Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Powerful Senator Endorses Destroying Computers of Illegal Downloaders (Orrin Hatch)
AP ^ | 6/17/03 | Ted Bridis

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: copyright; cyberattack; cyberwar; download; filesharing; grokster; hatch; kazaa; krusgnet; mp3; napster; orrinhatch; riaa; rickboucher; rino; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 361-370 next last
To: freebilly
Laws are so complex it is virually IMPOSSIBLE to not violate some law unknowwingly no matter how small. The constitution requires the ordinary perons to actually be able know the meaning of the law. Its why ambiguous laws are routinely struck down. Ignorance of the law is no excuse is facist b/s. Ignorance of the law is the facist socialist's friend.
301 posted on 06/18/2003 12:30:14 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

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

ROTFLMAO!

So you actually think they should be able to do whatever they please, including control what I listen to? Have you forgotten what country you are living in, pal? Let me give you a hint: It's not China.

I guess you're cool with Hatch's idea, huh? Download a song, somebody hacks into your computer and puts in a virus designed to wipe out the hard drive, or otherwise make it inoperable.

(And did you even bother looking at those links? $10 says you did not.)

It must be wonderful living in freedom.

302 posted on 06/18/2003 12:31:23 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
It works for me. If you don't want to lose your computer, obey the law.

If we are going to talk about the law, and since the law goes back to our Constitution (usually), in some shape or form, please point out where it is legal for a private company to destroy the private property of a private individual.

303 posted on 06/18/2003 12:31:28 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Then just don't listen to music.

It's real simple.. No one is forcing people to steal.

304 posted on 06/18/2003 12:31:44 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

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

Do you realize how dumb you just made yourself look?

How about answering my question instead of offering non-sequiturs?

Then we will be able to see who is dumb.

305 posted on 06/18/2003 12:35:26 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt

1) This is America.

2) You control what you do or do not listen to. Period. No one is forcing you to steal music.

Actually, no.. From a technical standpoint I think it's unworkable.

I would support jailing offenders however.

Why bother? I don't steal music and I don't covet.

Yeah, it is.. actually.. Except for all the thieves and such.

Overall though, it's pretty nice.

306 posted on 06/18/2003 12:35:36 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
I guess you're cool with Hatch's idea, huh?

I can't speak for Jhoffa_, but I was able to read the post where he wrote that he was against Hatch's proposal. Weren't you able to read it too?

Did you even bother looking at the rest of this thread? $10 says you did not.

307 posted on 06/18/2003 12:37:27 PM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: dsc
what would really hack disney off would be if dreamworks would start to redo animated versions of pinochio, sleeping beauty, snow white, king arthur, beauty and the beast. All out of copyright stories.
308 posted on 06/18/2003 12:38:34 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
You control what you do or do not listen to. Period.

Unless you want to listen to a song they never play on the radio anymore and it is long since out of print. (Example: The Inexhaustible Quest For The Cosmic Cabbage by the Amboy Dukes) Then who is controlling it, smart guy?

When the RIAA deliberately sets exhorbitant fees designed to shut down internet-only radio stations, who is controlling it?

Why bother?

Yeah, why bother opening your mind to other points of view on this subject? Don't want to break that tunnel vision, for God's sake.

Bottom line: You are completely full of crap if you think it is the American way for record companies to restrict what you can and cannot listen to, which is exactly what is going on.

309 posted on 06/18/2003 12:48:49 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
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.

It is much much more than that my friend.

RIAA is afraid of the internet and MP3s for a much larger reason than people downloading MP3s.

RIAA is afraid. Afraid of the "garage band" types. If you, I, and a few other Freepers of musical talent got together and made good music, and wanted to sell it, well...we don't need to get a large multi-record deal with a RIAA member. We don't need agents, we don't need distributors, we can do it all ourselves through the internet.

I think that is what scares RIAA the most. A few $100 of acoustic material in your garage, a $1000 computer, a website, and a paypal account, and a decent internet connection and you and I and a mythical Freeper band can make, record, edit, and sell our music, and nobody but us will get a share of the proceeds.

We don't have to be bound to any contracts to get our music distributed. We don't have to pay a lot of middle-people to get our music distributed. We don't have to pay the costs associated with print advertising, and with CD duplication and distribution. A large corporation is not getting its hands on our music, we aren't having to pay a bunch of union workers to setup the eqipment, record, edit, and then process for sale our music. The music stores and distributors aren't needed by us because we distribute it online, ready to e-mail somebody as soon as they make a payment.

Your seeing a two-pronged assault here, one against online music, and one against bands playing live. Look at the consolidation of the theaters/venues. We are getting close to a vertical monopoly. Clear Channel and the others can force theater/venue owners to not play certain acts and only book what they want, or else they'll send the bigwigs down the road to another venue. This way they can keep the indie bands (such as our mythical Freeper band) from getting too big and too noticed, to where we are just selling locally and only hitting the clubs with less than 100 seats.

What if you had a Pink Floyd or a Led Zeppelin or a Jethro Tull or a Rolling Stones, and they are just starting out, and they go the way of the MP3, and they handle their own production through computers, and their own distribution through MP3s. Word of mouth keeps spreading and spreading. They play larger and larger venues and make more and more money. RIAA would not like most of that money going to the people who created the music. RIAA and the big companies would have a harder and harder time of bringing in new blood, because who the heck would want to have to give up so much money and profit when they can do it on a smaller scale but retain control of their music and where the money is going.

just my $0.02. Based on conversations with a friend who is on the fringe of the music industry.

310 posted on 06/18/2003 12:49:55 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
I can't speak for Jhoffa_

Then don't, and answer the question I asked you.

311 posted on 06/18/2003 12:50:47 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
Right said, Fred.

Just try to explain that to the close-minded loggerheads in this thread.

312 posted on 06/18/2003 12:56:01 PM PDT by Houmatt (Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt

LOL!

You are!

Believe it not, Matt, You are an adult and you can decide if you are going to listen to a particular song. If you don't own the song, then you can go and buy it.. Or not. The choice is yours.

It's THEIR property... Now, if you don't like that then perhaps you should form a band and make your own music. Then tell the RIAA to go get screwed.

Physician, heal thyself.

LOL! LOL!

It IS the American way and they aren't "restricting" anything that's not theirs to 'restrict" in the first place.

Now stealing, that's "Un-American" You rationalize it, but the bottom line is that you are in the wrong.

313 posted on 06/18/2003 12:58:24 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Would this fall into the 5th Amendment?

....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

314 posted on 06/18/2003 1:00:48 PM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wizzler
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.

The actual creators of the music have been beefing for years about how tiny their cut of the CD price is after the gross has been filtered through the kidneys of innumerable Hollywood middlemen. They have found that the only creative thing in Tinseltown is the accounting. They're going to be first to support any online sales scheme that gives them a larger percentage of a lower price. Look at the runaway success of Apple Music Store, which is just the first attempt at such a scheme.

315 posted on 06/18/2003 1:01:27 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Just try to explain that to the close-minded loggerheads in this thread.

I don't know that I would call it all that close-minded (well yeah I would) as much as it was old fashioned.

Technology is making it so that RIAA and the music companies are becoming obsolete...It is why they are so hostile and so urgent and so willing to do anything to stop it (MP3s/Online music) and to scare people.

316 posted on 06/18/2003 1:05:06 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Sure it is..

There's a means to distribute books, music, products and nearly everything else you wish right at your fingertips.. Just use the internet.

So, I don't see what's so bad about the "big, bad RIAA boogeyman"

I could start a band tomorrow and bypass them completely.

317 posted on 06/18/2003 1:08:17 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Unless you want to listen to a song they never play on the radio anymore and it is long since out of print. (Example: The Inexhaustible Quest For The Cosmic Cabbage by the Amboy Dukes) Then who is controlling it, smart guy?

I am honestly feeling sorry for you, because I don't think you're aware of the ignorance you're displaying in front of hordes of people. I don't mean that as a personal attack -- I'm being quite sincere when I say that I am starting to feel bad for you.

If there's a song "you want to listen to," and "they never play it on the radio anymore" and "it is long since out of print" ... well, you may just be out of luck. Unless the song has entered the public domain -- and the work of the Amboy Dukes has not -- them someone owns the copyright. You don't. And without that copyright holder's authorization, it's not yours to download or steal by any other means.

Perhaps the copyright holder is withholding the material to build demand for a future release. Perhaps the copyright holder is selfish and wants the music all for himself. Perhaps the copyright holder is just stupid, or bad at business.

Ultimately, the reasons aren't relevant. The bottom line is that it belongs to him, just like things you own belong to you.

You seem to view the world in terms of what YOU want, what YOU want, what YOU want. YOU want that song, or YOU want that album, and apparently it's YOUR RIGHT to have it.

I would suggest you brush up first on the basics of copyright law, learn a little about capitalism and our system of rights, and then return with a more informed argument.

318 posted on 06/18/2003 1:08:59 PM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: wizzler

You hit the nail right on the head, he obviously isn't.

You know, I can't just walk into a store and buy Snapon® tools, I have to go to a tool truck and pay allot!

Those guy's are controlling the tools! I think I am entitled to just steal them.

319 posted on 06/18/2003 1:12:13 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
The actual creators of the music have been beefing for years about how tiny their cut of the CD price is after the gross has been filtered through the kidneys of innumerable Hollywood middlemen. They have found that the only creative thing in Tinseltown is the accounting. They're going to be first to support any online sales scheme that gives them a larger percentage of a lower price. Look at the runaway success of Apple Music Store, which is just the first attempt at such a scheme.

I think that's absolutely wonderful. Makes you proud to be an American, yes? A place where individuals are enterprising, and where individuals are free to take a risk at making money with their talents and ingenuity. It's a beautiful thing.

What's not beautiful are people who voluntarily sign contracts and then "beef for years" about the terms of the contracts they signed. That's the yucky old victim mentality that we conservatives are supposed to be decrying all the time, 'member?

It's all pretty simple: If you don't like what's being offered, don't sign the contract. Additionally, if you later believe the terms of your contract have been violated, well, there's a reason they invented civil court.

320 posted on 06/18/2003 1:13:25 PM PDT by wizzler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 361-370 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson