http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,890836,00.asp

While I think UCITA goes too far, I agree with the principle of giving the industry powers to protect itself from libel and piracy which the law is meant to provide.Too many people take to the idea that they don't have to pay for software if they can get a pirated copy and the law currently doesn't provide adequate protection from that.The law currently also doesn't provide protection from libel if software is used by people who are not properly trained causing damage.

>The law currently also doesn't provide protection from libel if software is used by people who are not properly trained causing damage.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

sorry, meant liability.Software companies have been slapped with expensive lawsuits when users of their software made mistakes due to not using the software as designed.

Oh, I see... :).How many of those lawsuits were successful? Under current laws, the manufacturer of any product is normally not liable for damages suffered due to improper use. Even in the US, the courts are starting to put a serious dampener on lawsuits of the '$80 million for a spilt cup of coffee' kind. The problem could lie in the manuals and instructions supplied with the software, as well as the design. FS add-ons are a prime example - how many files have you downloaded with non-sensical instructions or badly designed installers (the ones that overwrite vital files needed for the operation of FS)? If those were commercial products, should the designers be liable for the damage caused? In my opinion, absolutely - just like manufacturers of any other product. It's time the software industry stopped whining and trying to claim some special legal status for their products, and instead stopped putting out inferior or flawed products for sale. Then they would discover that existing laws provide more than adequate protection.Cheers,Gosta. http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg