversial and opposed by many.[edit]

The lead mentions many are opposed to it's passage in other states but does not mention why. We should expand the article to include a section that deals with who supports the this uniform law and who is against it and why. What are the controversial provisions of the law that critics object too. I read also that some backers of the UCITA tried removing certain more controversial provisions to get the law passed in certain states but without success so far. The self-help provision was mentioned as one such provision removed to try and get the law passed. The article should be expanded to explain the major provisions in the act and how they would or did (in the two states who've already passed it) changed existing law. Specific critics of this model law should be mentioned by name and efforts in specific state that prevented passage of the law should be mentioned. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some Proposed Changes[edit]

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Added to body, but feelw WP:UNDUE in the lead whithout any relevant content in the body section. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add to third paragraph in lede: "UCITA has faced severe opposition from various groups." There have been concerns regarding the "one size fits all" approach of the UCITA, the UCITA's favoring of software manufacturers, and the UCTITA's deference to new industry standards.'^[1] Some of the other criticisms regarding the adoption of the UCITA include the inclusion of self-help provisions included in the UCITA, which first existed in a limited form in the first version of the UCITA and was later prohibited. ^[2]

Cf2022 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Cf2022[reply]

Partly done. I've added it to a new "reception" section in the body, rather than the lead. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ O'Rourke, Maureen (2000). "Progressing Towards a Uniform Commercial Code for Electronic Commerce or Racing Towards Nonuniformity". Berkley Technology Law Journal. 14: 647–651.
^ Hillman, Robert; O'Rourke, Maureen (2011). "Defending Disclosure in Software Licensing". University of Chicago Law Review. 78: 111.

[1] O'Rourke, Maureen (2000). "Progressing Towards a Uniform Commercial Code for Electronic Commerce or Racing Towards Nonuniformity". Berkley Technology Law Journal. 14: 647–651.

[2] Hillman, Robert; O'Rourke, Maureen (2011). "Defending Disclosure in Software Licensing". University of Chicago Law Review. 78: 111.

[1]

[2]