| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Hatch Looses his Mind... |
| 2003-06-17 |
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. |
| Posted by:Angry Federalist |
| #10 price of kalishnikovs in Peshawar? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2003-06-17 20:57:47 |
| #9 Dave D. = Dave Dilatush from Daily Pundit? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-06-17 20:48:19 |
| #8 You're right, Frank; most of the time Orin Hatch has his head on straight, but when it gets out of joint it gets WAY out of joint. I wish there were Senate and House rules that REQUIRED every piece of legislation to be submitted to a review against the Law Of Unintended Consequences, and a review of how that legislation might be maliciously applied. Even if it accomplished nothing more than slowing the legislative process down by 90%, that would be A Good Thing. Come to think of it, that would be a VERY good thing... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2003-06-17 20:33:44 |
| #7 To Mr Hatch, the downloaders who get their machines damaged will then say (in the immortal words of Bugs Bunny): "Of course you know, this means war." |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-06-17 20:31:36 |
| #6 Hatch needs an axehandle in the face. This little idiocy of his totally ignores due process, not to mention several other guarantees found in more than one Amendment in our Constitution. There is no way under the sun to guarantee that the person downloading files is actually the owner of the computer, or that the action isn't a legitimate download. This is the kind of crap that has clogged our courts for the last 75 years, and made the Constitution a roll of toilet paper. There is no excuse for anyone thinking like this. You don't solve one crime by committing another. Hatch should know better. If he doesn't he doesn't belong in Congress. If his aides haven't quietly pulled him aside and told him he's out of bounds, they need to be fired. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-06-17 20:24:35 |
| #5 Just FYI - Metallica found a way to stop illegal downloads of their new CD, "St. Anger": It's a piece of crap. I like most Metallica and this one won't be pirated much, so Orrin and Lars can unfurrow those brows |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-06-17 18:57:47 |
| #4 Frank, I agree with you. I love Hatch, this is why I am flabbergasted by his position. It seems that the punishment advocated is disproportionate to the crime. |
| Posted by: Angry Federalist 2003-06-17 18:43:26 |
| #3 Hatch is sane on about 95% of the days, even to the point of baiting Schumer over "dumb questions", which I loved. This is an example of the other 5%. Perhaps Fritz Hollings (D-Disney,RIAA) got to him? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-06-17 18:27:58 |
| #2 Frank, I agree with you. I love Hatch, this is why I am flabbergasted by his position. It seems that the punishment advocated is disproportionate to the crime. |
| Posted by: Angry Federalist 6/17/2003 6:43:26 PM |
| #1 Hatch is sane on about 95% of the days, even to the point of baiting Schumer over "dumb questions", which I loved. This is an example of the other 5%. Perhaps Fritz Hollings (D-Disney,RIAA) got to him? |
| Posted by: Frank G 6/17/2003 6:27:58 PM |