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!."
Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Funny)
This is ridiculous. Wilful destruction of property is AGAINST THE LAW! Let's look at this another way. He's effectively saying that if you download copyrighted material, someone can be sent by the company that owns it to break both your legs.
Given the sheer number of fakes on P2P software, you could download something claiming to be the new Metallica album, and find it to be an MP3 of someone saying "YOU DOPEY FUCK" a million times. But as far as the record company is concerned, "Oh, he downloaded Metallica's album, nuke him!" and you're left with a pile of smouldering rubble.
Hatch is a cunt.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus, one would HOPE you get a warning before they nuke your system.
Wonder if Dell is behind this plan?;)
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:5, Funny)
Answer to #2: It's called "collateral damage", and simply underscores why we need to eradicate all such terrorists [see Answer 1].
Answer to #3: No, if RIAA destruction is authorized by law, then Norton and McAfee would be in violation of the DMCA. So, sorry, you'll have to get rid of your antivirus software. That's just one of the costs of the war against copying-terror.
Also, in response to a parent post question, no, IMHO this isn't Dell, this is the RIAA. But wouldn't it be neat if it was? Dude, you're getting Delled!
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:5, Funny)
Brings to mind a quote from about 1989 when a generalissimo of Borland (if my memory serves me correctly, 14 years is a long time) said:
"The only thing you can do to stop someone pirating your software is to go round to his house and kill him."
When asked if that wasn't a little extreme, he said "Well, maim him anyway." :-)
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Funny)
Better yet, I've got an old IBM Pentium 166! How about I make that the filesharing appliance? Nuke away boys! It'll be up and running again in an hour or so...meanwhile I've got copies of everything on my regular system.
Also I'm in Canada. Where does that asshole get off thinking that he has any right telling me what I can and can't have on any of my computers? He better not venture online, because there are lots of people out there that will have lots of nasty things with his name on them.
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:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a question for the Senator from Utah. Under the recently passed Patriot Act distruction of a computer system is considered an act of terrorism. Does the senators recent comments mean he is now supporting act of terrorism?
I think it's about time... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a direct link to his feedback/email page: Contact Form [senate.gov]
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: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,
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Mr. Hatch.
It came to my attention your plan to remotely destroy computers with illegal copyrighted files.
What a splendid idea ! But I think you should aim further. Why not make the computer ignite a reasonable amount of tetryl, thus exploding and killing the offender ? That'd teach them.
I have another idea, but it's too drastic, and too much of a painful torture. Anyway, here it is: A built-in speaker could start playing the songs you wrote in an endless loop. The only problem is that it would be considered torture or terrorism .
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:To each member of the judicary I wrote: (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Why would he do that? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, I see why now. Perhaps he received some donations from other upset copyright holders [sco.com].
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.
Re:Why would he do that? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Hatch has finally lost it (Score:5, Interesting)
things over the years, but this has to top the list.
I've been a supporter of Hatch for several years, even helping
with the election effort on several occasions. This takes the
cake though, it's time to get fresher blood into that office.
If you want to call his office and complain (as I will):
DC Office: 202.224.5251
SLC Office: 801.524.4380
here is his website:
http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/
Please call and voice your extreme antagonism to these types of
statements. Although the other Senators called him down, he
needs to know that we hear these statements and are against them
in the extreme.
I just got off the phone with the Salt Lake Office, and they had
no idea he had made statements of this nature. In fact she was
quite taken back to hear of them. Please call and let them know
how you feel about this. If they know their voters are against
this type of behavior, they will change it.
Campaign contributors (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Campaign contributors (Score:5, Informative)
1. HealthSouth Corp $38,255
As in this [usdoj.gov] Healthsouth?
I guess piracy, although applicable to a 13 year old kid who downloads a Metallica song, is not applicable to the likes of Ken Lay and Richard Scrushy. I would suggest that if the Senator is truly concerned about fighting crime, he start by returning the money bilked from Healthsouth investors.
Re:Campaign contributors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HATCH and the DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
He was co author of the DMCA, and also responsible [eagleforum.org] for the Copyright Term Extension Act, or CTEA.
He also was responsible for a bill that would have extended the term of the patent for Claritin, as he use Schering-Plough's corporate jet when he was running for president.
He is also a backer of the patriot act, legislation [fcw.com] that made it easier for the FBI to use Carnivore, and other [slashdot.org] legislation that erodes our civil rights. I could go on and on.
He doesn't even bother talking out of both sides of his mouth. He knows that when election time comes the sheeple will vote for him like they do everytime because he belongs "to the right party" (republican). I live in Utah and it makes me sick watching it. Republican leaders in the state legislature have said "you can't be a mormon and vote democrat." So nobody does, and Republicans hold 95% of major public offices in Utah.
Out of all of congress, he is the one most responsible for the infinite and perpetual copyrights we have today.
The greatest thing that could be done to advance our civil and online rights is to get Senator Hatch out of office.
They know nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They know nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
If this idea becomes a reality, then that skript kiddie was just a visionary! Imagine the aftermath of an Internet worm that sent the 'copyright self destruct' message to a computer a week or so after infecting it (hopefully infected many other computers in the interm). It would make CodeRed look like a pleasant dream.
Re:They know nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Next.... (Score:5, Funny)
watch out! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:watch out! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:watch out! (Score:5, Funny)
If someone put a Celine Dion song on my computer, I would pay to get someone blow it up.
Finally, something less reasonable... (Score:5, Funny)
Here was my posting of the story: (Score:5, Informative)
Just thought people might appreciate other links and such...guess I should've submitted it a couple minutes earlier....oh well
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
What's up w/ the Hatches? (Score:5, Informative)
Will someone please investigation campaign contributions made to Orrin? I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Microsoft has made significant contributions to Mr. Hatch's past campaigns.
Re:What's up w/ the Hatches? (Score:3, Informative)
Walt Disney donated $17,000 alone (the corporation, not the man). Interestingly enough, Hatch received $20,500 fron Novell, but I don't see any from SCO.
Just some food for thought.
Brent O. Hatch is named here: (Score:4, Informative)
On the subject of loose cannon Senators, the Senator from Disney, Ernest Hollings, got quite a severe mocking today from Rush Limbaugh. Rush was making fun of Hollings saying that the problem with America was "too much consumption".
Can any good Mormons out there explain how the belief that you will (if you pay your tithes, etc) someday become a GOD affect your world view. This is on topic since Orin, Brent, Darl, and most of the SCO board are all apparently Mormons, as is the named Judge, Dale A. Kimball.
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)
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.
So much for computers in the government (Score:5, Funny)
Meh (Score:4, Interesting)
1) destroy people's computers.
2) make them hate and fear you.
3) ???
4) profit.
1) Download firewall
2) Install firewall
3) Reap vast profit of pirated material
I mean really, how hard is it to make sure your computer is up to date with patches and has a good firewall installed. Preferably with an OpenBSD/Linux(with the bare minimum installed) box physically in between your home LAN and the internet.
Not that I'm in favor of destroying people's computers (I assume this means things like reformatting people's hard drives), that's just asinine. But I do think it's OK for record companies to spoof P2P networks and try to disrupt them.
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.
Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read his comments in context, the truth of what he said becomes obvious.
Cyberphobia among the old guard, as represented by people in Hatch's generation, has given way to overt, unbridled hatred of technology and its advocates. He views internet users as a group of miscreants who must be taught a lesson and his suggestions of remote computer destruction as a perfectly valid means of holding due process hostage to force us to solve the content industry's problems.
I am aghast.
This is already possible - Grubbnix! (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyways, the interesting part of Grubbnix was that it had a lot of capability and use when it came to flashing your BIOS (most major motherboard companies today still use a Grubbnix variant with their flashing utilities). I still remember one variant called Hucker (or something like that, maybe Huckey) that was spread around on disks to unsuspecting users. When you loaded it and left it running, it opened up your system enough so that someone via TCP/IP could execute commands, one of which was to completely shitfuck your BIOS, and sometimes even managed to cause damage to the CPU/motherboard by modifying threshold settings in the BIOS (depending on your model #).
It used to be passed out to "enemies" at HackerCons, who would then take it home, load it, and end up with a fucked PC.
Perhaps Senator Hatch needs to give the Cult of the Dead Cow an e-mail and see if they still have the source around somewhere
Re:This is already possible - Grubbnix! (Score:4, Informative)
have fun
makes sense (Score:3, Funny)
Proof [com.com]:
SCO has made no secret in recent months that it hired high-profile attorney David Boies to spearhead its case against IBM, but the company's legal representation in Utah courts is also noteworthy. The company retained Brent O. Hatch and Mark F. James of the law firm Hatch, James & Dodge. Hatch is the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a representative for SCO confirmed Monday.
The whole family works for the devil!!!!
[/tongue in cheek]
No excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is an excuse for vandalizing a PC?
Vigilantie Senators. (Score:5, Interesting)
First, an Article 3 created court needs to determine guilt or innocence. Second, destruction of property as a punishment appears nowhere in the penal code [hehe, hehe, he said "penal"]. Last time I checked, we didn't cut off hands, either.
If I am a farmer and I think you may have stolen corn from my field as you drove by, could I destroy your refridgerator?
Hatch has no concept of technology or the dynamic of the problem he seeks to address. Thus, he speaks as one insane.
"I'd do away with the pixies if you could give me something more." Ben Lee
WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
But it's all right for copyright-holders to do it? Where does the DMCA say copyright-holders can blow up PCs? This is insane!
Pssst. (Score:3, Funny)
Want some mp3s of his work?
-
Joke, dont nuke my computer! Senator Hatch!
Re:Pssst. (Score:3, Funny)
Just send them to President@whitehouse.gov
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)
Coming soon! (Score:5, Funny)
Cars whose tires go flat when you speed.
Oxygen tanks that cease providing oxygen when diving in restricted areas.
Planes whose wings fall off when flying over restricted space.
Trenchcoats that burst into flame when used to conceal theft of 3 pens from the office.
Buildings which systematically disassemble themselves when accountants working for the company owning the building fudge figures.
Planets that implode when governments on them begin passing fucking retarded laws.
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.
Indirect consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
There are studies-- ones i can't remember the names of or links to, of course-- that show that spanking a child makes that child more likely to grow up to be a violent person. If I remember right, the claim was that people who had corporal punishment used on them as a child were more likely to grow up to be the kind of person who beat their wives or children.
The reason given for this, again if i remember right, was that by having violence used on them at such a sensitive age, the child grows up thinking violence is "normal", and application of violence is how you are expected to solve problems, and beating someone is an acceptable and normal way for one human to get another human to comply with a request.
So, here's my thought: what happens if the RIAA hacking and screwing up your computer if you've been filetrading becomes common? What happens to the children/teenagers who grow up under this kind of paradigm, and grow up seeing that the RIAA, this big important adult business thing that funds congressional campaigns and everything, reacts to people doing things it things are wrong by tracking them down and breaking their stuff?
If it works like spanking does, well, we may well wind up with a generation growing up thinking vigilante justice is normal. Or maybe growing up with a kind of "us vs them" mentality toward corporations; that corporations are some kind of big distant enemies who can do anything they like without the law applying. And you can't tell a kid that someone big is allowed to hit you and you can't hit back and have them believe you. They might wind up growing up thinking that terrorism by corporations against citizens, and terrorism against corporations by citizens, is normal, and the law considers such things acceptable enough they don't regulate them.. as long as one is doing the other doesn't like...
This is stretching, and of course, none of this will ever come to pass. But, just a thought.
Acutally... (Score:3, Funny)
No need for any due process crap, just "bu-bye".
Against the law... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually though, as long as they are still liable for any damages they inflict this will be fun. Let's see, they (will/would have) just destroyed a $1000 computer, with $10000 (and if you can't figure out a way to back that figure up you need help) of the user's own data to delete a $0.99 song. Can we spin this?
Of course, it is better to stop this now, before the circus...
Excuse me if (Score:3, Funny)
Excuse me while I kill the RIAA goons in self defense.
What About...? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been a long time for this Baby-Boomer since I studied them in high school, but the phrases Innocent until proven guilty, unreasonable search and seizure, and due process of law seem to ring a bell.
Hatch's Kids (Score:4, Interesting)
Senator Hatch married the former Elaine Hansen of Newton, Utah. They are the proud parents of six children and have twenty grandchildren.
I wonder how many of his kids' and grandkids' PC's would be wrecked?
Is this terrorism? (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
my message to senator hatch: (Score:4, Interesting)
I have been increasingly concerned about the contingent of Hollywood Democrats who have sought to cripple, extort, and otherwise destroy the progress of technology in the name of defending copyright holders from distribution of their works online. I've found especially disturbing the idea that is is valid for the government to hold due process hostage in order to force the technology community to solve the content industry's distribution problems by developing and implementing technical means to protect their work - by threatening to allow private organizations to maliciously attack computer systems alleged to be used to distribute protected works without the legal benefits accorded under criminal and civil law. This is an especially outrageous abandonment of the principles on which our government is supposed to stand.
I thought I could look to the Republican party to serve as a balance against this senseless legislative paranoia with regard to technology, but it seems that this is not the case. Although I am not a resident in your state, your words on this issue have caused me to reconsider ever supporting anyone from your party for elected office.
send your comments to: senator@hatch.senate.gov
This is definitely nonobvious (Score:5, Funny)
United States Patent Application 732980759-32754321
User interface for remotely enforcing copyright
Abstract
A user interface and corresponding application program interface (API) and hardware device providing a set of functions for remotely enforcing copyright legislation.
Inventors: Hatch, Orrin (R-Utah), MillionthMonkey
Serial No.: 053243653216
Series Code: 10
Filed: June 17, 2003
Claims
1. A software architecture for a distributed computing system comprising: a pissed off copyright holder, a hardware device capable of being remotely destroyed over a network; and an application program interface to present two dialog boxes to a user who is sharing files to present functions of the application to access and destroy his hardware.
2. A software architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein the distributed computing system comprises client devices and peer-to-peer devices that handle requests from other peer-to-peer devices, the remote devices having been hardwired with explosives by the manufacturer.
3. A software architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein the distributed computing system comprises client devices and peer-to-peer devices that handle requests from other peer-to-peer devices, the remote devices having been sharing files with other peer-to-peer devices as outlined in section 1.
4. A software architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein the application program interface comprises: a first group of services related to discovery of file sharing activity, a second group of services related to displaying two dialog boxes to the user, and a third group of services related to remotely detonating a device as outlined in section 1.
5. An application program interface as recited in claim 4, wherein the first group of services comprises: first functions that enable copyright holder to scour remote device for peer-to-peer activity relating to copyrighted content; a second group of services related to displaying two threatening messages to the user, and a third group of services related to reception of the kill signal and subsequent detonation.
CONCLUSION
Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather, the specific features and acts are disclosed as exemplary forms of implementing the claimed invention.
And I'm off to the patent office! Later, suckas!
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)
http://codexwriter.xadiumproductions.ath.cx/ (Score:5, Funny)
Quotes from Senator Hatch, "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"
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
Now as you can imagine, there are a lot of people who are pretty upset with the idea. They are all yelling and screaming, but I am smiling.
I for one applaud Mr. Hatch! These are exactly the kinds of laws I hope he can get passed.
He has my staunch support!
I also think cars should warn you twice before you drive faster than the speed limit and then just shut off... forever. This will cause there to be fewer cars on the road, less cars means less pollution and fewer traffic jams Phones used in movie theaters should warn you once, and then stop working, which will lead to lower numbers of brain cancers. J-walkers should get two warnings and then have their legs amputated (that will teach them) thus reducing the need for rubber (for shoes) and saving from exploitation South American rubber tree sap harvesters. In fact I think it would be a good idea to lace the worlds drug supplies with poison rather than spending so much money in the obviously unwinnable war on drugs! Then we can sit back relax, and let it resolve itself.
Now as all it will take is one script kiddie to write a program that accesses the RIAA backdoor computer kill function and start wiping out all the american desktop pc's (zap, zap, zap) some of you may find Mr. Hatch's position to be poorly thought out. Nothing could be more untrue. We can hardly blame this potentiality on a lack of forethought with regards to Mr. Hatch, to not implement these features merely because they will be abused would be like limiting the availability of handguns just because they "might" be used by criminals- ridiculous!
Of course Mr. Hatch will decry the hacking should it occur, and will probably find a way to use the words "domestic-terrorists" somehow, but everyone will know whose wonderful idea it was to make computers with a kill switch and they will all bless him! For you see though the outrage will ripple across America as hardware that cost several thousand dollars simply stops working, though Mr. Hatch will become the focal point of (even more) scorn, and people will be forced to buy new computers every couple of days.(... isn't that good for the economy after all? Why settle for the natural inclination of the home user to upgrade every few years, when we can do forced upgrades all the time!) though they will curse and revile his name they will all have eggs on their faces when it's Hatch's magical kill switches that save us all from OMNI-sentient-Cyberian 9000, the ultra-networked Uber-AI. Why the moment it starts passing data around its nodes on how to most efficiently wipe out humanity the kill switches will presume large file sharing activity means illegal copyright violations and a cascade of kill switch activations will spread node to node like a deadly computer cancer saving us all from destruction beneath the heel of our robot masters!
-Codexwriter
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
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.
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.
yea *brilliant* (Score:4, Interesting)
what if he has a politial agenda against your country?
these guys are soooo "smrt", i can tell!
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
US. Gov't vs. The People :: Forfeiture (Score:5, Interesting)
I was recently warned that in Los Angeles county, if you're caught racing (by the judgement of the arresting officer), your vehicle is forfeit to the county.
In Florida, any vehicle involved in any drug violation may be forfeit to the state. Of course, the state is in it for the money, so they'll be nice enough to sell you your own vehicle back. A friend of mine paid over $5,000 to get her own car back over a minor violation. It took over a month to get things arranged, and several trips to that city. She had only been passing through the town, she wasn't a resident.
One particular sheriff's department has some of my handguns still, which I'm particuarly upset about. My ex-wife was getting violent, so I gave a friend everything dangerous from the house. She locked them all away in the trunk of her car. A couple days later, she was pulled over on suspicion of DUI. She wasn't arrested for DUI, but because she was pulled over on suspicion, they seized the weapons. It did absolutely no good to try to explain it to anyone. And yes, they were all perfectly legal. The begging to get my stuff back ended when they finally came up with the standpoint of "we don't know where they are." They just disappeared out of the system. {cough}{cough}. Ya into someone's personal collection, I'm sure.
The gov't is already seizing property without due processes or reasonable cause. I doubt they'll get the law through saying you can hack, but I'd bet they'll pass laws saying any equipment used in the act of the crime (the crime being music piracy) can be seized. I'm sure it'll be broad enough to include just about anything in house/apartment.
As for just killing machines on demand, I'd bet Microsoft will include that in future releases of Windows very willingly. It would terrify me to know that they could just pick and choose machines to zap.
If I was Joe-ISP hosting on Windows machines (ok, that would never happen), and one site had MP3's on it, they could not only destroy that site, but every site hosted there? They could cause damage to the machine itself (i.e., wipe the BIOS, drop the partition table, etc). I'd be afraid to think what would happen with a single BIOS change to bump the voltage up to the CPU and watch it fry. What would 12v do to a low voltage CPU line? Now what if that hosting machine happened to be a big expensive hosting machine? I've seen pricetags over $40k come by. It wouldn't be very good to see one of those go up in smoke.
I'd be just as upset if my kid had friends over, and they were downloading files and got *MY* machine destroyed. I'm not exactly going to be satisfied with "The RIAA destroyed your computer because someone was downloading Enimen's new album. They're legally protected in this action." Well, I'd probably be more upset as this would be my own machine. Customers can live with a server down for a day or two (but they won't like it). My personal property is *MINE*.
I _like_ his logic! (Score:5, Funny)
Did Orrin mention that he accepted over $175K.... (Score:5, Interesting)
First he brings us the DMCA and now this....
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.
What's that sound? (Score:4, Informative)
For your reading pleasure, I bring several paragraphs which would like a word with you:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
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. .
A Virus Writers Dream Come True (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you imagine what a virus writer could do once this technology got into the wild ? Imagine a virus that could would wipe out all those PCs, or maybe a select set of IPs ... scary ... hmmm ... wonder what the IP addresses of the RIAA are ?
Backwords (Score:4, Insightful)
When Lobbying goes wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
The old DRM Lobby has been trying a bit too hard. Some old folks in congress have got such a huge misunderstanding of how the machines that power our lives work it's incredible.
BTW, according to netcraft [netcraft.com] http://www.hatchmusic.com/ [hatchmusic.com] is running Apache on Linux.
That means Linus, as well as most other programmers who have worked on Linux or Apache would be able to remotely destroy his site. Bill Gates would be able to destroy 90% of the computers in existence.
I suppose this law would quickly be followed by a law making it illegal to block the port they pick. Or maybe they will just talk to your ISP, go to your house and take your computer. They can cut them up with axes in the street like the old prohibition days. I bet Hatch can remember those days himself. :)
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.
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.
They might be out of touch with us... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They might be out of touch with us... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They might be out of touch with us... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
From the Mysterious Future (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, there was that guy who spun a CD-ROM up to 52x and made it shatter.
Suppose RIAA were to embed little metal weights to unbalance every CD they ship.
Put it in your CD-ROM or Discman, it plays back at 1x, and you hear music. If the Discman is stuffed down your pants, you might even enjoy it.
But since we all know that RIAA considers a high-speed CD-R drive as "equivalent to" multiple CD-R drives, and consequently a Weapon of Mass Piracy (an ironic acronym, to be sure), if one was to put a suitably-unbalanced CD into a high-speed CD-ROM drive and attempt to "rip" the content to WAV files for future MP3 encoding, the disc would shatter, effectively destroying the drive, and possibly damaging other components in the computer.
One could double-up on this by embedding granules of pyrophoric (combusts in contact with oxygen) materials in nitrogen or other inert-gas bubbles in the disc substrate. The disc shatters in the high-speed piracy weapon, neutralizing it, and then the pyrophoric granules ignite, dumping toxic fumes and possibly burning other components inside the copyright terrorist's weapon (aka "computer").
Prediction: RIAA will develop this technology, and its use will be mandated. Within six months of the passage of the Active Countermeasures Against Copyright Terrorism Act, a 747 will be brought down by a Muslim whackjob playing Britney Spears in a laptop.
Congress will immediately respond to this new security threat... by passing another to require that all laptops be checked as baggage. A thunderous roar of "Dude! We're getting your Dell!" will be heard from airport security screeners worldwide.
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.