[This letter from MPAA appears to reference ("and other allied associations") the same 5 other organizations which signed the letter of 10.Sep.1998 and the subsequent letter of 07.Dec.1998: (1) Magazine Publishers of America, (2) National Association of Broadcasters, (3) National Cable Television Association, (4) Newspaper Association of America, (5) Recording Industry Association of America.]

November 9, 1998

Carlyle C. Ring, Jr.
Chair, UCC 2B Drafting Committee
Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver
1401 H Street NW - Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Connie:

I am writing on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA), our member companies^* and other allied associations^** in response to your request that we review the three scope proposals that are contained in your October 15, 1998 memorandum to the Article 2B Drafting Committee and Observers.

While we appreciate the efforts to scale back the scope of the proposed statute, it is our continuing collective belief that proposed Article 2B is fatally flawed precisely because it attempts to govern all transactions in "information" with some ambiguous exceptions, rather than only those transactions, or aspects of same, that may require new legal intervention.

We are convinced that exemptions cannot be drafted with enough precision to prevent the unintended application of Article 2B provisions to a multitude of transactions in our industries either directly or by analogy. In that regard, the attempt to resolve our problems by eliminating the traditional product lines of our industries from the scope of the article is unworkable. Indeed many of our fundamental concerns about the scope and substance of proposed Article 2B arise from the changing nature and means of delivery of the various types of information products that our companies create and distribute. Further, we believe that it is unrealistic, unsound and probably unprecedented for a statute of this nature to purport to actually prohibit courts from applying legal rules by analogy--especially in connection with the novel issues that will inevitably arise in the rapidly developing environment for which Article 2B is being designed.

Thus, notwithstanding the proposed exclusions, proposed Article 2B, which was modeled after Article 2, remains overly broad and would require unwilling, affected parties to make significant changes in well-established business practices that have proved successful for decades.

Finally, we continue to believe that, besides the scope issue, Article 2B is fraught with so many problems--including those potentially affecting basic principles and practice of intellectual property and contract law--that it has failed and will continue to fail to achieve anything approaching the necessary consensus of affected business and consumer groups. We continue to urge that the UCC-2B project be tabled for further study.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns and recommendations.

Sincerely,

Vans Stevenson
Senior Vice President
State Legislation

UCITA Pages On
James S. Huggins' Refrigerator Door

This page created:
before
Fri, 25.Oct.2002

Last updated:
18:35, Sun, 17.May.2009