The tone of this reaction to 2B is, perhaps, a bit extreme? One excerpt from the press release:
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> forwarded the following:
>
> People "have no idea how dramatically the relationship to
> information is going to change if and when Article 2B passes," said
> Professor Peter Lyman, former head of the UC Berkeley library system,
> one of the most distinguished research libraries in the country. "In
> fact, I doubt if libraries will continue to exist in their present
> form."
Is that really true? If UCC2B were enacted in all 50 states tomorrow, would our relationship to information change *so* dramatically? I think this exalts the position of law a trifle -- as ill-conceived as UCC2B is, its effects will not be quite as dramatic as all that. Libraries may cease to exist in their present form, by the way, whether or not UCC2B passes.
Which is not to say that its not ill-conceived. The position attributed to mark Lemley is surely the wiser one.
> She cites Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, who
> called for a moratorium on Article 2B until affected parties can study
> the draft, understand its meaning, and suggest revisions. Article 2B,
> Lemley said, should reflect existing commercial practice and not
> untested new rules that could prove unworkable.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT