• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.197-223
• /
• 2006

Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) is the first legislative attempt in the world that deals with transaction of digital information. This however gave rise to endless controversies and as of February 10, 2003, its life as the uniform law has expired. There are four kinds of relationships that UCITA regulates for the entities involved in information trading namely, 1) Relationship between licenser and licensee 2) The triangle relationship between dealers, end-user and publisher 3) Relationship between information right transferor and transferee 4) Relationship between financier, licenser and licensee. Amongst these, the most significant one is the triangle relationship amongst the publisher, commonly known as the licenser in the mass market, end-user and dealer. At the essence of the relationship is that the dealers is liable to refund the payment for the information regarding the end user if he/she does not agree with the publisher on the license of the common market. Looking at the relationship between license transferor and transferee, the transfer of license may be prohibited but the special contract must be conspicuously carried out. The relationship financier, licenser and licensee is unique to the United States and is rather unfamiliar to us. UCITA has been criticized for preferentially protecting the benefits of licensers especially when it comes to the specific regulations for the relationship. Therefore, it is not advisable to blindly accept UCITA regulations. However, UCITA does have components that we can utilize in formulating our own digital information trade regulations, save its proprietary nature as an American law and its preferential treatment for licensers.

• KSLA Bulletin
• /
• s.2
• /
• pp.43-56
• /
• 2010

Since core scholarly journals have been digitalized, license contracts for e-resources have been dramatically increased. Librarians have had difficulties in understanding various and complex license models that are proposed by publishers in a period of time. The standardization of license models for journals have been more in demand and standard model license for journals have been developed by librarians, publishers, consortia and the third party. In this study, we explain the development of the standard license model of KESLI consortium.(hereafter, KESLI model) The availability of KESLI model has been analyzed by comparing with established standard license models. As a result, KESLI model is proved to be adopted and used in a practical contract process of e-journals through consortium.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.79-98
• /
• 2010

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws promulgated the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) in 1999. In 2000 and 2002, this Act was also Amended. UCITA provides a comprehensive set of rules for licensing computer information, whether computer software or other clearly identified forms of computer information. Computerized databases and computerized music are other examples of computer information that would be subject to UCITA. It would also govern access contracts to sites containing computer information, whether on or off the Internet. UCITA would not govern contracts, even though they may be licensing contracts, for the traditional distribution of movies, books, periodicals, newspapers, or the like. Part 8 of UCITA provides a remedy structure somewhat modeled on that of Article 2 but adapted in significant respects to the different context of a computer information transaction. For example, 808 of UCITA recognizes the focus in a license context for a licensor's remedy should properly be on recovery for benefit conferred or for lost profit, rather than on damage measurement by a substitute transaction, where the license is non-exclusive so additional transactions are permitted and there is very little cost in reproduction of the information and its redistribution. Section 816 of UCITA also contains very important limitations on the generally recognized common law right of self-help as applicable in the electronic context.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.129-150
• /
• 2003

Software license agreements, to be useful in the mass market, could not be individually negotiated, and had to be standardized and concise. The software license agreement needs to be presented to the licensee-users in a fashion that would allow for mass distribution of software, also for it to enforceable, that would draw the users' attention to the terms and conditions under which the publisher allowed the use of the software. These needs have been accomplished, with or without fail, through so called the "shrink-wrap licenses" Shrink-wrap licenses purpose to transfer computer softwares to their users by defining the terms and conditions of use of the software without implicating the "first sale doctrine" of the Copyright Act. These shrink-wrap licenses have become essential to the software industry. However, in USA, the law applicable to these licenses has been unclear and unsettled. Courts have struggled to develop a coherent framework governing their enforceability. Meanwhile, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws ("NCCUSL") in USA promulgated the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act ("UCITA") governing contracts for computer information transaction on July 29, 1999. One clear objective of UCITA was to settle the law governing the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses. In these respects, this paper first introduces the various forms that shrink-wrap licenses take(at Part II. Section 1.), and explains the main advantages of them(at Part II. Section 2.) Here it shows how shrink-wrap licenses value themselves for both software publishers and users, including that shrink-wrap licenses are a valuable contracting tool because they provide vital information and rights to software users and because they permit the contracting flexibility that is essential for today's software products. Next, this paper describes the current legal framework applicable to shrink-wrap licenses in USA(at Part III). Here it shows that in USA the development of case law governing shrink-wrap licenses occurred in two distinct stages. At first stage, judicial hostility toward shrink-wrap licenses marked such that they were not enforced pursuant to Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. At second stage, courts began to recognize the pervasiveness of shrink-wrap licenses, their indispensability to the rapidly expanding information technology industry, and the urgent need to enforce such licenses in order to maintain low prices for consumers of computer hardware or software, resulting in the recognition of shrink-wrap licenses. Finally, in view of the importance of UCITA, this paper examines how it will affect the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses(at Part IV). The drafters of UCITA, as well as the scholars and practitioners who have criticized it, agree that it validates shrink-wrap licenses, provided certain procedural protections are afforded to purchasers. These procedural protections include the licensee end-user must (i) manifest his assent to the shrink-wrap license, (ii) have an opportunity to review the shrink-wrap license, (iii) have a right to return the product without costs.