Sen Hatch Would Like To Destroy Filetraders' PCs 1372
CBackSlash writes "Sen. Hatch is interested in technology to remotely destroy computers. But it would only be used if you're downloading copyrighted material, and only the copyright owner should be able to wield this awesome power, since having the feds do it would be against the law. Here is the AP story from Yahoo!."
They know nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't understand (Score:2, Insightful)
This sounds like a great idea if..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The stupidity of our elected officials never ceases to amaze me.
Larger implications (Score:5, Insightful)
No excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is an excuse for vandalizing a PC?
What about due process? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vigilante justice is outlawed in every other form -- this is little more than authorizing digital lynch mobs.
Just > /dev/null (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would he do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Don't fool yourself and think it's only the republicans.
Children (Score:5, Insightful)
Destroying someone's PC as a punishment for copyright violations is like spanking them: artificially making it a bad thing.
Adults spank their children. Adults don't spank other adults. Corporations shouldn't be spanking anybody.
They might be out of touch with us... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Larger implications (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is about allowing powerful corporations to legally take vigilante action to protect their revenue streams. At the click of a button, without filling out any paperwork. This is, of course, far far worse.
The government can already cease your computer for years for 'analysis'. This is a de facto punishment for hacking imposed by law enforcement. Not good, but at least they have to drive out to your house and fill out some forms.
Re:They know nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you freak out (oops, too late)... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's well known in certain circles that Hatch is trying to pressure the IT companies into helping to solve the p2p piracy problem. I suspect he doesn't REALLY believe in damaging people's computers, he's just saying that to try and pressure the IT companies into getting something done. He is a song writer himself and is particularly interested in copyright issues but is frustrated with the lack of progress, thus his over zealous comments. He is a politician, after all, so statements like this are just part of his game. There is no way it will ever be legal to trash someoneâ(TM)s computer for a copyright violation since this would be like making it legal to trash someoneâ(TM)s house if they steal cable TV (not gonna happen).
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
When one of the various Higher Ups says "Copyright Holder", they don't meant you. They mean the multinationals that put out music and movies and such, and pump billions into the economy, and millions more into campaign funding. You can't be a Copyright Holder without 1) Some serious, hard core old fasioned Walt Disney-style gumption and lots of luck. or 2) Well-targeted strategic takeovers of the worlds media holdings or 3) Massive, massive campaign contributions. Sorry.
Sure, you can hold a copyright. You can write something, or create something, and have it copyrighted, but you won't be a vaunted Copyright Holder. The metaphorical Big Red Button in this case will be given to the RIAA, the MPAA, Disney, et al. Not to J. Random Hacker to use when Big Software Giant steals routines from gprogram-0.1. You could ask, of course, as a legitimate copyright holder, but unless you're a Copyright Holder, you can expect a reply of "Tough Titty, Vote Quimby!". Doubt even Red Hat would rate for that kind of authority. Unless they put out a hit single.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
You think it's okay for American corporations to disrupt activities of American citizens?
Okay, if it's illegal or a civil court issue, fine, take it to court. But since when is it okay for them to decide who's naughty and who's nice and take action themselves?
Oh, it's too expensive to sue everyone? Hmmm. maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe there's a reason "piracy" is so "rampant". Rather than changing the laws to allow themselves to attack without due process perhaps they should look at their business model and current technology and reconsider how they do business.
Re:You have to ask yourself: what's scarier? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Against the law... (Score:2, Insightful)
And of course since they destroy your computer how can you prove that you do not have their copyrighted material?
You are, in effect, considered guilty - you do not even have the change to prove yourself innocent!
Change the Copyright Law (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of destroying machines, address the problem: THE LAW.
It is simple. Record labels are loosing out because they are not needed (as they were in the past) to acquire music. If a service is no longer in demand, no law should defend that service that is no longer in need. It is stinking up our free market.
Richard Stallman [stallman.org] has a great idea. In my media player, I should be able to quickly and easily donate money directly to the artist. How many of you would set aside a dollar or two to give to the artists whom you really enjoy? That would probably be more than the artists make on royalties now anyway. It also gets rid of the unneeded middleman.
Just a thought...
It would backfire (Score:2, Insightful)
And it will.. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, may I suggest running VPC to download these things, and then just dragging the files out of the share folder? It's just that easy, and if they wail on yer comp, it was only a Virtual PC. No worries.
For any with a technical bent, this is no problem at all.
Lawsuit! (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA: "You had some of our copyrighted material."
Me: "I did not! Prove I had your stuff!"
RIAA: "No, you're the one suing me. You prove it."
Me: "I *CAN'T*! You destroyed my PC!"
RIAA: "A-ha!"
Write the Senator (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this type of technology... (Score:2, Insightful)
And once pandora's box is open...
false assocation (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hate it when polititians use such blatantly flawed logic. Of course violating copyright laws is wrong, but his suggestion has nothing to do with whether or not it is right share copyrighted material. With that logic I might be defending my decision to shoot the guy who cut me off this morning by saying "There's no excuse for dangerous lane changes." The illegality of an act is never sufficient justification for a particular response.
Time for Hatch to be remotely removed... (Score:5, Insightful)
He later seemed to flip positions, doing a number of things to help Napster out, and many slashdotters were singing his praises. I was more doubtful, but I bit my tongue, thinking that maybe he had changed. Obviously he has not; either that, or that second big contribution finally came through from the RIAA, so it's time to go to bat for them again.
Here's a great synopsis of what people seemed to generally think of him back in the Napster days: link [theregister.co.uk]
I think it's time for us (esp. in Utah) to make sure he doesn't get another term. Even viewed in the most favorable light, the guy is definitely a loose cannon. The big problem is, no one of any quality ever seems to run against him, and in this heavily Republican state, it's unlikely that a mediocre Democrat with no real platform can win.
Remember this moment at the next election, Utahns!
-- Dave
There are no larger implications. (Score:1, Insightful)
Secondly, did you know that conservatives, too, value the first amendment? Have you somehow gotten this country confused with, say Communist China? Maybe its time you did a comparision, read a little contemporary history, and get off the paranoia wagon and get back to reality.
Re:You have to ask yourself: what's scarier? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hatch lacks it beacuase he doesn't know that a patently stupid idea like destroying someone's computer before you knew if they were guilty or not is illegal, unconstitutional, and asking for trouble.
Clinton lacks it for more reasons than that he got caught... in the oval office... with an intern... lied about it... tried to redefine the word "IS"... etc...
Running a country is no small thing. We are trusting these guys to keep the most powerful country on Earth out of harms way. If they can't be trusted on the small things then they need to be thrown out! It doesn't matter their party affiliation or what policies they back. Lack of integrity can get us all killed.
'nuff said...
SCO nuked my machine! (Score:2, Insightful)
What if I email SCO part of the AIX kernel, and they open it.. does that give IBM the right to nuke their machine?
What if Osama Bin Laden writes a message on the internet, copyrights it, and explicitly states that nobody from the U.S. Government may read it. If the NSA downloads it, does that give Osama the right to zzzzap their computers?
What if I place an auction on eBay with a title that contains copywritten lyrics by Metallica, and pay for it to get on their front page? Does that give Metallica the right to take out all eBay user's boxes?
Whatever the legalities, I hope that when they implement this feature that the computers actually smoke when they get fried. If they're going to destroy one's property, they'd better at least make it entertaining.
Anything that has me agreeing with the Democrats.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I couldn't agreee more with Sen. Leahy's comment:
"We need to work together to find the right answers, and this is not one of them."
The idea of any manufacturer designing their product such that it could be destroyed by some remote user is abusrd. We're not talking about the self-destruct mechanism on the USS Enterprise here... we're talking about some user on the Internet "destroying" your computer.
I can see it now... someone dumps a worm onto the internet and within a few hours, thousands of computers are destroyed. In general, if you expose a feature that an authorized user can access, someone, somewhere is going to figure out how to access it without authorization.
Copyright laws should be enforced -- at least to some extent. However, I think that unless someone is profiting from the unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted material, no one really gets hurt. Yes, the big record companies may lose a few sales. However, in my experience, people end up buying albums after hearing a few "pirated" singles, since usually the whole album is not available for download.
Keep big brother out of my living room, bedroom, and my computer, thank you very much.
beat him with his constituency (Score:2, Insightful)
The real conflict (Score:5, Insightful)
If copyright cannot coexist with freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and due process of law, it is time for copyright to go.
Put it that way to the content industry, and maybe they'll have a strong incentive to think of a workable and non-subversive way to run their businesses.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:2, Insightful)
Download copyrighted material -> System realises -> Locks entirely while it belts seven bells of hell out of your hard drive rendering is useless.
Just one possible scenario (won't give them anymore ideas:))
I wonder... (Score:1, Insightful)
I wonder what his views are on corporal punishment? I'm sure this guy would love to institute caning as well...
Re:They might be out of touch with us... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a nice thought anyway. (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Install Firewall
Haven't you been paying attention? The RIAA and MPAA wouldn't mind making THOSE illegal as well.
Re:They might be out of touch with us... (Score:5, Insightful)
All in favor for Sen. Hatch execution raise hand. (Score:2, Insightful)
Makes me think of the jokes in the Robocop movies where car thieves are executed right on the spot by electrical discharge. That wasn't serious at all you know, and it was directly aimed to laugh at people like Sen. Hatch, who obviously are sponsoring the concept of the police state for the ole mighty $.
This guy ( Sen. Hatch ) is the perfect example of a real DUMB ASS AMERICAN WITH A TIN CAN FOR A BRAIN! Please, next election, vote for the sane people. Anyways with the economy totally drowning because of those idiots on capital hill, i don't think the next elections are going to worry the world very much. ( The author does think that some americans are civilized, well educated and capable of working in a equal and free society. )
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious...How large a drive do you have in your system?
Personally, I would have to restore over 60 gigs of data if my system got wiped...And yes, I could get it all back, but think of the time investment- not everybody runs semi-bare-bones Linux boxes that can made new in an hour or two, ya know.
Unless you consider an "average
Again by my personal example....I would have to copy over the contents of at least 60 full 700 MB backup CDs, reinstall XP Pro, run Windows Update, reinstall all my other programs from source CDs, hunt Kaaza and websites for stuff that I don't have discs for anymore, hunt down registration codes for installations I could re-download, and restore+update an 8 gig Linux partition with at least a year's worth of tweaks.
In any case, "destroying" someone's machine like Sen. Hatch suggests is always wrong...I don't care if there's 60 gigs or 6 megs there.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, somehow, in the last few years, everyone's gone crazy. Now we've got criminal penalties for copyright infringement (why? what so dramatically changed in the last few years? Napster?), the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and now Sen. Hatch's ludicrous remedies.
Where does it all end? When are we as a block of voters, of consumers, going to boycott these laws? Let's vote the congressmen out of office, and vote with our wallets against those corporations who would and have lobbied for their ever-expanding rights at the expense of the average citizen?
What a minute! Why are corporations even allowed to make campaign contributions in the first place?! They can't vote!
We all bear some responsibility for this. The politicans know we're complacent, and that we've got terrible long-term memories. They can pass some draconian legislation a year before the election, and we'll put them right back in office to continue pillaging for corporate America.
The very nature of politicians in America is to pass more laws. So by definition, each and every year, YOU have fewer and fewer rights. Maybe they should have to retire two laws for each one they pass.
These are YOUR rights they are taking away. Don't just sit there
My thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
Why protect a dead industry ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why protect a dead industry if the cost of protecting that industry is more than its worth?
File Sharing has been good for the economy, people buy broadband, people buy bigger harddrives, newer computers, better headphones and speaker, a new soundcard, a CD burner, a DVD burner, a portable MP3 player.
These are all of the things I've purchased with MY money, these things equal more than what I would have spent if I were to just buy 10 CDs or something.
So why do they want to destroy the whole PC industry to save the music industry? It doesnt make sense to me when most of Sonys sales, most of AOLs sales, come from the so called pirates. Those same pirates are the ones who pay AOL to connect to these file sharing apps.
But nooo, AOL has to be greedy and try to make you pay to connect to the net, buy their DVD burner, CD burner, and pay for the content.
Well imagine how successful ISPs would be if we had to pay for every website, $1 a site, how many people would surf the web for $1 a site? I wouldnt. Would you?
Why ruin the whole PC industry to save one business when theres 20-30 other businesses which benefit from piracy?
This isnt about economics, this isnt political, this is a power move, Disney has more power than Intel, Time Warner has more power than AOL, Sony's Movies Division has more power than Sonys electronics division.
What these dumb companies cant understand is, that their electronics divisions wont exist if they end piracy.
People wont bother buying a CD burner, at least not in these numbers, People wont buy VCRs, DVD burners, new soundcards for their PC, and all these little blank CDs.
Next time the RIAA complains about how many billions of dollars they lose on piracy, perhaps they should mention all of the billions they gain in terms of blank CDs, CD burners, DVD burners, and broadband internet access.
This industry could be huge, or a few greedy people can destroy it.
Mr. Sketch, what is your opinion? DO you think the Broadband/PC/Electronics industry will be bigger, or will the Media/Music/Content industry be bigger?
Right of Recall (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a Fourth Amendment Issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Government must not seize or destroy private property without that property's owner being granted due process. And I surely do not consent to a private industry lobbying group (the RIAA) taking the place of The Government, and trouncing that right, either.
If you have done so, please do not continue to advocate the destruction of private property, even under The Best Intentions(tm), or "boosting commerce". If you want to advocate the seizure or destruction of personal assets under ANY circumstances, please only consider doing so after granting the intended victim their constitutionally-guaranteed right of due process.
Typical Republican move (Score:5, Insightful)
One's PC typically contains loads of personal information, documents, photos, etc. And are we to believe that law-enforcement never makes mistakes and that the only machines destroyed would be only those belonging to those whose activities warranted it? There are so many problems with this approach (i.e., what if one user on a multi-user computer is doing it--everyone on the machine must pay the price) that Hatch only shows how out-of-touch and ill-educated about modern computers he really is.
And once again, he makes himself a fine example of why Republicans are lying through their teeth when they spout platitudes about taming government intrusiveness and power.
There's only one way to combat this: (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, just quit the Republican Party, and sent the good Senator a nice message telling him why. I would STRONGLY urge all of you to do the same. Here's a nice little template to follow:
Dear Senator Hatch,
I'm writing to you after reading an Associated Press news article in which you stated your support to destroy the computers of those who infringe on copyrights.
"If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize..." you were quoted as saying.
While I do agree with you that folks downloading entire catalogs of music en masse from the internet are basically thieves, I think this is quite the extreme and wrong stance, especially given the sad state of copyright law that now exists.
It's pretty clear today that copyright now favors large entertainment companies instead of any kind of scientific and social progress as the founders had intended, with copyright terms now exceeding most people's life expectancies (what good is the public domain when the public that could benefit from it no longer exists.) and when laws like the DMCA makes it a crime to copy something for FAIR USE if it happens to be encrypted in the first place. It's also pretty clear that Congress now favors the entertainment companies rather than the people that elected them, when they're willing to advocate or condone a "solution" that would destroy the private property of their constituents, without so much even lip service paid to due process.
Well, if you're willing to be so extreme, Senator, so am I. I just quit the Republican Party. While I'm not from your state, and Pennsylvania is far from a Republican stronghold, I intend to encourage others to do the same.
Maybe a few hundred thousand of us, and you'll realize something.
Sincerely,
Ed R. Zahurak
TERRORIST! (Score:3, Insightful)
To be frank, this terrorist piece of shit should be put away for a long time, and any music industry cronies who decide to follow his words should be given the exact same sentence.
Re:They might be out of touch with us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Enron gave to Democrats at 1/3 the rate they gave to Republicans, and a sizable fraction of the Democrat take was as the scandal broke to either gain some bipartisan stooges or to smear both parties equally - as you have done.
It is simply incorrect to say that Enron is/was anything but a Republican outfit. They underwrote the Dauphin's career from way back.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, there will be countermeasures by virus writers.
Imagine if the system Hatch proposed (at least, I think it was him at that point in the story) is implemented: two warnings, and your system is destroyed.
Now imagine a virus. If the capability is written into the hardware, all it has to do is trigger it locally. If the capability is somehow, magically, out there in RIAAland, all the virus has to do is download offending material and suppress the warnings.
The virus writer is nowhere to be seen, so the consumer's wrath is going to fall on the folks who put the weapon into the virus writer's hands.
Hmm.
Maybe slashdotters should *back* Hatch in this.
Morality? (Score:2, Insightful)
Intellectual property rights are not "moral [reference.com] questions," but issues of policy [reference.com]. Though Hatch and his ilk are always claiming the so-called "moral" high ground, all he really is is a politician. The decisions we make about how far to extend IP rights and remedies is political (and, I suppose, economic), and has nothing to do with morality.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this happened,a lot of corporate and educational machines would be destroyed, and in terms of damage to the WORLD economy would be immeasurable(but in RIAA dollars, it would probably be in the range of a quadrillion dollars). Considering the pitifully minor nature of the crime he's suggesting he wants fought, I'd ppull the trigger myself for such an act of economic terrorism as well as cyber terrorism.
I think someone should "liberate" his home state from his tyrannical reign.
Re:beat him with his constituency (Score:5, Insightful)
Because too many votors vote single issue: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
Lower Taxes vs. Increase/Improved Government Services
Gun Control vs. Gun Regulation
Labor vs. Management
etc.
Many people consistantly vote based on one or two issues. This creates an environment where all a candidate needs to do to get elected is aggree with the majority of votors on a couple of key issues.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
The law passes. Bob, the filetrader, afraid to trade at home, sets up kazaa on his work machine. Bob happens to work at a hospital.
Hatch's copyright Nazi's see Bob's traffic, find Bob's IP. Bob's MAC address isn't making it past the router, so they latch onto the gateway's MAC address as the address of the illegally trading machine. They then attack the computer, presumably using some super-secret technology long under development by the RIAA. The attack is successful, they wipe out the gateway, scorch it down to bare metal.
In a hospital. That fits every defnition of cyber terrorism ever written.
How about this: I'm a big time file trader, and I have that thing that they call "computer knowledge". So I spend my time surfing the IP blocks given to ISP's, finding computers that are always on, and spoofing their IP addresses. When the attack comes down the line, WHAM, someone's grandma's home computer gets stomped.
Really, when it comes down to it, all that is pointless. Unless they are going to DOS you, they'll have to try and stick you with some sort of virus. All that will do is give Norton and McAfee a boost in business.
Just my opinion.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:2, Insightful)
60 gig is worth backing up though, isn't it?
To answer your question, I've got 1 machine (primary) 30 gig, 1 machine (secondary 40 gig), 2 laptops 4 & 20 gig. All backed up. Downloaded programs: all backed up (with reg codes in
Bad habits are hard to break but good habits are hard to beat.
Copyright owners: Take the law into your own hands (Score:3, Insightful)
The more I think about it, I can't possibly think of anything more un-american. What happened to due process?
-S
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:1, Insightful)
Money. Lots and lots of dirty corporate money.
Re:They might be out of touch with us... (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont know what to say to my American Neighbours about these issues anymore... things are NOT getting better in the USA, and it doesnt look like any solution is on the horizon. You yanks keep electing Republicrats.. and nothing else. Your system is BEYOND corrupt, the payola is literally destroying your government by making your representatives biatches to thier Plutocratic buddies.
Im very certain things are going to get alot worse before they get better -- not only for Americans, but for the rest of the world, because, like it or not, you guys have a unequaled Military... you spend $400Billion a year, The Rest of NATO spends $160Billion combined and Russia, the 2nd largest independant spender comes in at $60Billion.
Im watching the US miltiary might, coupled with an Arrogant Ignorant and Disinformed Populace and Im waiting for you Yanks to start WWIII.
Re:Why would he do that? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, you would think based on their philosephies, the republicans would be the ones passing these kind of laws; but to see the reality, look at where the money is at.
Here is what I wrote to Senator Hatch... (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you were not aware, there are already laws against copyright infringement and penalties in place for the violation of said laws. Your remarks during a hearing on copyright abuses are downright frightening. What you are suggesting is a complete disregard for due process. Why not just enforce the existing laws?
You said, "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines." If someone has been prosecuted for copyright violation thorugh the due process of law, then there is no need to remotely destroy computers. The only reason anyone would need to invoke such technology would be if due process of law were being ignored.
The Founding Fathers would find you a disgrace to their vision of American government. When you became a Senator, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I believe that you are in material breach of that oath, particularly the 5th Ammendment.
Regards,
Re:Why would he do that? (Score:2, Insightful)
Then consider that pretty much everyone else in Hollywood NOT on your dozen list is Democrat...
Just because Ronald Reagan and Arnold do/did so much better than your average Hollywood trash doesn't mean they are typical of the bunch. Anyone that thinks that Hollywood is pro-Republican or leans to the right needs a serious reality check. Really.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is hardly the way to win the hearts and minds of strangers. Any reasoned arguments you make later on in your letter are rendered useless thanks to the fact that you littered them with insults. Regardless of how much of a moron/corporate stooge/greedy bastard any of our public representatives might be, nobody to be called a moron, and in most cases insulting people does nothing but anger them and cause them to ignore anything else you say.
If you really want Senator Hatch (or whoever) to change the way they think about an issue, your best bet is to present a well-reasoned argument that gradually sways their opinion. If, however, you just want to vent, well I'd recommend just doing that on
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Senator Hatch,
I am writing in response to your comments today in support of allowing large corporations to destroy the property of individuals based on suspicion of trading in copyrighted works with any judicial oversight or review. I feel the need to remind you that we still have a justice system in this country that is already in place to handle infringement cases after proof is given. This justice system has even been slanted to give more power to companies and individuals based on the amount of money they can bring to the effort. I don't think allowing huge corporations to bypass even the decidedly un-level playing field of the court system is in the best interests of the people of the State of Utah or the United States of America. This would be akin to allowing Best Buy or Sears to imprison suspected shoplifters without trial or recourse. This cannot have been your intention.
Admittedly, I trust the media even less than I do large corporations so I am looking forward to a statement correcting your stance being available in the future.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Because that "dead industry" makes a lot of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting you should use Sony as an example. In their last fiscal year [bayarea.com] they had some interesting results...
Profits of about $1billion (yes, that's a 'b') on sales of about $62billion, total. Which looks a lot more interesting when you break it down by division...
Sony Pictures showed operating income of $492million on sales of $6billion.
Sony Music showed an operating loss of $73million on sales of $5billion.
Sony Videogames showed an operating income of $942million on sales of $8billion.
Sony Electronics showed an operating income of $345million on sales of $41billion.
Sony is doing everything they can to stop IP piracy to protect their movie and entertainment divisions, because that's the best way they have to make money. They have to work a *lot* harder in their electronics division (8 times the sales) to make 2/3 the operating income of the movie division. 5 times more sales in electronics than in videogames, and they made 1/3 the income.
The profit margins in consumer electronics suck. The profit margins in movies/entertainment are great. They are making a conscious rational decision about how best to protect their profits.
Sales don't matter. Income and profits matter.
Re:Why would he do that? (Score:2, Insightful)
Against slashdot protocol, I actually went and read the article and found this interesting nugget:
To me, that short phrase from the article just explained a whole lot about Senator Hatch.
Re:Campaign contributors (Score:5, Insightful)
To each member of the judicary I wrote: (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Congress shall have the power.... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
There is a critical point here, carefully obfuscated by the RIAA and it's minions - there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property."
There is a concept in law called a "Natural Right," and it is generally accepted that people have a natural right to propriety. But as Jefferson was explicitly clear on, there is no natural right to "own" an idea:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea..."
Copyright does not protect property, it is not about protecting property; it is about promoting science and the useful arts. Copyright is not a property right; it is a temporary monopoly. Violating copyright is not theft, it is not piracy; it is guerilla anti-trust.
This distinction is quite clear in the constitutional grant of exclusive right, that such grant would not be obviously self-justified as it would be for property, but that such right is justified only in as much as it fulfills the noble social good of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts."
Larry Lessig's recent supreme court challenge to the CTEA hinged on the second phrase's "limited time." He argued unsuccessfully that the extensions provided by CTEA violated the phrase by establishing essentially perpetual copyright. The court asked if 120 years was not a finite time, and turned the claim down.
It would seem that a more powerful case would be made by asking if the CTEA, DMCA, NET, etc. fulfill the constitutionally required purpose: "to promote science and the useful arts."
Today fear of over-broad laws wielded by greedy institutions has a broad chilling effect on innovation: science and the useful arts. If found thus by the court, such laws would be unconstitutional.
Thomas Jefferson was quite clear on his views of copyright and these views are enshrined in the 8th clause. It is a grant of an "embarrassing monopoly" and not a right; explicitly the fugitive fermentations of a mind cannot be owned.
Senator Hatch needs to hear and understand his words:
"It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessen
Re:Why would he do that? (Score:1, Insightful)
But if anyone actually followed this, they would remember that Clinton knew there were serious flaws in the bill and would be struck down in the courts, leaving the pieces that were meant to actually protect people in place.
He publicly stated this as his only reason he decided to sign the flawed legislation.
And not having a line item veto, it was the only way to get the bill through with the pieces that were needed. (And with the recent court rulings on this bill, most of the crap is getting thrown out all the time.)
The Republicans were the direct authors of the pieces of this bill that everyone thinks is absurd. It was their opportunity to add their crap in that everyone here seems to disagree with so adamantly.
I shall reference everyone to a few web searches for the actual items in the DMCA wording, as well as the court rulings regarding it, including Clinton and other democratâ(TM)s statements regarding the pieces that would be thrown out in court.
babelfish translation (Score:3, Insightful)
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely incinerate the automobiles of people who illegally exceed the speed limit.
The surprise remarks by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, during a hearing on transportation laws represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against highway scofflaws.
During a discussion on methods to frustrate car owners who illegally exceed the speed limit, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to ignite cars involved in such speeding.
Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal arson laws.
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's car," replied Randy Saaf of MphDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to disrupt automotive traffic. One technique involves deliberately driving very slowly so other users can't go faster.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said incinerating someone's car "may be the only way you can teach somebody about speed limits."
The senator, a driver who logged 18,000 miles last year, acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for speed limit enforcers from liability for damaging cars. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal behavior, "then incinerate their car."
"If we can find some way to do this without incinerating their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for incinerating their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions, he said. "There's no excuse for anyone violating speed limits," Hatch said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's senior Democrat, later said the problem is serious but called Hatch's idea too drastic a remedy to be considered. "Traffic laws need to be followed, but some Draconian remedies that have been suggested would create more problems than they would solve," Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement. "We need to work together to find the right answers, and this is not one of them."
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., who has been active in transportation debates in Washington, urged Hatch to reconsider. Boucher described Hatch's role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee as "a very important position, so when Senator Hatch indicates his views with regard to a particular subject, we all take those views very seriously."
A spokesman for the Department of Transportation, Jonathan Lamy, said Hatch was "apparently making a metaphorical point that if transportation departments don't take reasonable steps to prevent massive speeding on the roads they build, Congress may be forced to consider stronger measures." The Department of Transportation funds major highway projects.
Some legal experts suggested Hatch's provocative remarks were more likely intended to compel technology and highway executives to work faster toward ways to enforce traffic laws than to signal forthcoming legislation.
"It's just the frustration of those who are looking at enforcing laws that are proving very hard to enforce," said Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department (news - web sites) moving violations prosecutor and associate professor at George Washington University law school. The transportation industry has gradually escalated its fight against speeders, targeting the most egregious scofflaws with civil lawsuits. The Department of Transportation recently won a federal court decision making it significantly easier to identify and track drivers - even those hiding behind aliases - using popular sportscars.
Kerr predicted it was "extremely unlikely" for Congress to approve an arson exemption for copyright owners, partly because of risks of collateral damage when innocent passengers might be wrongly targeted. "It wouldn't work," Kerr said. "There's no way of limiting the damage."
Re:Campaign contributors (Score:2, Insightful)
Even they aren't that stupid.
Why are you all upset.? THINK about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
So my copyrighted material may have the same file name as a popular song. But my material is me reasing a poem I wrote, and it is in MP3 format. If anyone from the RIAA attempts to download this song, I am legally entitled to destroy their computer for infringing on my copyright.
So go ahead, fuckwits, I triple-dog-dare you to pass a law that makes activities like this legal.
Bitching about the old guard... (Score:2, Insightful)
You know why this happens (along with prescription drugs w/o means-testing that the young workers will have to pay for)? 18-30 year old people typically _don't vote_ in the US. The old technofogies running the place will stand up and listen if you vote some of them out of office for this shit. Get informed and please vote in the next election.
Really Amusing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Best Man: "Yeah, Bob is a an asshole and I hope that bitch broad gives him one hell of a life. . "
Good Friend: "I think that the best man has had a little too good of a time and what he means is. . "
Best Man: "Screw you, I said he was an asshole and I mean it!"
Read below:
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer,". .
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
Hatch was "apparently making a metaphorical point that if peer-to-peer networks don't take reasonable steps to prevent massive copyright infringement on the systems they create, Congress may be forced to consider stronger measures."
Hatch said. ". . . I'm all for destroying their machines. . . "
" Some legal experts suggested Hatch's provocative remarks were more likely intended to compel technology and music executives to work faster toward ways to protect copyrights online than to signal forthcoming legislation. "
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
Boucher described Hatch's role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee as "a very important position, so when Senator Hatch indicates his views with regard to a particular subject, we all take those views very seriously."
As a side note, what about bullets, descramblers and cables companies. .
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, as if the mobo manufacturers in China would all follow this suicide box standard -- they'd build them for export to the US, but no one else on the planet would want them.
Re:There's only one way to combat this: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, I'll send out some more letters soon. And I do, seriously encourage all of you to do the same. The technically-inclined average joe needs an equivalent of the NRA. A single-issue, extremely focused block of voters who can tell these guys, "we don't give a fuck what you think about abortion, or SUV's, or welfare, vote OUR way on technology, copyright and intellectual property, or we don't vote YOUR way."
(My apologies to Andrew Vachss for paraphrasing his philosophy here, but he's right.)
Backwords (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:4, Insightful)
I just read a report on Yahoo! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a
(And yes [mp3.com], I am a musician and copyright holder)
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Contact your Senator (Score:2, Insightful)
Click here to find your senators [senate.gov]
Here's what I mailed my senators:
Dear Sir,
Senator Orrin G. Hatch made statements about destroying computers belonging to suspected online file traders.
He said "Damaging someone's computer may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
He acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, then destroy their computer.
I feel that he needs to be reminded of the fact that we already have a system in place to handle issues like this. It's our justice system, and in our justice system, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We can't have copyright owners destroying computers because they think their work may have been illegally obtained.
I just wanted to make sure you are aware of Senator Hatch's remarks and let you know that I am not in support of anything that would give copyright owners more power than our justice system.
Respectfully,
What a coincidence (Score:2, Insightful)
HR-1952
Drafted Tuesday, June 17th, 2003.
Revision I
Sponsored by Rep. Proc K. Core I-AZ
We propose that the Senator known as Orrin Hatch shall here-by be known as "Senator FuckNut", active immediately.
It hasn't passed the house yet, but we have every confidence in it.
Re:Here is what I wrote to Senator Hatch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sir-
I read today that you are propounding the idea that "copyright owners" should be given legal permission to destroy private property, without going through the Courts and following due process. I'm no United States Senator, but my understanding of the Constitution is that "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Granted, that's only the seventh amendment to the Constitution, not one of the more famous ones like the fifth (which states you cannot be deprived of property without due process) or the fourteenth (which states that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States).
Again, I'm no US Senator, but it sure seems to me that your position is about as unconstitutional as they come. I respectfully submit you should rethink your position, Senator Hatch.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Re:A good Mormon responds (Score:3, Insightful)
You're throwing around other peoples beliefs without the context to make them sound silly and extreme and it really only shows your own close-mindedness and prejudice.
Tell Hatch to go for it (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens when they wipe out computers belonging to traders at the New York Stock Exchange? Investment bankers? White House? Congress itself? Department of Defense? *AA major label computers? The WETA renderfarm? What makes anyone think that the damage will be limited to the USA?
Everybody who voted to legalize black-hat bullshit is going to be in seriously deep shit. Guess who they are going to try to unload the blame on? Guess what the Congressional hearings investigating the *AA members and the *AAs themselves will look like?
No matter how good immunity provisions are protecting *AA and its scr1pt k1dd13z, the best legal minds in America will be working 24/7 to figure out how to bypass the provisions to make it possible to file both civil suits and criminal charges against corporations and individually against corporate officers... and these corporate officers won't be going to country-club prisons. They're going into cells along with people named "Bubba". Perhaps they can be found in violation of RICO and the Patriot Act. While the PATRIOT Act is an abomination, something tells me that if the *AA label CEOs suddenly find themselves in Guantanamo Bay, even their own attorneys won't be lifting a finger to defend them. If they have any sense, they'll be looking for places they can't be legally extradited from.
A recent estimate says that there are 43,000,000 file traders. Even if they miraculously only limit the damage to the "guilty", some of those machines are going to be critical to somebody bigger than the *AA organizations, their member labels, or their owners.
So they ratfuck only 10,000,000 computers, some "innocent", some loaded with MP3s ripped by the legal owners of the CDs, some with MP3s of non-*AA content? The aggregate value of the data is going to be far above the current net worth of the labels combined. I don't actually expect damage to be this bad, I think any netblock RIAA black hats work out of will be disconnected by their upstream providers *quickly*.
It's time for the major players in the *AA organizations to go down.
They want to commit suicide? Encourage them..
And look to your firewalls and IDS.
Re:To each member of the judicary I wrote: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:*AA filesharing network. (Score:3, Insightful)
To them music isn't art, it's a product that they can own and profit from.
Musicians make money by playing gigs, not by selling records. Recording contracts are written such that all expenses of production, manufacturing, distribution and advertising a CD are paid out of the musician's share, usually leaving zero. What the musician gets from CD sales is exposure, which translates to gigs. Musicians know this, but most of them aren't convinced yet that they can make it big without a recording contract. Very few superstars have taken strong stands against file sharing. A few who are smart enough at business (Madonna) to get a bigger percentage and actually make money from record sales, and a few idiots (Metallica).
If you are interested in a long-time singer's in-depth details of working with record companies, read some of Janis Ian's excellent writings [janisian.com] on the subject.
Re:Why protect a dead industry ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats just it, people arrent paying a premium for it anymore, the market is finally balancing itself out.
This is a good thing. Its how capitalism works.
Things will change as people stop supporting the monopoly.
A lot of /. huffing and puffing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) a comment that carries no significant political/voting booth cost from his base constituency of Utahns, but
2) serves to give the national debate a swift kick to one side. The reactions to such a goofy extreme comment will immediately draw more attention to the issue than one could buy, and (very subtly) draw all sides to quicker DRM "solutions" (because by defining the crazy as a "possibility," the borders have been redrawn).
Hatch is full of it in many ways but isn't stupid. This is a calculated, no-cost public statement (he's a pro at it, the average /.er is not) that he doesn't intend to pursue. Not to be cynical, but it's certainly nothing to get apoplectic about. Write your representatives about the DMCA instead.
Fuck the moral implications of killing due process (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:2, Insightful)
He's trying to tell me that I should have my computer melted into a pile of liquid silicon because I decided to grab an MP3 of a song I already own instead of burning it, for my convenience? That's like saying my television should be broken if I watch the news because I'm simply getting the stories from someone else instead of going out and getting them myself. The difference being information is free of course, but both scenarios are ludicrous and unjustifiable.
Dont they get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. If it is LEGAL to hack into and destroy a computer with non-licensed materials think about the Hackers who will write a song, copy it to a target computer, then destroy said computer LEGALLY.
3. Congress has no place dictating technology policy to the world. Let the civil courts decide who has been hurt, how badly, and decide the remedy. Copyrights infringement is not a criminal act, or at least it shouldnt be. If it is costing someone money, they can sue for damages. More laws != More gooder...
Re:Campaign contributors (Score:3, Insightful)
And the biggest worry in Scrushy's mind right now is whether he will be able to keep his yachts, mansions, helicopters, and jets. His ass needs to be in a prison, being anally raped by Martha Stewart with a strap-on.
Re:To each member of the judicary I wrote: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly, which is why I increasingly prefer to use the term GGTM (Government-Granted Temporary Monopoly) over the deceptive term "Intellectual Property".