After more than 10 years of proposals, revisions, and re-revisions, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) at long last voted to adopt the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) on July 29. Like its better known cousin, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), this Act is intended to promote uniformity in the area of computer information transactions.
"What are computer information transactions" you ask? Under the language of the model act, they would include any "commercial agreements to create, modify, transfer or distribute computer software, multimedia interactive products, computer data and databases [and] Internet and online information." Members of the NCCUSL have been concerned about the lack of clear, consistent rules governing such transactions in this rapidly expanding part of our national economy (which now accounts for more than a third of the nation's economic growth). Contracts for computer information may be valid in one state while not in others, or terms within such contracts may or may not be enforced, thus creating uncertainty and risk which both sides to such contracts would prefer to avoid.
Five basic themes underlie many of the provisions of the UCITA. They are the following:
•Computer information transactions involve licenses, not sales.
•Small companies play a more significant role in the computer information industry than many other industries.
•Computer information transactions implicate fundamental free speech issues.
•Freedom to contract and practical commercial context of the transactions are important.
•The law should facilitate continued expansion of e-commerce and be technologically neutral.
Like the UCC, the UCITA will remain as a model act until it has been presented to each state's legislature and until it is adopted as part of the state's statutory law. That could be its biggest hurdle yet. Several well-funded information industry groups remain opposed to some of the terms contained in the model act's language. Many consumer advocates would also like to see more protection for consumers be added. Because these groups may have more sway over legislatures in some states than others, the result may be a uniform act that differs from state to state. Does that sound unusual? Its not—remember that UCITA's distant cousin, the UCC, also varies from state to state.
Write a 1–2 page paper answering the following questions:
•Before the UCC and the UCITA, what was one of the first, and most significant, of the U.S. government's attempts to promote uniformity in commercial laws from state to state? (Hint: think of commerce and Constitution.)
•Based on the information presented above, what do you see as the major differences between Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code and UCITA?
•What is the legal distinction between selling a product and licensing it?
•Many of the provisions in the UCITA were first proposed as a modification to Article 2 of the UCC. Why do you think the drafters decided to propose it as a separate and distinct uniform act?
What kind of HELP do you need? You need to be specific when asking questions here.
If all you do is post your entire assignment, nothing will happen since no one here will do your work for you. But if you are specific about what you don't understand about the assignment or exactly what help you need, someone might be able to assist you.
I need to find some background information on the UCITA and the UCC. On what web site can I find the information? Tnak you. Tonja
To answer the questions posed:
1. Before the UCC and UCITA, one of the first and most significant attempts by the U.S. government to promote uniformity in commercial laws from state to state was the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states. This allows Congress to enact laws that affect commercial transactions and create uniformity in areas such as trade, taxation, and regulation.
To find this information, one can start by understanding the question and identifying the key terms, such as "first" and "significant." Then, one can think about the historical context and the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Finally, one can search for sources or references that discuss the Commerce Clause and its role in promoting uniformity in commercial laws.
2. Based on the information provided, the major differences between Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and UCITA can be summarized as follows:
- Subject Matter: Article 2 of the UCC primarily applies to the sale of goods, which are tangible, movable items. UCITA, on the other hand, focuses on computer information transactions, which include the licensing, modification, transfer, and distribution of computer software, multimedia interactive products, computer data and databases, internet and online information.
- Freedom to Contract: UCITA emphasizes the freedom to contract and the ability of parties to negotiate terms, while Article 2 of the UCC provides certain default rules and warranties that apply to goods sales, but allows for variations and modifications through agreement.
- Licensing vs. Sale: UCITA expressly states that computer information transactions involve licenses rather than sales. This means that ownership of the computer information remains with the licensor, and the licensee acquires specific rights to use the information based on the terms of the license agreement. Article 2 of the UCC, however, focuses on the sale of goods, where ownership is transferred from the seller to the buyer.
To find this information, one can analyze the provided details, compare the main themes of UCITA to those of Article 2 of the UCC, and highlight the relevant differences.
3. The legal distinction between selling a product and licensing it lies in the nature of ownership and rights. When a product is sold, ownership is transferred from the seller to the buyer, and the buyer has the right to use the product according to applicable laws, without significant ongoing control from the seller. Licensing, on the other hand, involves granting certain permissions or rights to use the product, but the ownership remains with the licensor.
In the context of computer information transactions, such as software or multimedia products, licensing is common because it allows the creator or copyright holder to retain control over the intellectual property while still granting specific rights to users. License agreements often include restrictions, permissions, and conditions for the use, modification, and distribution of the licensed material.
To understand this distinction, one can start by defining the terms "selling" and "licensing" and then research the legal concepts and principles related to ownership and rights in commercial transactions.
4. The drafters decided to propose the provisions that eventually became UCITA as a separate and distinct uniform act from Article 2 of the UCC for several reasons. One possible reason could be the recognition that computer information transactions involve unique and complex legal issues that may differ significantly from traditional goods sales. By creating a separate act, the drafters could specifically address these issues and provide tailored rules and provisions that are more suited to the technology-driven nature of computer information transactions.
Additionally, proposing it as a separate uniform act allowed for a more focused and targeted effort to address the concerns and needs of stakeholders in the computer information industry. It also provided an opportunity to introduce new concepts and approaches, such as the emphasis on licenses rather than sales, and the recognition of the importance of free speech issues and technological neutrality.
To speculate on the reasons behind this decision, one can consider the specific challenges and evolving nature of computer information transactions, research the history and development of UCITA, and analyze the potential benefits and drawbacks of proposing it as a separate act.