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

AP ^ | 6/17/03 | Ted Bridis

[Jean S]

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

The surprise remarks by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, during a hearing on copyright abuses represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against illegal music downloads.

During a discussion on methods to frustrate computer users who illegally exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading. Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal anti-hacking laws.

"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to disrupt music downloads. One technique deliberately downloads pirated material very slowly so other users can't.

"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."

The senator 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."

"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "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" the seriousness of their actions, he said.

"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., who has been active in copyright 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."

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.

"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 cybercrimes prosecutor and associate professor at George Washington University law school.

The entertainment industry has gradually escalated its fight against Internet file-traders, targeting the most egregious pirates with civil lawsuits. The Recording Industry Association of America recently won a federal court decision making it significantly easier to identify and track consumers - even those hiding behind aliases - using popular Internet file-sharing software.

Kerr predicted it was "extremely unlikely" for Congress to approve a hacking exemption for copyright owners, partly because of risks of collateral damage when innocent users might be wrongly targeted.

"It wouldn't work," Kerr said. "There's no way of limiting the damage."

Last year, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., ignited a firestorm across the Internet over a proposal to give the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies. It would have lifted civil and criminal penalties against entertainment companies for disabling, diverting or blocking the trading of pirated songs and movies on the Internet.

But Berman, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary panel on the Internet and intellectual property, always has maintained that his proposal wouldn't permit hacker-style attacks by the industry on Internet users.

---

On the Net: Sen. Hatch: http://hatch.senate.gov

AP-ES-06-17-03 1716EDT

[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.