Orrin Hatch approves destroying computers

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Jun17.html

 

Hatch Takes Aim at Illegal Downloading

By TED BRIDIS

The Associated Press

Tuesday, June 17, 2003; 5:22 PM

 

WASHINGTON - 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.

 

 

Auuuugh. Does anyone get it?

 

Interestingly enough, John Ashcroft's post-9/11 actions make hacking and defacing other people's computers through the internet an official act of terrorism. Not sure if there's any clause in there though that makes an exception that it's okay for the government to endorse acts of terrorism.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

[Guest Lightning Flik]

The gist:

 

The Excutives of companies are thinking of the only way to stop file sharing to destroy the person's computer (who downloaded the file) via a hacking device. Apprently you'd be given two warnings, and then be terminated (the compuer). Republicans support this or at least some of them.

 

However, the law makers would say that allowing the excutives the ability to hack people's computers would run the risk of taking innocent people out, or have the ability to fuck with anyone's computer period. Thusly, it can't be granted that the excutives have this power. Meaning, no-no. Democracts support this or at least some of them..

 

At least I think that's what it said... Too fucking tired to make sure.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

I was having trouble sleeping, but now that I know copyright law is not being violated I am at ease.

 

or:

 

Who told Orrin Hatch about the internet?

 

 

 

which ever is funnier. less not-funny. It's 3:45, shut up.

[Guest JMA]

Sigh. When are they going to realize that they CANNOT stop file-sharing on the internet? Does anyone else feel like they're being policed just a bit too much?

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

I'm a pretty conservative fellow, and will support the Republicans in a majority of their efforts. This is one that I just cannot get behind in any way, however. I mean, seriously, how could anyone think that this is ok?

 

JMA, I think the issue is not that they're policing people too much...it's that the methods that have been proposed/used to try and force the genie back in the bottle are very questionable. The ridiculous fines leveled against that kid at RPI a few weeks ago (for not even doing anything illegal), the RIAA's proposal to attack users' computer with viruses...and now this.

 

File-sharing, in the vast majority of cases, is illegal, and frankly I don't see how anyone can logically argue otherwise. That doesn't mean I don't support it (I do it ALL the time) - but it is almost always illegal. So I don't have a problem with the RIAA and others going after those of us who do it; I just think that the methods they've been using or are trying to get approval to use (like this one Mr. Hatch is supporting) are complete bullshit.

 

It's also completely pointless to try and stop it...but that's a whole separate issue.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Oh, that wacky Orrin. I still love ya though...

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

...meh...it won't be passed, because then lawsuits claiming destruction of personal property (their computers) and invasion of privacy could be brought up, methinks. Not to mention that hacking itself is illegal, and thanks to Ashcroft, considered an act of terrorism.

 

So, I'm not sweating. They hack and crash my comp? I'm getting a new one soon, and I have almost all of my MP3s burned onto CDs somewhere.

[Guest DrTom]

Fuck Orrin Hatch.

 

Of course file sharing is illegal. The problem is, record companies stopped caring about quality music years ago, and kept parading out tired flavor-of-the-week bands and their crappy albums. With two economic slowdowns in the last decade or so, many people have kept a closer eye on their disposable income, and can no longer justify paying an average price of more than $16 for a plastic disc with 2-3 good songs on it.

 

Also, the RIAA lost a class-action suit related to price-fixing CDs. CD prices have not changed.

 

In the 1980s, people taping songs off the radio was supposed to destroy the record industry. It survived. VCRs were supposed to kill the movie industry. It survived, and even embraced the new technology as a way to enhance its own revenue.

 

The RIAA, however, simply crams their fingers in their hears and shouts instead of listening to serious efforts to embrace file sharing. There's a way they can make money out of this, but they refuse to change a business model that was conceived when turntables and 8-tracks ruled the roost.

 

Personally, I hope prominent bands break from the RIAA and offer their own songs for download on their web sites. Sure, I download MP3s for free, but I'd pay a few dollars to download an album from a band's website because the band gets the money. The RIAA doesn't give artists much money at all, and even seizes possession of the master tapes used to make the recording. It's not only work-for-hire, it's theft. And people are supposed to support this conglamerate and this business model with a clear conscience?

 

Fuck that noise.

 

I consider file sharing to be a form of civil disobedience, and I have no problems being civilly disobedient.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

Also, the RIAA lost a class-action suit related to price-fixing CDs. CD prices have not changed.

ooo, I forgot about that one.

 

but this is just like any "disobedience"

 

some powerful group screws people.

 

governing body doesn't care.

 

screw-ees find thier own solutions.

 

 

Not quite as grave as Tienemen Square or Dr. King, but the same idea anyway.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Personally, I hope prominent bands break from the RIAA and offer their own songs for download on their web sites. Sure, I download MP3s for free, but I'd pay a few dollars to download an album from a band's website because the band gets the money.

I know it's not the same, but I think Apple's iTunes Music Store is becoming a nice medium. They're now going after some of the tiny little-heard labels.

[Guest DrTom]

I've heard good things about iTunes, but $1 a track is too much to pay.

[Guest Lightning Flik]

I've heard good things about iTunes, but $1 a track is too much to pay.

Meh. I'd pay a buck for a single track. Sure that's suicide but if you think about I'd spend maybe, like what? Perhaps $6-$10 to get the songs I want (well, not at the very start, but you get what I mean) a month. Sure, that seems like a lot, but then again, we are paying out $15-20 for a record for about 10 songs. $10 for 10 songs sounds about right to me.

[Guest Ghettoman]

I really want to live in a world where water and music are free....

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Sure, that seems like a lot, but then again, we are paying out $15-20 for a record for about 10 songs. $10 for 10 songs sounds about right to me.

You actually get a small discount if you download a whole album.

 

The thing is you get great digital quality, they can be burned to CDs, and you don't have to deal with the shitty Kazaa crap like 128K MP3s (eeew), bad radio rips (I believe I have a song somewhere where someone's Windows System Beep got recorded by accident), mis-named files, etc.

[Guest Lightning Flik]

Sure, that seems like a lot, but then again, we are paying out $15-20 for a record for about 10 songs. $10 for 10 songs sounds about right to me.

You actually get a small discount if you download a whole album.

 

The thing is you get great digital quality, they can be burned to CDs, and you don't have to deal with the shitty Kazaa crap like 128K MP3s (eeew), bad radio rips (I believe I have a song somewhere where someone's Windows System Beep got recorded by accident), mis-named files, etc.

Oh, didn't know that you get a discount.

 

Also, it would mean less hassle for me to find great mp3s. As I'm having a bitch of a time trying to find a decent download sharing system.

 

Personally, I'd take the i-pod instead of CDs. Although an i-pod cost $250, I'd rather buy it and be able to just download those songs directly into it, rather than have to burn a CD. Besides, CDs can only hold so many, where as the i-pod holds 7500 (give or take a few). Less spending on my part.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

If they destroy my computer for downloading music I'll fight it as hard as I can.

 

Especially since my Mom wants me to burn her some CD's. She gave me a two page list of songs to download.

[Guest Brush with Greatness]

Whatever. Just as soon as the government come up with a system to hack into your computer, an actual hacker will develop a free download to protect your system from said hacking by government.

 

The government and RIAA spent shitloads of time and money busting their asses to shutdown Napster. For what?

 

What I would also wonder about is the U.S. government destroying PC's of people in other countries. I'm certain that would be fairly taboo.

[Guest JMA]

They shut-down Napster but other file-sharing programs took its place. They can't win. They can destroy system, after system, after system, and more will take their place. Right now "KaZaA" is the new p2p king.

[Guest Retro Rob]

For most people, if they really like the songs on a CD that they downloaded from a P2P system, they DO go out and buy the CD. I'm not most people, but nonetheless, I know many people who will do that and only burn mix CDs. Record sales are not down because of KaZaA, they are down because currently most of the CDs on the market suck.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

But how will they know whether or not you're downloading music illegally?

 

What if I only download music because I don't want to scratch my CD's? My interpretation of American copyright law and the Fair Use act is that it is legal to download music if I legally own a copy of it. So, how will the government and/or the RIAA know whether or not I'm downloading music illegally, or whether or not I'm just getting another copy of music I already legally own?

 

If the government crashes my computer because they think I'm downloading music illegally, and I can prove I legally own all of the music they caught me downloading, can I sue?

[Guest Goodear]

Of course file sharing is illegal. The problem is, record companies stopped caring about quality music years ago, and kept parading out tired flavor-of-the-week bands and their crappy albums. With two economic slowdowns in the last decade or so, many people have kept a closer eye on their disposable income, and can no longer justify paying an average price of more than $16 for a plastic disc with 2-3 good songs on it.

 

So ... because the music is crappy, you are allowed to steal it? Why the heck do you want a bunch of music you don't like anyway? Shoot you should just shoplift the CDs since the record companies are so very evil.

 

The RIAA doesn't give artists much money at all, and even seizes possession of the master tapes used to make the recording. It's not only work-for-hire, it's theft. And people are supposed to support this conglamerate and this business model with a clear conscience?

 

So the RIAA pushed an artist down and grabbed their music sheets and tapes? Funny I thought a record contract was something both parties had to agree to. Anyway, you don't care about the artists either. You just want your downloads cause they're free. Don't play some bullshit morality card when you're stealing music and violating copywrite laws.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

But, file sharing, on its own merits, isn't illegal. I have, for example, "Pleasures U Like," by Jon B. It isn't illegal for me to download each and every song on that CD off the internet.

 

Now, why would I download if I could just "rip" the songs off the CD? Who cares? Maybe I'm superstitious. Maybe I'm clumsy. Maybe I ripped tracks from a CD once, and accidentally scratched the CD taking it out of my drive, so I'd rather just download the tracks from a P2P than hazard entrusting the CD to my hamhock-like fingers. Maybe I just collect CD's, and don't want to actually play it, but just admire it in it's little case. Why isn't important. The point is that I'm legally entitled to own an electronic copy of music that I have legally purchased, and I want to know how the RIAA intends to prove that if I'm using a P2P to download tracks, that I'm actually breaking the law.

[Guest Retro Rob]

So ... because the music is crappy, you are allowed to steal it? Why the heck do you want a bunch of music you don't like anyway? Shoot you should just shoplift the CDs since the record companies are so very evil.

 

No one is ALLOWED to download music (unless they own it), BUT if stealing is what it takes to open the music industries eyes to the fact that its products suck, then so be it.

 

So the RIAA pushed an artist down and grabbed their music sheets and tapes? Funny I thought a record contract was something both parties had to agree to. Anyway, you don't care about the artists either. You just want your downloads cause they're free. Don't play some bullshit morality card when you're stealing music and violating copywrite laws.

 

The thing is, if bands put out quality CDs I (and many others) would buy them. This is why I have only bought 2 or 3 CDs over the last year. As for caring about the artists, I do care about the ones that put out good music and because of that level of care I buy their CDs.

[Guest Eagan469]

if this ever goes through, I better make a bunker next to my computer

[Guest DrTom]

So ... because the music is crappy, you are allowed to steal it?

When did I say anyone was *allowed* to steal it? In fact, I referred to file sharing as "civil disobedience" (emphasis added, since it seems to be necessary), and you can't disobey when you're doing something you're allowed to do. What I was getting at is that file sharing is a reaction to the record companies, which have become increasinly faceless corporations, regurgitating the same tired music over and over. People are tired of it, and they're not going to pay for it when they feel they can get one over on the record companies and get the music for free.

 

Why the heck do you want a bunch of music you don't like anyway?

I get the tracks I want and don't bother with the rest. Interestingly enough, I had a vast CD collection before I decided to cast the RIAA into oblivion. I probably own (legitimately, of course) 75-80% of what I've downloaded. Which, as an American consumer who's still protected by fair use laws which have been under scrutiny and attack by the RIAA, is still my right, until Congre$$ decides to repeal them after being "persuaded" by the RIAA.

 

So the RIAA pushed an artist down and grabbed their music sheets and tapes? Funny I thought a record contract was something both parties had to agree to.

Translation: "Hi, I'm ignorant as to how contracts work in the record industry, so I'm going to toss out some unfunny humor and poor analogies and hope no one catches on." Sorry, slugger, but I've written several articles about the RIAA and file sharing. I know how their contracts work. If a band doesn't sign with an RIAA label... then what? Indy labels can't promote like a big label can, so your only chance to reach a large audience is go on a major label. And then you're handed a contract that doesn't pay you much, makes you sell a lot of CDs to earn your advance, and takes all your tapes when the recording is over, despite the fact that they're your tapes and you paid for the studio time. It's a shitty contract, but the RIAA can get away with it because almost every musical act out there wants to be on a major label, and they're willing to sell their souls and firstborn children for the chance.

 

Anyway, you don't care about the artists either. You just want your downloads cause they're free.

I've said this several times before: what I'd like to see is for several large artists to break away from the RIAA. Start their own labels, but more importantly, offer their albums for download on their websites. They'd get all the profits from it, and the digital distribution model eliminates almost all the overhead. Bands could charge $5.99 to download an entire album from their web site, and I'd gladly do it. Because the artists get the money, not a bunch of greedy, anti-consumer suits.

 

Don't play some bullshit morality card when you're stealing music and violating copywrite laws.

Don't play any cards until you learn to fucking read.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Now, explain this part to me.

 

I own a CD. I own the CD. The CD, and all of its contents on THAT CD are now my property. I paid for it, I found it, and I made the conscious decision to purchase it. I rip the tracks, the tracks I legally paid for mind you, onto my computer and share them with people. They then listen to the tracks, decide they like the band, and buy the CD, buy tickets to live shows, and buy merchandise.

 

...and this hurts the artist how?

[Guest Retro Rob]

Now, explain this part to me.

 

I own a CD. I own the CD. The CD, and all of its contents on THAT CD are now my property. I paid for it, I found it, and I made the conscious decision to purchase it. I rip the tracks, the tracks I legally paid for mind you, onto my computer and share them with people. They then listen to the tracks, decide they like the band, and buy the CD, buy tickets to live shows, and buy merchandise.

 

...and this hurts the artist how?

Because NO ONE buys CDs once they download the songs. That is the prosped theory at least.

[Guest Goodear]

So let me get this strait, if all the money was going to the artists you would never download a MP3 again?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The CD, and all of its contents on THAT CD are now my property.

According to current copyright laws, you don't.