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
This shows that while you did a copy/paste of what I said, you obviously did not even read it, just as you did not read any of the links I gave because you did not want to upset your little apple cart.
I have nothing more to say to you.
The problem was that under the old Hollywood-managed system of music distribution, artists had no choice. The new Internet-based technology offers a way for artists to cut out the middlemen, which is the real reason Hollywood wants to snuff it out.
Use of file-trading systems for outright piracy involves going to a lot of trouble. Real ordinary listeners would rather pay $5 for an online album than run the risk of spyware and trashed files from file-trading networks.
That's just not true. Nothing ever stopped anybody from starting their own record labels, or choosing their own means of distribution, or opening their own record stores, or any of it.
You're making a common error: You are looking through the prism of the ones who did these things and got successful doing it, and from there you are making the false conclusion that they thus have some magical, preordained hold on the world.
You said in post #295:
Think about all this in terms of individuals -- people who depend on the protection provided by copyright to feed their kids
I said: Name one.
I have asked you that no less than three times. And you have chosen not to answer any even once. The only conclusion I am gather is you made an assertion you cannot back up, and so you have decided to pretend you neither said it, nor am I asking you to back it up.
This only shows your ignorance on this topic. All you can do is parrot jhoffa_ (or is it the other way around?) instead of doing so much as actually reading up on the subject.
While I do believe you would be against what Hatch is suggesting, due to the fact he is a US Senator, I am much more willing to buy both you and jhoffa_ would not care if the RIAA and friends did it themselves.
As such, I have nothing more to say to you.
Honestly, I read right over that as a rhetorical question. Because it's so obvious -- a point I addressed in my subsequent post. But OK, I'll play, and instead of "naming one," I'll even show you a whole bunch: All Music Guide. Just type in, say, "Smith" or "Jones," and you'll get a long list of names of people who depend on copyright protection to make a living.
As for your assertion that I would approve of the government, the RIAA or anybody else doing what Hatch proposed, I suggest you read back near the top of this thread and find my first post, which addresses that specific point.
Starting a new label was always pretty expensive. And actually "choosing your own means of distribution" in pre-Internet days, meant dealing with barriers like the total control of radio station playlists by payola from the major labels.
Also I would like to know -- have copyrights become perpetual? I know in Europe the copyrights of many recorded music from the early Rock and Roll era is up or soon to be.
Back when the "limited times" wording of the Constitution actually meant something, works would enter the public domain while copies were still readily available.
Copyright statutes have far outgrown their Constitutional justification.
Oh? It seems pretty clear that Congress intends for nothing to ever again enter the public domain.
European Copyrights Expiring on Recordings From 1950's
Shame on America--50 years is more than enough.
I have nothing more to say to you.
LOL! "Apple cart"
That's rich.. I can just imagine a convicted thief wagging his finger at the judge likewise.. "It's YOUR apple cart man, that's the problem. Not my stealing.."
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.