Powerful Senator Endorses Destroying Computers of Illegal Downloaders (Orrin Hatch)

AP ^ | 6/17/03 | Ted Bridis

[Robert_Paulson2]

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet.

---

Well well well, senator oral snatch?
You advocate destroying personal property without due process, being faced by one's accusers and without trying the facts of each case in a court of law before a jury of one's peers?

Interesting. Amusiing. Despicable.

This is the guy who gave Clintong so many passes and is tight with teddy?
Wonder if they did any waitress sandwiches together?

[Hoppean]

I agree with you. I don't see why "file-sharing" is a violation of a true copyright law anyway. Why not just keep it simple, where the only true violation of a copyright law occurs when you take a book or CD or other such media and make a copy of it with the intent of selling it to someone else for money.

[glock rocks]

ya want him back?

[Robert_Paulson2]

If you build a "self destruct" into the hardware, for the software manufacturers to trip when you download an illegal song.. Just imagine what hackers will be doing with it inside of 15 minutes.

---

heh heh... sshhhh...
</ very wide grinning gesture >

[Mo1]

NO!

[Libertina]

There was a Mac virus that changed the monitor refresh rate...pumped it up so high that the monitor caught fire if the machine was running long enough.
Well great, download a song and have your house buned down. /s Sounds as if Janet Reno is in charge of this operation.

[rwfromkansas]

The checks will not have one iota of a negative impact on Republican control. If anything, it could be positive for the election.

This crap would.

Heck, I would vote against my senator for this reason alone if he voted for it and I don't care that he is Republican.

[Destro]

If I go to a library and photocopy a chapter---I did it all the time for school--why is that not illegal--or is it but no one cared?

[rwfromkansas]

I see the tyrannical side of govt. is appealing to you.

[rwfromkansas]

Agreed. I was appalled that poster actually agreed with having the govt. just come in without consent and destroy a computer.

[supercat]

Just because someone photocopies a page off of the 1860 census they think they have a copyright on it.

I would like to see a two-tier "restoration copyright" recognized in law. The first tier would be for much shorter duration than conventional copyright (e.g. three to five years) but would apply to direct reproductions of the original materials. Such a copyright would encourage people who have rare material to publicize it in unaltered form, something for which there is today little incentive.

The second tier would apply to material which is based on previously-published work, but which involves substantial editorial or technical adjustment [e.g. restoring an old movie, using computers to reconstruct portions of frames which are not in usable condition]. The term of this would be much longer--perhaps equal to normal copyright--but with a twist: all source materials used in the restoration would be subject to the first-tier copyright structure, and after the the first-tier copyright term on those materials had expired the publisher of the restoration would have to either make good copies of such materials to anyone who paid a certain statutory price structure, or supply such materials to a recognized repository that could do so. The price structure I'd have in mind would be pretty steep [e.g. $250 for two hours of movie filmed to VHS or DVD; $5,000/hour for 35mm film] but since the material thus acquired would be royalty-free, redistributors would probably not find such prices unaffordable].

[rwfromkansas]

zero files on Kazaa by Orrin Hatch. lol

[rwfromkansas]

What is that?

[Ciexyz]

btt with no comment

[jeremiah]

But they said if they had control of all houses of congress and the presidency, they would be able to rein in the size and scope of govt. Oh Yeah, I forgot, after they fool everyone with an increase in the size of govt, win bigger majorities, THEN they will live up to the promises of years past.

[rwfromkansas]

The Dem in the article basically told Hatch to shut up because he went off the deep end.

I highly doubt this bill stands a chance of passing and it sounds like Hatch isn't going to actually propose any bill, but was just spouting off.

[TomGuy]

Copyright was intended to protect an author, for example, from having someone else steal his work AND resell it under the thief's name. If someone stole the original author's work and kept it hidden, without financial gain, then that would be a criminal act of theft, not a copyright infringement.

Downloading songs may be theft, not copyright violation, unless the downloader repackages and sells the song as the downloader's own. Downloading songs should be under theft crimes, not copyright crimes.

This just shows how convoluted the whole copyright/theft laws have become.

Hatch's remark to blow up computers is no less than blowing up one's house or tv if they steal cable or satellite; blow up their car if they fail to stop at a stoplight; etc.

[jeremiah]

Port Townsend?

[jeremiah]

For being such a powerful man, he sure did nothing when BC took the large deposits of coal etc, in the land grab a few years ago.