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
1. Hatch wants the government to destroy downloader's computers. Of course there won't be anything resembling due process, so we have a blatant and egregious 5th Amendment violation. But then that kind of thing never really bothered Hatch.
2. Hatch wants music companies to destroy computers. And that's blatant vigilantism.
I was thinking along the lines of erasing the BIOS. You're truly hosed at that point.
It get's worse.. Just look a little more deeply into it.
Now, personally.. I could care less about file downloaders losing their PC's.. But think about this.
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.
Someone in the chatroom pissed you off? Nuke their computer!
I hate downloading, but this is a ridiculous idea. Hatch is a certified idiot.
He's a disgrace on so many levels it's impossible to find a word that describes it all accurately..
It get's worse.. Just look a little more deeply into it.
Now, personally.. I could care less about file downloaders losing their PC's.. But think about this.
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.
Someone in the chatroom pissed you off? Nuke their computer!
I hate downloading, but this is a ridiculous idea. Hatch is a certified idiot.
He's a disgrace on so many levels it's impossible to find a word that describes it all accurately..
IIRC, the "Peer to Peer Piracy Prevention Act" that was being kicked around last year would prevent the music industry from suffering any legal woes incurred by zapping an offending computer.
You can bet that the RIAA wants a substantial litigation shield. If they actually get something like that passed and begin demolishing computers with impunity, they can expect cyber-reprisals. I'll bet that the anti-music industry brigade is made up of smarter computer geeks than the ones working for the RIAA, too.
To quote the late Bonn Scott (if that's still legal): "If you want blood... you got it."
The 5th Amendment is a law (for government) so government can't do this (deprivation of property without due process)
Vigilantism is against the law, so corporations can't do it either.
I guess some laws are better than others.
Old Orrin may want to read the bit in the Constitution about depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process.
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.