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

AP ^ | 6/17/03 | Ted Bridis

[Destro]

fair using music-no? I'm not selling it.

[wizzler]

"Selling it" has no bearing on copyright infringement. YOU don't have to profit off something for damage to have been done to a copyright holder. The simple act of reproducing and distributing someone else's work can decrease the work's value.

I'm not sure why this is all so difficult for people to understand, but there it is...

[mhking]

Hatch is a moron.

[Liberal Classic]

He can take my computer when he takes it from my calloused, arthritic dead hands!

[mhking]

It's like saying "you did 70mph in a 65mph, we are going to crush your car"

DING-DING-DING-DING! We have a winner!

I'm sorry, but the destruction of literally thousands of dollars of consumers' computers for a percieved wrong is not only unconstitutional (certainly cruel and inhuman punishment), but just plain brainless.

You want a revolt on your hands? That's one quick way to get one.

Of course the copyright police don't care about that. Just as long as no one sees/hears/smells/tastes any sort of work without paying for it. How long before the RIAA/MPAA demands royalties for the smell of freshly mown grass?

[1Old Pro]

Time for Hatch to either
1) Resign or
2) Focus on more important things like REDUCING government spending

[milan]

I wrote hatch an email and told him he needs counseling... Do these guys like saying ignorant things and being the target of the media? Or, are they just that dumb? Maybe he had too many martinnis for lunch that day?

[longtermmemmory]

this will legalize hacking. Who would you put your hacking bets on? The RIAA or a bunch of motivated college kids? This assumes that such destructive hacking becomes legal.

[milan]

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?

Who's forcing you!?! Do what I do; don't buy it!

[milan]

You know what is really sad? There is another forum that is taking the same opinion as us...man, is Hatch an idiot or what?

[BlazingArizona]

He is still po'ed that word perfect went to Canada. And nobody has put his album into MP3 Format.

Don't forget that Orrin Hatch (R-Novell Corporation) led the antitrust suit against Microsoft a few years ago. His support of the RIAA today is just as futile.

[Houmatt]

You know, I once thought that way myself. Not anymore.

From where I sit, I have seen an orchestrated move on the part of record companies and the Recording Industry Association of America to ultimately control what you can listen to, and how much you can pay to do it.

Such things as:

The destruction of Internet Radio
Setting higher prices for CDs instead of lowering them to make them more affordable (look here) to consumers
Eliminating the single, forcing consumers to buy entire albums for one song
Bullying college kids out of their life savings (look here).

Meanwhile, the artists themselves are not quite as against this as you think they are. Just ask Janis Ian.

If the RIAA et al was not so anxious to bite the hand that feeds it, I would agree with you. In fact, I am still very much against albums and movies becoming avaliable for download on the net before they are even released to the public. But this is just malarkey. The RIAA and friends should get only what they deserve.

[BlazingArizona]

And these critters sound like morons. So wait for the music industry to be hit with a few juicy lawsuits if they try this.

That won't work, since the RIAA has the courts thoroughly bought and wins every suit brought for or against it, even the weird frivolous ones (loot a college student's life savings for writing a search engine, for example).

No, what's going to happen is the hackers will declare open season on Hollywood. Music execs will have their credit card numbers made public, be shipped tons of online items they never ordered, see their kids' school records deleted... There will be no end to it.

[wizzler]

This is not about the "RIAA" or any other single organization. Think about all this in terms of individuals -- people who depend on the protection provided by copyright to feed their kids -- and maybe you'll start seeing things differently.

There is a clear line between right and wrong. When you're in the wrong, no amount of justifying or rationalization gets you over onto the other side of the line.

[Jhoffa_]

Well, if you don't like the RIAA and the Record Companies, then just forego listening to music.

It's very simple.

[E Rocc]

Intentional destruction of property? I'd say that's somewhere that "the other Hillary" et al really don't want to go. Payback would be both disproportionate and inevitable.

-Eric

[Houmatt]

This is not about the "RIAA" or any other single organization.

Like hell.

Think about all this in terms of individuals -- people who depend on the protection provided by copyright to feed their kids

Name one. Or at least admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

[wizzler]

Um, yeah, I have "no idea what I'm talking about."

Do you realize how dumb you just made yourself look?

Even the most vociferous critics of "big business" don't deny that copyrights provide countless INDIVIDUALS the means to maintain a living in the world of art. That's a given. Every professional songwriter, every painter, every filmmaker, every poet, every novelist, every newspaper reporter, every photographer -- all of them are provided the opportunity to make a living from these activities because we have instituted the protection of copyright.

There's plenty of room for debate on the issue of downloading. But the basic notion that copyright provides a living for artists and copyright holders -- that's a topic on which there is absolutely no argument. To even try to dispute it is so blindingly short-sighted and myopic, you should be embarrassed that you dared enter this thread.

[af_vet_rr]

Why should I be forced to pay $40,000.00 for a SUV that I only want to drive once or twice a week?

The auto companies didn't get together and say "okay, if you want to buy a $20,000 SUV, your going to have to purchase another $60,000 worth of add-ons to get it". Somebody somewhere will sell you a $20,000 SUV, or rent you one if a dealership won't work with you to get the product you want and nothing else.

The music companies on the other hand said, "okay, you want three songs off of this album, your going to have to buy the twelve crappy songs that we put out as filler along with them."

That gets into poor business decisions of the music industry and really doesn't have much to do with this thread and the destruction of private property by a music or movie company.

Why should I be forced to pay for a copy of windows I only want to use occasionally?

Thanks to the joys of licensing agreements, unless you build your own or have a Mac, your going to get a copy of windows whether you like it or not.

However if you only want to use Windows, you don't have to buy Office, etc. along with it just to get it, whereas with music, you have to buy a lot of crap you don't want. Again, that goes back to bad business practices.

I think/hope Apple is making the music industry see the light though, people do want to buy singles, and people want to buy albums, in other words they want choice. If they don't feel they are getting ripped, they will shell out the cash for the music.