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

AP ^ | 6/17/03 | Ted Bridis

[Houmatt]

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.

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.

[BlazingArizona]

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.

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.

[wizzler]

The problem was that under the old Hollywood-managed system of music distribution, artists had no choice.

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.

[Houmatt]

Well, then, I see instead of answering strightfoward questions, you have resorted to responding to posts that were not even addressed to you.

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.

[wizzler]

"Name one?"

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.

[wizzler]

And not to mention -- your whole point about "choosing not to answer even once" is quite disingenuous. Because I certainly DID answer, if without even realizing it: As I wrote in post #299, "Every professional songwriter, every painter, every filmmaker, every poet, every novelist, every newspaper reporter, every photographer..."

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

It's good to see that the Senator-for-life is so concerned about file swapping while anybody who doesn't have 7 kids or a billion dollar business is raped by the state tax system. No wonder he and Ted Kennedy are such pals.

[BlazingArizona]

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.

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.

[brianl703]

A lot of motherboards made in the last couple of years have a "bios recovery boot" method where a trashed bios can be recovered with a specially prepared floppy disk.

[brianl703]

There was a buffer overflow in mpg123. A specially crafted mp3 file could execute code with the priveleges of the user that mpg123 was running as.

[brianl703]

I once killed an apple floppy drive in about an hour with continuous writes.

It was about 10 years old and probably at the end of it's useful life.

[brianl703]

It is actually possible if you have two motherboards of the same make/model (one of them having a bad BIOS) to boot the good motherboard, VERY carefully remove the BIOS chip, and VERY carefully plug the BIOS chip from the bad motherboard into it. (VERY carefully because you are doing this with the power on!)

Then flash the bad BIOS chip in the new motherboard.

I did this once and it worked fine.

[Destro]

-you are taking a conversation I had out of context. If I photocopy a chapter of a book (or a whole book) at the library - is that copyright infringement? I am not selling it. So what is that? and does that example of the print media apply or not to the audio/visual media?

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.

[wizzler]

Hi there.

Yes, photocopying a book is copyright infringement. It doesn't matter whether or not you sell it.

Copyrights have not become perpetual, no. But they have been extended by Congress, a move that has ignited much debate about the ideal length for copyrights. That is a separate issue, however, and doesn't have anything to do with the legality or illegality of downloading.

[Destro]

So all those students that photocopy books in the library as part of a book report, etc are violating the law? Or does that fall under fair use provisions...

[supercat]

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.

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.

[supercat]

Copyrights have not become perpetual, no.

Oh? It seems pretty clear that Congress intends for nothing to ever again enter the public domain.

[Destro]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/815772/posts

European Copyrights Expiring on Recordings From 1950's

Shame on America--50 years is more than enough.

[Dimensio]

Good thing that I never run xmms as root or with superuser privs, as the best that it could accomplish is wipe out any files that I own (none of which are system critical). Of course, this would be assuming that your OS or your MP3 playback software is vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack.

[Jhoffa_]

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.

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.."