Posted on 06/17/2003 2:54:06 PM PDT by 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
"Fair Use" doctrine and clauses in copyright law....
Downloading films and songs before they become available to the consumer, sure.
But what about when there is an album out there where you only like one song off of it? Why should you be forced to pay in excess of $20 for a single song?
And how about songs that are either rare (as in not available in the USA) or out of print?
If record companies are not willing to serve consumers (in fact, there is clear evidence they are doing the exact opposite, and deliberately), then they will go elsewhere to get what they want.
That is what the RIAA does not seem to understand, and by golly, neither does that moron Hatch.
Some historical works can be copyrighted, such as Steamboat Willy, but there are many others that cannot, like the works of Shakespeare.
As for historical events, a couple years back, a woman sued Steven Spielberg because she claimed the film Amistad was based on her book. Spielberg claimed the film was not based on her book, and the events that occurred actually did happen. A judge agreed, ruling the woman cannot own a historical event.
He is a musician, and it is true, he is helping out the lefties.
Destruction of personal property is not justice, it's simple revenge. It's like saying "you did 70mph in a 65mph, we are going to crush your car"
Why not treat song downloading like shoplifting? Make the downloading offenders do massive amounts of community service. I'd personally like to see the offenders clean up the cigarette butts all along streets everywhere.
It's amazing to me that there are regular posters to FreeRepublic who think Hatch's idea is a good one--
Welcome to BigBrotherRepublic.com where everyone is free to do exactly as they're told....
Let's counterattack...reduce copyrights to the limited time of Patents.
This attitude never fails to astound me. Is this really a "conservative" board?
I mean, gee, I don't know ... Why should you be "forced" to pay $75,000 for a new Jaguar? Or "forced" to pay $60 for that entree at the new restaurant down the street? Or "forced" to pay 50 cents for a pack of gum when all you want is a single piece?
If you don't want to pay what a seller is asking for an album, then don't buy it. But don't then go steal it.
At what point did people start assuming that owning music is some kind of positive right? If you don't want to pay the asking price, don't buy it. When enough of us don't buy it, prices will drop, or new sellers will rise into place to serve our needs.
The state of technology will either allow me to communicate with others freely or it won't, regardless of content.
If two concentual parties can exchange information on an encrypted channel. They can plan a revolution, spread knowlege that powerful don't want them to, conspire, or give each other media such as music and movies. PGP makes this possible even on top of open channels like email.
If information can be published and read without outside parties being able to interfere, people can publish truths nessesary for democracy, pron, or copies of media like music and movies. Systems like freenet(please look) provide for this even in hostile enviroments like China via anonymity.
Any attempt to try to control content will require submitting content to a regulatory organ like "the ministry of truth", RIAA, or MIAA and replacing our computers with an industry certified "big brother boxs". You can have my computer when you pry it out of my cold stiff fingers.
Ok "conservatives", I'm new here. You tell me what's more important. 100% enforcement of "intelectual property rights" or freedom of speech? Big Brother law enforcement or freedom of press? There's a big choice to made!!!
The original post I was replying to mentioned copyrighted material being put into the Mormon genealogical database. If a copyrighted book says that John Doe was born on May 1, 1800, is it a violation of copyright to put that historical fact into a genealogical database?
Why should I be forced to pay $40,000.00 for a SUV that I only want to drive once or twice a week?
Why should I be forced to pay for a copy of windows I only want to use occasionally?
Why should I be forced to pay for anything I want?
I think I'm a bit left of people here on some issues. I'd be a bit right on a liberal forum. You tell me if I'm a "conservative" (there are so many definitions). I try to be nice.
Did you get the point I made up there? It's something I've been taking very seriously. I hope it wasn't too complicated.
No. Copyright protects original expressions of ideas or facts. It does not protect ideas or facts themselves.
Let's say I wrote: "John Doe was born to a miserly mother and a flatulent father -- not the best of circumstances, it seemed. But his arrival on May 1, 1800, presaged the coming of a new day in politics. Little did the world know that this bald-headed baby boy would eventually transform the social landscape forever. It was as if God had captured lightning in a bottle of moonshine, giving John Doe to us all, though it would take years for the dunderheaded among us to realize that's what it all meant."
THAT, I could copyright. But I have no claim on the FACT that John Doe was born on such-and-such date, and nor does anyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.