Slashdot Mirror
Sen Hatch Would Like To Destroy Filetraders' PCs
CBackSlash writes "Sen. Hatch is interested in technology to remotely destroy computers. But it would only be used if you're downloading copyrighted material, and only the copyright owner should be able to wield this awesome power, since having the feds do it would be against the law. Here is the AP story from Yahoo!."
...Sen Hatch went on to propose that cars be designed so that they explode when they exceed the speed limit - or "pirate drive" as he preferred to call it.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Oh, I see why now. Perhaps he received some donations from other upset copyright holders.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
That is just pure lunacy. Hatch has said some pretty crazy
things over the years, but this has to top the list.
I've been a supporter of Hatch for several years, even helping
with the election effort on several occasions. This takes the
cake though, it's time to get fresher blood into that office.
If you want to call his office and complain (as I will):
DC Office: 202.224.5251
SLC Office: 801.524.4380
here is his website:
http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/
Please call and voice your extreme antagonism to these types of
statements. Although the other Senators called him down, he
needs to know that we hear these statements and are against them
in the extreme.
I just got off the phone with the Salt Lake Office, and they had
no idea he had made statements of this nature. In fact she was
quite taken back to hear of them. Please call and let them know
how you feel about this. If they know their voters are against
this type of behavior, they will change it.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
These people are no smarter than a little kid saying, "I'm a hacker, I can make your computer blow up using the internet." They need to be asking the technology experts solutions to these matters, like Apple's music store. Of course, KaZaA still needs to be eliminated since competition between one legal source of music and an illegial one is kind of silly. However, I can tell these represenatives know little to nothing about technology the way they talk about using these unethical and impractical tactics against music piracy, if they do this, they are no better than who they are fighting.
will he be making guns that shoot the robbers when they are pointed at police officers?
Iâ(TM)m guessing that the next big computer worm will plant a Celine Dion song on your computer and then send an âanonymous tipâ(TM) to the RIAA.
(sig on loan to Smithsonian)
Finally something less reasonable than self-destructing DVD's.
I Geek
I can't believe this crap is still going on - That would be like when Hatch is moving into a new house, and it turns out his cable is active (from the last owner) and since he didn't pay for new service, and is "stealing" it until he gets hooked up under his name, that AT&T should be able to blow up his TV. This guy is a moron, and I hope he dies a slow, painful death for damage he is doing to this country's already-screwed up laws.
He probably has nothing to worry about since I think that old man is probably too old to even know how to use a computer. Why is it always the old, technology phobic senators who seem to come up with these "great" ideas? I think it is going overboard destroying a thousand dollar+ machine for, say, pirating a $15 CD. Even in the "eye for an eye" mentality, that is going too far. When is he due for reelection?
today is spelling optional day.
"Washington Post reports that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch from Utah, said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet. A notably quote: "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]". Hatch has a personal interest, since I'm sure his music is pirated on a regular basis. ;)"
:)
Just thought people might appreciate other links and such...guess I should've submitted it a couple minutes earlier....oh well
First Hatch's son is one of the lawyers pursuing the SCO case, now Orrin is talking smack about filesharing...
Will someone please investigation campaign contributions made to Orrin? I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Microsoft has made significant contributions to Mr. Hatch's past campaigns.
the next time I see one of my legislators driving around massivly exceeding the speed limit and failing to use thier turn signals I get to follow them home and destroy thier vehicle. To paraphrase Hatch in my context: This may be the only way you can teach somebody about traffic laws. and "There's no excuse for anyone violating traffic laws." The only reason I draw this parrallel is I live close to and grew up near the state capital and this is something that irritates me beyond belief.
The stupidity of our elected officials never ceases to amaze me.
This is not just about file-sharing. It's about the ability of the government to remotely wipe out your computer, and creating the mindset that people whose computers are wiped out must be bad and therefore unworthy of notice or protection. In Ashcroft's America, how long before those of us who visit websites critical of the current regime will have our computers fried as a result?
If governmental workers are like me, they are bored and use Kazaa at work. I'm wondering whether there will be enough computers left to control the ballisting missile defense by the time Hatch is through with destroying computers.
I guess the RIAA's stratage is as follows:
1) destroy people's computers.
2) make them hate and fear you.
3) ???
4) profit.
1) Download firewall
2) Install firewall
3) Reap vast profit of pirated material
I mean really, how hard is it to make sure your computer is up to date with patches and has a good firewall installed. Preferably with an OpenBSD/Linux(with the bare minimum installed) box physically in between your home LAN and the internet.
Not that I'm in favor of destroying people's computers (I assume this means things like reformatting people's hard drives), that's just asinine. But I do think it's OK for record companies to spoof P2P networks and try to disrupt them.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If you read his comments in context, the truth of what he said becomes obvious.
Cyberphobia among the old guard, as represented by people in Hatch's generation, has given way to overt, unbridled hatred of technology and its advocates. He views internet users as a group of miscreants who must be taught a lesson and his suggestions of remote computer destruction as a perfectly valid means of holding due process hostage to force us to solve the content industry's problems.
I am aghast.
Does anyone recall the code for Grubbnix? It was a quick hack in the early to mid 90s, but it worked quite well. Call it a cross-over between a bootloader and an OS, I suppose.
;-)
Anyways, the interesting part of Grubbnix was that it had a lot of capability and use when it came to flashing your BIOS (most major motherboard companies today still use a Grubbnix variant with their flashing utilities). I still remember one variant called Hucker (or something like that, maybe Huckey) that was spread around on disks to unsuspecting users. When you loaded it and left it running, it opened up your system enough so that someone via TCP/IP could execute commands, one of which was to completely shitfuck your BIOS, and sometimes even managed to cause damage to the CPU/motherboard by modifying threshold settings in the BIOS (depending on your model #).
It used to be passed out to "enemies" at HackerCons, who would then take it home, load it, and end up with a fucked PC.
Perhaps Senator Hatch needs to give the Cult of the Dead Cow an e-mail and see if they still have the source around somewhere
+ Donald Gunth
+ Email: dgunth@quicktek.net
"Caffeine is the greatest lubricant ever created." -ESR
that's because Senator Hatch is the BASTARD CHILD OF THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!
Proof:
SCO has made no secret in recent months that it hired high-profile attorney David Boies to spearhead its case against IBM, but the company's legal representation in Utah courts is also noteworthy. The company retained Brent O. Hatch and Mark F. James of the law firm Hatch, James & Dodge. Hatch is the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a representative for SCO confirmed Monday.
The whole family works for the devil!!!!
[/tongue in cheek]
Right you are. Instead of allowing capitalists _and_ the govenment to screw us over, lets put them both together so they are not so high-maintenance.
The unofficial
And there is an excuse for vandalizing a PC?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
since having the feds do it would be against the law.
But it's all right for copyright-holders to do it? Where does the DMCA say copyright-holders can blow up PCs? This is insane!
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
The senator, a composer who earned $18,000 last year in song writing royalties
;)
Want some mp3s of his work?
-
Joke, dont nuke my computer! Senator Hatch!
Vigilante justice is outlawed in every other form -- this is little more than authorizing digital lynch mobs.
I think these silly idea are just meant to direct people's attention away from the real dangerous (DMCA-like) laws. They have no intention to pass this law, just to make the others look "not that bad". That why I say that stpuid things like that *are* safe to ignore because I doubt that even the *AA would really want that passed (e.g. they don't want their whole office shut down in case an accident happens).
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Sneakers that destitch themselves when you jaywalk.
Cars whose tires go flat when you speed.
Oxygen tanks that cease providing oxygen when diving in restricted areas.
Planes whose wings fall off when flying over restricted space.
Trenchcoats that burst into flame when used to conceal theft of 3 pens from the office.
Buildings which systematically disassemble themselves when accountants working for the company owning the building fudge figures.
Planets that implode when governments on them begin passing fucking retarded laws.
When a child does something wrong, you spank them. Negative reinforcement discourages them from doing it again. But why spank them? Because otherwise, there would be no natural consequences that the child can immediately see - the child can't see how refusing to share his/her toys is a bad thing, so you artificially make it a bad thing by spanking them.
Destroying someone's PC as a punishment for copyright violations is like spanking them: artificially making it a bad thing.
Adults spank their children. Adults don't spank other adults. Corporations shouldn't be spanking anybody.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
What we really need is a technology that removes a congressman from office once he says anything unconstitutional in public.
No need for any due process crap, just "bu-bye".
but they are in lockstep with the corporations. This is what happens when people are elected with money that has strings attatched, as all modern campaign contributions seem to do. When McKinley was president, it was considered corruption. Now it's called fundraising. Think I'm reactionary? Look at Martha Stewart she profitted $48,000. That's fricken chump change. Now look at Kenneth Laye. He and his cronies raped how many millions of people's bank accounts. Who just got indicted? Martha. Who contributed to the GOP? Enron. A bit off topic, perhaps, but it's all part of a much larger problem.
Of course, the reason it is illegal for the Feds to do it is to prevent abuses. So we give it to a *less* regulated group. Greeaat.
Actually though, as long as they are still liable for any damages they inflict this will be fun. Let's see, they (will/would have) just destroyed a $1000 computer, with $10000 (and if you can't figure out a way to back that figure up you need help) of the user's own data to delete a $0.99 song. Can we spin this?
Of course, it is better to stop this now, before the circus...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
My computer monitors my dialysis machine.
Excuse me while I kill the RIAA goons in self defense.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
those annoying documents called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
It's been a long time for this Baby-Boomer since I studied them in high school, but the phrases Innocent until proven guilty, unreasonable search and seizure, and due process of law seem to ring a bell.
...that someone batoned down this loose Hatch.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
From:
Senator Hatch married the former Elaine Hansen of Newton, Utah. They are the proud parents of six children and have twenty grandchildren.
I wonder how many of his kids' and grandkids' PC's would be wrecked?
Wouldn't a public incitement to damage private property be considered terrorism under the PATRIOT act? At a minimum it is irresponsible.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Let me start by saying no sane person agrees with damaging someoneâ(TM)s computer over copyright violations, including the music majors. Iâ(TM)m just trying to explain why Hatch said what he said:
It's well known in certain circles that Hatch is trying to pressure the IT companies into helping to solve the p2p piracy problem. I suspect he doesn't REALLY believe in damaging people's computers, he's just saying that to try and pressure the IT companies into getting something done. He is a song writer himself and is particularly interested in copyright issues but is frustrated with the lack of progress, thus his over zealous comments. He is a politician, after all, so statements like this are just part of his game. There is no way it will ever be legal to trash someoneâ(TM)s computer for a copyright violation since this would be like making it legal to trash someoneâ(TM)s house if they steal cable TV (not gonna happen).
Not nessesarily.
When one of the various Higher Ups says "Copyright Holder", they don't meant you. They mean the multinationals that put out music and movies and such, and pump billions into the economy, and millions more into campaign funding. You can't be a Copyright Holder without 1) Some serious, hard core old fasioned Walt Disney-style gumption and lots of luck. or 2) Well-targeted strategic takeovers of the worlds media holdings or 3) Massive, massive campaign contributions. Sorry.
Sure, you can hold a copyright. You can write something, or create something, and have it copyrighted, but you won't be a vaunted Copyright Holder. The metaphorical Big Red Button in this case will be given to the RIAA, the MPAA, Disney, et al. Not to J. Random Hacker to use when Big Software Giant steals routines from gprogram-0.1. You could ask, of course, as a legitimate copyright holder, but unless you're a Copyright Holder, you can expect a reply of "Tough Titty, Vote Quimby!". Doubt even Red Hat would rate for that kind of authority. Unless they put out a hit single.
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
I have been increasingly concerned about the contingent of Hollywood Democrats who have sought to cripple, extort, and otherwise destroy the progress of technology in the name of defending copyright holders from distribution of their works online. I've found especially disturbing the idea that is is valid for the government to hold due process hostage in order to force the technology community to solve the content industry's distribution problems by developing and implementing technical means to protect their work - by threatening to allow private organizations to maliciously attack computer systems alleged to be used to distribute protected works without the legal benefits accorded under criminal and civil law. This is an especially outrageous abandonment of the principles on which our government is supposed to stand.
I thought I could look to the Republican party to serve as a balance against this senseless legislative paranoia with regard to technology, but it seems that this is not the case. Although I am not a resident in your state, your words on this issue have caused me to reconsider ever supporting anyone from your party for elected office.
send your comments to: senator@hatch.senate.gov
....comes across a computer that has this new cool "destroy computers remotely over the Internet" app that he can't resist, burns a copy and takes home. Of course he tells his best buddy and gives him a copy. His buddy likes do brag to his IRC friends and shortly after 90% of the PC's hooked up to the internet are dead compliments of the RIAA.
... at least not when you're running a secure, open source operating system. ;)
Sure they'll be able to make a deal with Microsoft, and it'll all fit in their DRM vision.
But there's absolutely _no_ way any open source OS will ever allow such a backdoor to be added with which this 'law' could be enforced.
So the only effect, if this would ever come true, would be an increase in popularity of the free operating systems.
Just look on the bright side of things
They are completely different. One is a mater of policy, the other of personal integrity. Personally, I come from the camp that thinks its better to have good policy and bad personal integrity than great PI but bad policy.
The unofficial
If a "Barney cartoon" comes up on my monitor, they won't have to destroy my PC. I will have thrown it out the window before I realized what was happening!
Oh the humanity...
--==-- I've found Karma to be a relative thing... Ya know, the kind you invite to Christmas...
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."
United States Patent Application 732980759-32754321
User interface for remotely enforcing copyright
Abstract
A user interface and corresponding application program interface (API) and hardware device providing a set of functions for remotely enforcing copyright legislation.
Inventors: Hatch, Orrin (R-Utah), MillionthMonkey
Serial No.: 053243653216
Series Code: 10
Filed: June 17, 2003
Claims
1. A software architecture for a distributed computing system comprising: a pissed off copyright holder, a hardware device capable of being remotely destroyed over a network; and an application program interface to present two dialog boxes to a user who is sharing files to present functions of the application to access and destroy his hardware.
2. A software architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein the distributed computing system comprises client devices and peer-to-peer devices that handle requests from other peer-to-peer devices, the remote devices having been hardwired with explosives by the manufacturer.
3. A software architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein the distributed computing system comprises client devices and peer-to-peer devices that handle requests from other peer-to-peer devices, the remote devices having been sharing files with other peer-to-peer devices as outlined in section 1.
4. A software architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein the application program interface comprises: a first group of services related to discovery of file sharing activity, a second group of services related to displaying two dialog boxes to the user, and a third group of services related to remotely detonating a device as outlined in section 1.
5. An application program interface as recited in claim 4, wherein the first group of services comprises: first functions that enable copyright holder to scour remote device for peer-to-peer activity relating to copyrighted content; a second group of services related to displaying two threatening messages to the user, and a third group of services related to reception of the kill signal and subsequent detonation.
CONCLUSION
Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather, the specific features and acts are disclosed as exemplary forms of implementing the claimed invention.
And I'm off to the patent office! Later, suckas!
to destroy your computer, what is keeping them from just reporting you to the FBI. then the FBI can do a quick search on your ip (what service provider has it) then the service provider can tell the FBI who you are...I assume they log who gets what IP at what time for dial up and if they refresh your IP on cable/dsl then the same should go for that.
"bam" the door gets kicked in, an M16 is at your head, and you get 5 years in federal prison with Bubba the big black prison fag as your cell mate who kindly tells you to "bend over biach!!!"
that would keep people from pirating copyrighted music, movies and software.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that
Instead of destroying machines, address the problem: THE LAW.
It is simple. Record labels are loosing out because they are not needed (as they were in the past) to acquire music. If a service is no longer in demand, no law should defend that service that is no longer in need. It is stinking up our free market.
Richard Stallman has a great idea. In my media player, I should be able to quickly and easily donate money directly to the artist. How many of you would set aside a dollar or two to give to the artists whom you really enjoy? That would probably be more than the artists make on royalties now anyway. It also gets rid of the unneeded middleman.
Just a thought...
a few years ago, there was an interesting roundtable discussion between sen. hatch, hilary rosen, director keven smith, and a few others regarding file sharing in general. at the time, i didn't much like senator hatch, but his views in the roundtable seemed remarkably enlightened for a congressman. i hope that this ap article is taken out of context, or i'll have to go back to disliking him again.
... how much a C4 charge and detonator will add to the cost of each computer sold. Will they still have internet access on airplanes? Be careful what you download while flying!
This basically amounts to sub-contracting work out from the Judicial system. As soon as you start subbing out work, it starts going to the lowest bidder. Eventually all court proceedings will be carried out over videoconferrencing with a guy in India.
Scary Stuff. However, I donâ(TM)t think Senator Hatch would be for it if the Govâ(TM)tâ(TM)s computers got destroyed by this âtechnologyâ(TM), because some secretary wanted to listen to Michael Bolton songs while she filed away petitions. Or even worse, someone could create a virus that would be used to destroy the computers of the systems sending the program.
~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.
In fact, may I suggest running VPC to download these things, and then just dragging the files out of the share folder? It's just that easy, and if they wail on yer comp, it was only a Virtual PC. No worries.
For any with a technical bent, this is no problem at all.
IBM you are in breach of contract....Five minutes later every AIX machine in the world self destructs.
Got Code?
Me: "Why did you hack into and destroy my PC???"
RIAA: "You had some of our copyrighted material."
Me: "I did not! Prove I had your stuff!"
RIAA: "No, you're the one suing me. You prove it."
Me: "I *CAN'T*! You destroyed my PC!"
RIAA: "A-ha!"
WOW!!!
Those are the kind of stupid things someone supports right before they are very public dragged from their office beaten with a very large stick in the middle of the town square.
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
Don't be so sure. The last time this exact same thing came up there were specific provisions in the bill protecting the various media cartels in case of an accident. You had to prove that they screwed up and that the damages exceeded a certain dollar value. Therefor it would be nearly impossible for you to prove that they made a mistake. Of course it didn't pass that time, but you never know the second time around. Especially if people just ignore the issue.
AFAIK, every House and Senate member can be reached thru the websites for their respective branches:
www.house.gov
www.senate.gov
You can contact the Senator here, though it might be useful to restrict comments to civil discourse about things like due process and vigilante-ism rather than just name-calling and ranting.
Of course the biggest problem with this technology (if it were created, and introduced) would be the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands. What havoc would be created if it fell into the hands of a script-kiddie? Can you imagine the chaos and destruction they would cause?
And once pandora's box is open...
I am not stubborn. I am right!
R. Orin Hatch of the Senate Judiciary Committee wants a system installed in computers that will warn copyright abusers (people who download mp3's) two times, and then destroy their computers.
...
Quotes from Senator Hatch, "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"
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
Now as you can imagine, there are a lot of people who are pretty upset with the idea. They are all yelling and screaming, but I am smiling.
I for one applaud Mr. Hatch! These are exactly the kinds of laws I hope he can get passed.
He has my staunch support!
I also think cars should warn you twice before you drive faster than the speed limit and then just shut off... forever. This will cause there to be fewer cars on the road, less cars means less pollution and fewer traffic jams Phones used in movie theaters should warn you once, and then stop working, which will lead to lower numbers of brain cancers. J-walkers should get two warnings and then have their legs amputated (that will teach them) thus reducing the need for rubber (for shoes) and saving from exploitation South American rubber tree sap harvesters. In fact I think it would be a good idea to lace the worlds drug supplies with poison rather than spending so much money in the obviously unwinnable war on drugs! Then we can sit back relax, and let it resolve itself.
Now as all it will take is one script kiddie to write a program that accesses the RIAA backdoor computer kill function and start wiping out all the american desktop pc's (zap, zap, zap) some of you may find Mr. Hatch's position to be poorly thought out. Nothing could be more untrue. We can hardly blame this potentiality on a lack of forethought with regards to Mr. Hatch, to not implement these features merely because they will be abused would be like limiting the availability of handguns just because they "might" be used by criminals- ridiculous!
Of course Mr. Hatch will decry the hacking should it occur, and will probably find a way to use the words "domestic-terrorists" somehow, but everyone will know whose wonderful idea it was to make computers with a kill switch and they will all bless him! For you see though the outrage will ripple across America as hardware that cost several thousand dollars simply stops working, though Mr. Hatch will become the focal point of (even more) scorn, and people will be forced to buy new computers every couple of days.(... isn't that good for the economy after all? Why settle for the natural inclination of the home user to upgrade every few years, when we can do forced upgrades all the time!) though they will curse and revile his name they will all have eggs on their faces when it's Hatch's magical kill switches that save us all from OMNI-sentient-Cyberian 9000, the ultra-networked Uber-AI. Why the moment it starts passing data around its nodes on how to most efficiently wipe out humanity the kill switches will presume large file sharing activity means illegal copyright violations and a cascade of kill switch activations will spread node to node like a deadly computer cancer saving us all from destruction beneath the heel of our robot masters!
-Codexwriter
I really hate it when polititians use such blatantly flawed logic. Of course violating copyright laws is wrong, but his suggestion has nothing to do with whether or not it is right share copyrighted material. With that logic I might be defending my decision to shoot the guy who cut me off this morning by saying "There's no excuse for dangerous lane changes." The illegality of an act is never sufficient justification for a particular response.
Hmm, there was that guy who spun a CD-ROM up to 52x and made it shatter.
Suppose RIAA were to embed little metal weights to unbalance every CD they ship.
Put it in your CD-ROM or Discman, it plays back at 1x, and you hear music. If the Discman is stuffed down your pants, you might even enjoy it.
But since we all know that RIAA considers a high-speed CD-R drive as "equivalent to" multiple CD-R drives, and consequently a Weapon of Mass Piracy (an ironic acronym, to be sure), if one was to put a suitably-unbalanced CD into a high-speed CD-ROM drive and attempt to "rip" the content to WAV files for future MP3 encoding, the disc would shatter, effectively destroying the drive, and possibly damaging other components in the computer.
One could double-up on this by embedding granules of pyrophoric (combusts in contact with oxygen) materials in nitrogen or other inert-gas bubbles in the disc substrate. The disc shatters in the high-speed piracy weapon, neutralizing it, and then the pyrophoric granules ignite, dumping toxic fumes and possibly burning other components inside the copyright terrorist's weapon (aka "computer").
Prediction: RIAA will develop this technology, and its use will be mandated. Within six months of the passage of the Active Countermeasures Against Copyright Terrorism Act, a 747 will be brought down by a Muslim whackjob playing Britney Spears in a laptop.
Congress will immediately respond to this new security threat... by passing another to require that all laptops be checked as baggage. A thunderous roar of "Dude! We're getting your Dell!" will be heard from airport security screeners worldwide.
Just to refresh your memories... Senator Hatch (from my own state, Utah) sponsored the DMCA. That act alone should have ended the guy's career, normally. But the general populace never seems to care about "Internet issues".
He later seemed to flip positions, doing a number of things to help Napster out, and many slashdotters were singing his praises. I was more doubtful, but I bit my tongue, thinking that maybe he had changed. Obviously he has not; either that, or that second big contribution finally came through from the RIAA, so it's time to go to bat for them again.
Here's a great synopsis of what people seemed to generally think of him back in the Napster days: link
I think it's time for us (esp. in Utah) to make sure he doesn't get another term. Even viewed in the most favorable light, the guy is definitely a loose cannon. The big problem is, no one of any quality ever seems to run against him, and in this heavily Republican state, it's unlikely that a mediocre Democrat with no real platform can win.
Remember this moment at the next election, Utahns!
-- Dave
Hatch lacks it beacuase he doesn't know that a patently stupid idea like destroying someone's computer before you knew if they were guilty or not is illegal, unconstitutional, and asking for trouble.
Clinton lacks it for more reasons than that he got caught... in the oval office... with an intern... lied about it... tried to redefine the word "IS"... etc...
Running a country is no small thing. We are trusting these guys to keep the most powerful country on Earth out of harms way. If they can't be trusted on the small things then they need to be thrown out! It doesn't matter their party affiliation or what policies they back. Lack of integrity can get us all killed.
'nuff said...
--==-- I've found Karma to be a relative thing... Ya know, the kind you invite to Christmas...
Your anology is good. I will now stretch it to the point of being silly.
There are studies-- ones i can't remember the names of or links to, of course-- that show that spanking a child makes that child more likely to grow up to be a violent person. If I remember right, the claim was that people who had corporal punishment used on them as a child were more likely to grow up to be the kind of person who beat their wives or children.
The reason given for this, again if i remember right, was that by having violence used on them at such a sensitive age, the child grows up thinking violence is "normal", and application of violence is how you are expected to solve problems, and beating someone is an acceptable and normal way for one human to get another human to comply with a request.
So, here's my thought: what happens if the RIAA hacking and screwing up your computer if you've been filetrading becomes common? What happens to the children/teenagers who grow up under this kind of paradigm, and grow up seeing that the RIAA, this big important adult business thing that funds congressional campaigns and everything, reacts to people doing things it things are wrong by tracking them down and breaking their stuff?
If it works like spanking does, well, we may well wind up with a generation growing up thinking vigilante justice is normal. Or maybe growing up with a kind of "us vs them" mentality toward corporations; that corporations are some kind of big distant enemies who can do anything they like without the law applying. And you can't tell a kid that someone big is allowed to hit you and you can't hit back and have them believe you. They might wind up growing up thinking that terrorism by corporations against citizens, and terrorism against corporations by citizens, is normal, and the law considers such things acceptable enough they don't regulate them.. as long as one is doing the other doesn't like...
This is stretching, and of course, none of this will ever come to pass. But, just a thought.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Does this mean that SCO will be able to nuke anyone's machine that is downloading anything with a linux kernel or AIX patch?
What if I email SCO part of the AIX kernel, and they open it.. does that give IBM the right to nuke their machine?
What if Osama Bin Laden writes a message on the internet, copyrights it, and explicitly states that nobody from the U.S. Government may read it. If the NSA downloads it, does that give Osama the right to zzzzap their computers?
What if I place an auction on eBay with a title that contains copywritten lyrics by Metallica, and pay for it to get on their front page? Does that give Metallica the right to take out all eBay user's boxes?
Whatever the legalities, I hope that when they implement this feature that the computers actually smoke when they get fried. If they're going to destroy one's property, they'd better at least make it entertaining.
Has Hatch changed sides so dramatically?
...must be ill-conceived.
I couldn't agreee more with Sen. Leahy's comment:
"We need to work together to find the right answers, and this is not one of them."
The idea of any manufacturer designing their product such that it could be destroyed by some remote user is abusrd. We're not talking about the self-destruct mechanism on the USS Enterprise here... we're talking about some user on the Internet "destroying" your computer.
I can see it now... someone dumps a worm onto the internet and within a few hours, thousands of computers are destroyed. In general, if you expose a feature that an authorized user can access, someone, somewhere is going to figure out how to access it without authorization.
Copyright laws should be enforced -- at least to some extent. However, I think that unless someone is profiting from the unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted material, no one really gets hurt. Yes, the big record companies may lose a few sales. However, in my experience, people end up buying albums after hearing a few "pirated" singles, since usually the whole album is not available for download.
Keep big brother out of my living room, bedroom, and my computer, thank you very much.
why oh why are such idiots elected to office? apathy. get out, vote (insert non-retarded party here) and get these morons out of office!!!
If our constitutional rights are colliding with the interests of the content industry, the proper solution is not to destroy our constitutional rights but rather to destroy the content industry. This is especially the case considering how, in the grand scheme of multinational business, movies and records are small potatoes.
If copyright cannot coexist with freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and due process of law, it is time for copyright to go.
Put it that way to the content industry, and maybe they'll have a strong incentive to think of a workable and non-subversive way to run their businesses.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
1) Download firewall
2) Install Firewall
Haven't you been paying attention? The RIAA and MPAA wouldn't mind making THOSE illegal as well.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
How about smart gun technology that won't fire at all, no matter who has the gun.
Dream world right? Then robbers can't murder store owners. Police can't gun down someone who may be innocent. Politicians can't send our boys out to fight because there won't be any guns that work! We would all throw down our weapons and just learn to love one another!
Ok, I went a little overboard.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
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.
Seriously, any other country in the world would have found such proposition to be serious madness. Criminals have rights because they are humans like everyone else. Destroying someone's property for the sake of 'justice' ( the author doesn't think copyright enforcement is justice at all. ) isn't justifiable and arguable. Any civilized nation in the world doesn't allow the state to destroy, steal or commit any other criminal act against perpetrator of such crimes because crimes only generates crime. ( the ole saying: fighting evil with evil only generates more evil.. that's not a bold statement at all. )
Makes me think of the jokes in the Robocop movies where car thieves are executed right on the spot by electrical discharge. That wasn't serious at all you know, and it was directly aimed to laugh at people like Sen. Hatch, who obviously are sponsoring the concept of the police state for the ole mighty $.
This guy ( Sen. Hatch ) is the perfect example of a real DUMB ASS AMERICAN WITH A TIN CAN FOR A BRAIN! Please, next election, vote for the sane people. Anyways with the economy totally drowning because of those idiots on capital hill, i don't think the next elections are going to worry the world very much. ( The author does think that some americans are civilized, well educated and capable of working in a equal and free society. )
They'll use your version when they post the dupe.
On the subject of loose cannon Senators, the Senator from Disney, Ernest Hollings, got quite a severe mocking today from Rush Limbaugh. Rush was making fun of Hollings saying that the problem with America was "too much consumption".
Can any good Mormons out there explain how the belief that you will (if you pay your tithes, etc) someday become a GOD affect your world view. This is on topic since Orin, Brent, Darl, and most of the SCO board are all apparently Mormons, as is the named Judge, Dale A. Kimball.
Well, what's to stop me from putting copyrighted material on my friends' computer? Material I've copyrighted, that is? Then, when I see people downloading it on Kazaa, it'll be legal for me to destroy their computer? It's kind of like making certain kinds of hacking legal.
Why protect a dead industry if the cost of protecting that industry is more than its worth?
File Sharing has been good for the economy, people buy broadband, people buy bigger harddrives, newer computers, better headphones and speaker, a new soundcard, a CD burner, a DVD burner, a portable MP3 player.
These are all of the things I've purchased with MY money, these things equal more than what I would have spent if I were to just buy 10 CDs or something.
So why do they want to destroy the whole PC industry to save the music industry? It doesnt make sense to me when most of Sonys sales, most of AOLs sales, come from the so called pirates. Those same pirates are the ones who pay AOL to connect to these file sharing apps.
But nooo, AOL has to be greedy and try to make you pay to connect to the net, buy their DVD burner, CD burner, and pay for the content.
Well imagine how successful ISPs would be if we had to pay for every website, $1 a site, how many people would surf the web for $1 a site? I wouldnt. Would you?
Why ruin the whole PC industry to save one business when theres 20-30 other businesses which benefit from piracy?
This isnt about economics, this isnt political, this is a power move, Disney has more power than Intel, Time Warner has more power than AOL, Sony's Movies Division has more power than Sonys electronics division.
What these dumb companies cant understand is, that their electronics divisions wont exist if they end piracy.
People wont bother buying a CD burner, at least not in these numbers, People wont buy VCRs, DVD burners, new soundcards for their PC, and all these little blank CDs.
Next time the RIAA complains about how many billions of dollars they lose on piracy, perhaps they should mention all of the billions they gain in terms of blank CDs, CD burners, DVD burners, and broadband internet access.
This industry could be huge, or a few greedy people can destroy it.
Mr. Sketch, what is your opinion? DO you think the Broadband/PC/Electronics industry will be bigger, or will the Media/Music/Content industry be bigger?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
It is for morons like this that the people should have the power to 'recall' politicians at all levels of govt. Senator Hatch says he's protecting your interests, but we all know the only interests he's protecting are his political contributions
Before my private property is seized or destroyed, I expect my constututional rights, specifically, those spelled out in the 4th amendment, to be respected.
The Government must not seize or destroy private property without that property's owner being granted due process. And I surely do not consent to a private industry lobbying group (the RIAA) taking the place of The Government, and trouncing that right, either.
If you have done so, please do not continue to advocate the destruction of private property, even under The Best Intentions(tm), or "boosting commerce". If you want to advocate the seizure or destruction of personal assets under ANY circumstances, please only consider doing so after granting the intended victim their constitutionally-guaranteed right of due process.
Yes, Hatch is 0wn3d by special interests;
He was co author of the DMCA, and also responsible for the Copyright Term Extension Act, or CTEA.
He also was responsible for a bill that would have extended the term of the patent for Claritin, as he use Schering-Plough's corporate jet when he was running for president.
He is also a backer of the patriot act, legislation that made it easier for the FBI to use Carnivore, and other legislation that erodes our civil rights. I could go on and on.
He doesn't even bother talking out of both sides of his mouth. He knows that when election time comes the sheeple will vote for him like they do everytime because he belongs "to the right party" (republican). I live in Utah and it makes me sick watching it. Republican leaders in the state legislature have said "you can't be a mormon and vote democrat." So nobody does, and Republicans hold 95% of major public offices in Utah.
Out of all of congress, he is the one most responsible for the infinite and perpetual copyrights we have today.
The greatest thing that could be done to advance our civil and online rights is to get Senator Hatch out of office.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
It's disturbing to hear about members of the government openly advocating vigilatism. Violent self-help is a danger to any society founded on the principle of the rule of law. Who gets to decide who's guilty? Who determines the punishment? Who watches for excesses and abuses? When it's every man for himself, life quickly becomes nasty, brutish, and short.
Coincidentally, I've been reading a book called "The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment" (by Franklin Zimring) that argues, among other things, that America's strong vigilate tradition, especially in the South, is one of the primary reasons it has become one of the last developed nations in the world with a death penalty; and that the values associated with vigilatism prevent Americans from critically examining the gross inequities in their capital punishment system, such as the vastly differing rates of executution of the condemned by income and race.
When I read something like this, it makes me feel like senator Hatch has a lot in common with those Good ol' Boys in the white hoods. Lets all hope that cooler heads prevail.
What the Senator is suggesting is that a purported copyright holder be allowed to destroy property of another with no trial. This is un-American.
First, an Article 3 created court needs to determine guilt or innocence. Second, destruction of property as a punishment appears nowhere in the penal code [hehe, hehe, he said "penal"]. Last time I checked, we didn't cut off hands, either.
If I am a farmer and I think you may have stolen corn from my field as you drove by, could I destroy your refridgerator?
Hatch has no concept of technology or the dynamic of the problem he seeks to address. Thus, he speaks as one insane.
"I'd do away with the pixies if you could give me something more." Ben Lee
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
and how long do you suppose till some kid with a grudge sets up a completely obscure OS, sets up a honey pot just begging to get nuked by this new technology, captures the packets, decyphers it, and takes down anyone he has a grudge with?
what if he has a politial agenda against your country?
these guys are soooo "smrt", i can tell!
One's PC typically contains loads of personal information, documents, photos, etc. And are we to believe that law-enforcement never makes mistakes and that the only machines destroyed would be only those belonging to those whose activities warranted it? There are so many problems with this approach (i.e., what if one user on a multi-user computer is doing it--everyone on the machine must pay the price) that Hatch only shows how out-of-touch and ill-educated about modern computers he really is.
And once again, he makes himself a fine example of why Republicans are lying through their teeth when they spout platitudes about taming government intrusiveness and power.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I, for one, just quit the Republican Party, and sent the good Senator a nice message telling him why. I would STRONGLY urge all of you to do the same. Here's a nice little template to follow:
Dear Senator Hatch,
I'm writing to you after reading an Associated Press news article in which you stated your support to destroy the computers of those who infringe on copyrights.
"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..." you were quoted as saying.
While I do agree with you that folks downloading entire catalogs of music en masse from the internet are basically thieves, I think this is quite the extreme and wrong stance, especially given the sad state of copyright law that now exists.
It's pretty clear today that copyright now favors large entertainment companies instead of any kind of scientific and social progress as the founders had intended, with copyright terms now exceeding most people's life expectancies (what good is the public domain when the public that could benefit from it no longer exists.) and when laws like the DMCA makes it a crime to copy something for FAIR USE if it happens to be encrypted in the first place. It's also pretty clear that Congress now favors the entertainment companies rather than the people that elected them, when they're willing to advocate or condone a "solution" that would destroy the private property of their constituents, without so much even lip service paid to due process.
Well, if you're willing to be so extreme, Senator, so am I. I just quit the Republican Party. While I'm not from your state, and Pennsylvania is far from a Republican stronghold, I intend to encourage others to do the same.
Maybe a few hundred thousand of us, and you'll realize something.
Sincerely,
Ed R. Zahurak
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
So at what point will someone point out the obvious, that people like this deserve life in prison and a hefty fine? If some kid poking around sendmail exploits is liable for that, a criminal senator who wants to destroy millions of PCs should be liable for at least as much. By my calcuations, the costs of this to the American people could be far greater than the entire profit of the Music industry this year. Worldwide, it could rival the costs of the music industry this decade.
To be frank, this terrorist piece of shit should be put away for a long time, and any music industry cronies who decide to follow his words should be given the exact same sentence.
It's been a long time.
Instead of forwarding I love you to everyone in outlooks address book they will be sending a message to destroy computers. I guess Hatch doesn't think viruses are damaging enough. On a side-note would SCO be using this on AIX computers as you read this if the technology was in effect today?
This is slightly off topic but are there any laws that prevent law enforcement agencies from targeting people purely based on "making an example of them". i.e targetting completely random filetraders (people who had pirated and therefore broken the law) not because they were biggest pirates around or for anyother reason, but just as random criminals so everyone else would see the example and take heed? There should be a law against this, not just for piracy but in general, anyone agree? And what about organisations such as the RIAA starting suits againts random for the same "making an example out of them" reason? Would Hatch do this? randomly visiting a known illigal file-traders home with a sledgehammer?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
In Canada, we are paying a tarif on every blank cd sold to the record industry whether we use it for data back-up or pirating. Many people figure that if they're paying a tax on music downloads then they have a right to download music. I wonder how they would feel if they're systems are attacked for doing something that they were forced to pay for? Do International copyright laws allow for the US government to attack people all over the world? How would the attcker be 100% sure of his/her target?
Intellectual property rights are not "moral questions," but issues of policy. Though Hatch and his ilk are always claiming the so-called "moral" high ground, all he really is is a politician. The decisions we make about how far to extend IP rights and remedies is political (and, I suppose, economic), and has nothing to do with morality.
This sounds scary. But it does have legal precedence, of sorts.
I was recently warned that in Los Angeles county, if you're caught racing (by the judgement of the arresting officer), your vehicle is forfeit to the county.
In Florida, any vehicle involved in any drug violation may be forfeit to the state. Of course, the state is in it for the money, so they'll be nice enough to sell you your own vehicle back. A friend of mine paid over $5,000 to get her own car back over a minor violation. It took over a month to get things arranged, and several trips to that city. She had only been passing through the town, she wasn't a resident.
One particular sheriff's department has some of my handguns still, which I'm particuarly upset about. My ex-wife was getting violent, so I gave a friend everything dangerous from the house. She locked them all away in the trunk of her car. A couple days later, she was pulled over on suspicion of DUI. She wasn't arrested for DUI, but because she was pulled over on suspicion, they seized the weapons. It did absolutely no good to try to explain it to anyone. And yes, they were all perfectly legal. The begging to get my stuff back ended when they finally came up with the standpoint of "we don't know where they are." They just disappeared out of the system. {cough}{cough}. Ya into someone's personal collection, I'm sure.
The gov't is already seizing property without due processes or reasonable cause. I doubt they'll get the law through saying you can hack, but I'd bet they'll pass laws saying any equipment used in the act of the crime (the crime being music piracy) can be seized. I'm sure it'll be broad enough to include just about anything in house/apartment.
As for just killing machines on demand, I'd bet Microsoft will include that in future releases of Windows very willingly. It would terrify me to know that they could just pick and choose machines to zap.
If I was Joe-ISP hosting on Windows machines (ok, that would never happen), and one site had MP3's on it, they could not only destroy that site, but every site hosted there? They could cause damage to the machine itself (i.e., wipe the BIOS, drop the partition table, etc). I'd be afraid to think what would happen with a single BIOS change to bump the voltage up to the CPU and watch it fry. What would 12v do to a low voltage CPU line? Now what if that hosting machine happened to be a big expensive hosting machine? I've seen pricetags over $40k come by. It wouldn't be very good to see one of those go up in smoke.
I'd be just as upset if my kid had friends over, and they were downloading files and got *MY* machine destroyed. I'm not exactly going to be satisfied with "The RIAA destroyed your computer because someone was downloading Enimen's new album. They're legally protected in this action." Well, I'd probably be more upset as this would be my own machine. Customers can live with a server down for a day or two (but they won't like it). My personal property is *MINE*.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Under the recently passed Patriot Act distruction of a computer system is considered an act of terrorism. Does the senators recent comments mean he is now supporting act of terrorism?
Damn, this is what the title of the post should have be :
"Sen Hatch claim he support acts of terrorism."
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
I think we should propose a new law that all seats in both houses of congress be wired with cattle prods remote controlled over the internet. Then we can watch CSPAN live, and whenever some congresscritter says something mind bogglingly stupid, we can immediately get their attention!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
So what he's suggesting is that copyright holders should be able to take the law into their own hands. Copy one of my works and I get to become judge, jury, and executioner. Great.
The more I think about it, I can't possibly think of anything more un-american. What happened to due process?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
There should really be a law passed that remotely destroys senators who have obviously sold out to the man.
Dear Senator Hatch,
...
In case you were not aware, there are already laws against copyright infringement and penalties in place for the violation of said laws. Your remarks during a hearing on copyright abuses are downright frightening. What you are suggesting is a complete disregard for due process. Why not just enforce the existing laws?
You said, "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines." If someone has been prosecuted for copyright violation thorugh the due process of law, then there is no need to remotely destroy computers. The only reason anyone would need to invoke such technology would be if due process of law were being ignored.
The Founding Fathers would find you a disgrace to their vision of American government. When you became a Senator, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I believe that you are in material breach of that oath, particularly the 5th Ammendment.
Regards,
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
As a "good mormon", I have it on very good authority that:
I'll leave the ethical implications on both sides of the issue as an excersize for the reader.
In any case, I'm just as bothered by the suggestion that a destructive means should be used to prevent filesharing. I'm rather hoping, however, that many of these issues will fade from relevancy as easy, non-draconian, legal solutions (like iTunes) take over. Time will tell, I suppose.
Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers.
Cool. So if I write a virus/trojan/worm, I have recorded an expression of mathematical thought in fixed form. Under the Berne Convention, I am now a copyright holder. Which means I can now destroy anyone's computer that has my copyrighted material on it...(after a couple of warnings). I think 2 popup windows telling them to get rid of my malicious code should be enough. As soon as they close the window a second time, I guess my code can destroy the computer now.
What's even better is that if they make this a hardware requirement to have this kind of a backdoor, they've just left the entire country open to a terrorist attack.
"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.
Yay. Let's intentionally make it easier for assholes to destroy our country. Nice idea dipshit. Perhaps he didn't think that far ahead.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Sen Hatch set us up the bomb....
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Now i'm going to get family members saying "i dont want another windows machine cos they blow up when i download files"
I'm quite certain that if i made a real effort to properly lock down a linux box, register alerts to people snooping and ther likes that even the top govt experts would struggle.
Then i'll just stick a Linux, BSD and Solaris box in a chain so they'd have three to get thru.... that'd cost more than buying the damn cds in the first place, but that's almost not the point anymore.
Interesting you should use Sony as an example. In their last fiscal year they had some interesting results...
Profits of about $1billion (yes, that's a 'b') on sales of about $62billion, total. Which looks a lot more interesting when you break it down by division...
Sony Pictures showed operating income of $492million on sales of $6billion.
Sony Music showed an operating loss of $73million on sales of $5billion.
Sony Videogames showed an operating income of $942million on sales of $8billion.
Sony Electronics showed an operating income of $345million on sales of $41billion.
Sony is doing everything they can to stop IP piracy to protect their movie and entertainment divisions, because that's the best way they have to make money. They have to work a *lot* harder in their electronics division (8 times the sales) to make 2/3 the operating income of the movie division. 5 times more sales in electronics than in videogames, and they made 1/3 the income.
The profit margins in consumer electronics suck. The profit margins in movies/entertainment are great. They are making a conscious rational decision about how best to protect their profits.
Sales don't matter. Income and profits matter.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I read with some dismay Senator Hatch's comments on copyright. Please remind him at the next opportunity of the text of the 8th clause of the constitution:
"The Congress shall have the power.... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
There is a critical point here, carefully obfuscated by the RIAA and it's minions - there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property."
There is a concept in law called a "Natural Right," and it is generally accepted that people have a natural right to propriety. But as Jefferson was explicitly clear on, there is no natural right to "own" an idea:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea..."
Copyright does not protect property, it is not about protecting property; it is about promoting science and the useful arts. Copyright is not a property right; it is a temporary monopoly. Violating copyright is not theft, it is not piracy; it is guerilla anti-trust.
This distinction is quite clear in the constitutional grant of exclusive right, that such grant would not be obviously self-justified as it would be for property, but that such right is justified only in as much as it fulfills the noble social good of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts."
Larry Lessig's recent supreme court challenge to the CTEA hinged on the second phrase's "limited time." He argued unsuccessfully that the extensions provided by CTEA violated the phrase by establishing essentially perpetual copyright. The court asked if 120 years was not a finite time, and turned the claim down.
It would seem that a more powerful case would be made by asking if the CTEA, DMCA, NET, etc. fulfill the constitutionally required purpose: "to promote science and the useful arts."
Today fear of over-broad laws wielded by greedy institutions has a broad chilling effect on innovation: science and the useful arts. If found thus by the court, such laws would be unconstitutional.
Thomas Jefferson was quite clear on his views of copyright and these views are enshrined in the 8th clause. It is a grant of an "embarrassing monopoly" and not a right; explicitly the fugitive fermentations of a mind cannot be owned.
Senator Hatch needs to hear and understand his words:
"It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessen
Can any good Mormons out there explain how the belief that you will (if you pay your tithes, etc) someday become a GOD affect your world view
Heh, was that an intentional troll to try to get a Mormon to respond? =)
The best way to answer your question is to remind you that...as a group...Mormons are generally no different from anyone else. We may have different health standards, dress modestly, and have a couple more kids...but when you get down to it, we're still all human. For some reason, when people hear the word Mormon, they think of some self-righteous religious group who means well, but they're beliefs have warped their views to the point where Mormons are out of touch with reality.
If that's not annoying enough, people also scrutinize our actions to see just how moral we really are. "Look! There! A Mormon who isn't perfect! And there, 2 more!" Well duh, we're human. We mess up just as much as Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
As for how beliefs affect our views...I'll try to answer this as honestly as possible. The idea you mentioned of becoming a God mentioned isn't official church doctrine...I could pull out scriptues to support both sides of the arguement. But overall, your question doesn't matter anyways. The influential belief in our lives is just getting to heaven. That means we try to be our best, admit our mistakes, and try harder next time. If I'm faced with some moral decision, I think "ok, I'm accountable for what I do...I want this...but I know I should be doing that." Sen. Hatch I know to be a really decent guy, (his computer destroying comment is way off in left field, but overall, he tries to be an honest person). The SCO execs on the other hand, they sound pretty messed up. I don't know the whole story, but on the surface, it sure doesn't look right. It makes me wonder too "Many of those SCO execs are probably Mormon. What in the world are they thinking? How can you lie to the world and slander everyone by day, and pray to God at night?" I guess it just comes down to that they're human, and you can find bad apples in all religions.
Nothing could keep a determined and well funded attacker from causeing massive harm if this were legal. The first strike would be aimed at the same poor fools that got the p2p harrasment letter and other easy target windoze machines. It would cripple a large proportion of corporate computers and world industry. The first week might trigger the next great depression as small businesses cupmpled an larger ones dependent on Microsoft were injured directly and indirectly. Teams of crackers could find exploits in just about everything and cause harm to more rational systems as well. All systems can be cracked, it's just a matter of time and effort. Even OpenBSD has suffered one or two remote root expoits. All it takes is one hole, lots of bandwith, and a bad attitude. The first box dammaged is unacceptable loss.
Not that I'm in favor of destroying people's computers (I assume this means things like reformatting people's hard drives), that's just asinine. But I do think it's OK for record companies to spoof P2P networks and try to disrupt them.
No, no, no, no! Spoofing is every bit as obnoxious an offense as the actual copyright violations themselves. It consumes bandwith by simply forcing the downloader to look again. The remedy should not be worse than the dissease.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely incinerate the automobiles of people who illegally exceed the speed limit.
The surprise remarks by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, during a hearing on transportation laws represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against highway scofflaws.
During a discussion on methods to frustrate car owners who illegally exceed the speed limit, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to ignite cars involved in such speeding.
Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal arson laws.
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's car," replied Randy Saaf of MphDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to disrupt automotive traffic. One technique involves deliberately driving very slowly so other users can't go faster.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said incinerating someone's car "may be the only way you can teach somebody about speed limits."
The senator, a driver who logged 18,000 miles last year, acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for speed limit enforcers from liability for damaging cars. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal behavior, "then incinerate their car."
"If we can find some way to do this without incinerating their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for incinerating 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 speed limits," Hatch said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's senior Democrat, later said the problem is serious but called Hatch's idea too drastic a remedy to be considered. "Traffic laws need to be followed, but some Draconian remedies that have been suggested would create more problems than they would solve," Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement. "We need to work together to find the right answers, and this is not one of them."
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., who has been active in transportation 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."
A spokesman for the Department of Transportation, Jonathan Lamy, said Hatch was "apparently making a metaphorical point that if transportation departments don't take reasonable steps to prevent massive speeding on the roads they build, Congress may be forced to consider stronger measures." The Department of Transportation funds major highway projects.
Some legal experts suggested Hatch's provocative remarks were more likely intended to compel technology and highway executives to work faster toward ways to enforce traffic laws 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 (news - web sites) moving violations prosecutor and associate professor at George Washington University law school. The transportation industry has gradually escalated its fight against speeders, targeting the most egregious scofflaws with civil lawsuits. The Department of Transportation recently won a federal court decision making it significantly easier to identify and track drivers - even those hiding behind aliases - using popular sportscars.
Kerr predicted it was "extremely unlikely" for Congress to approve an arson exemption for copyright owners, partly because of risks of collateral damage when innocent passengers might be wrongly targeted. "It wouldn't work," Kerr said. "There's no way of limiting the damage."
from the TV/Movies/Music industry? I didn't think so......
First he brings us the DMCA and now this....
So my copyrighted material may have the same file name as a popular song. But my material is me reasing a poem I wrote, and it is in MP3 format. If anyone from the RIAA attempts to download this song, I am legally entitled to destroy their computer for infringing on my copyright.
So go ahead, fuckwits, I triple-dog-dare you to pass a law that makes activities like this legal.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
As a lawyer (member Massachusetts bar & Federal District Court) I find it particularly outrageous that the chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee disregards basic Constitutional law.
.02
One of the many problems with Congress passing a law to allow vigilantes to destroy people's computers is that it violates due process. You're supposed to have a hearing before a neutral magistrate of some sort (usually a judge) before the government allows you destroy someone's property.
Congress could no more pass a law allowing corporate vigilantes to destroy people's computers without going to court than they could pass a law allowing a company to take your land for its own use without a trial.
Of course Senator Hatch knows this perfectly well. What's revealing is the fact that these so called conservatives who claim to admire limited government are always eager to use the coersive power of government to help big business. Republicans and honorary Republicans like Senator Lieberman are against government when it comes to protecting us from corporations (say through environmental legislation or class action law) but are more than happy to expand the power of government to help companies violate our rights.
Either that or Senator Hatch is attempting to act senile in order that he can replace Strom Thurmond!
Steve
*** Please visit my homepage for news and info. about trademark law, domain-name disputes and other e-commerce issues
Even though I tend to vote republican I'm against Senator Hatch and all the rest of the assholes (Republican and Democrat) who are this clueless about technology.
You know why this happens (along with prescription drugs w/o means-testing that the young workers will have to pay for)? 18-30 year old people typically _don't vote_ in the US. The old technofogies running the place will stand up and listen if you vote some of them out of office for this shit. Get informed and please vote in the next election.
Senator Hatch:
For your reading pleasure, I bring several paragraphs which would like a word with you:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
It is so amusing seeing all the people try to tone down what he was saying. . .much like a best man who was drunk at a wedding and said that the groom was an asshole:
.
.isn't this pretty much the same thing?
Best Man: "Yeah, Bob is a an asshole and I hope that bitch broad gives him one hell of a life. . "
Good Friend: "I think that the best man has had a little too good of a time and what he means is. . "
Best Man: "Screw you, I said he was an asshole and I mean it!"
Read below:
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer,". .
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
Hatch was "apparently making a metaphorical point that if peer-to-peer networks don't take reasonable steps to prevent massive copyright infringement on the systems they create, Congress may be forced to consider stronger measures."
Hatch said. ". . . I'm all for destroying their machines. . . "
" 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. "
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
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."
As a side note, what about bullets, descramblers and cables companies. .
Senator Hatch made an absurd suggestion. He knows quite well that such vigilante justice is illegal in numerous ways. Why would he make such a suggestion?
;-)
I think he actually intends to send the opposite message. He wants to get the public excited about the issue. When people read this, they will be infuriated. He wants people to realize that excessive copyright legislation has been slipping into law over the past few years. He's hoping that once the public is aware of it, they will lobby to reverse the trend toward excessive copyright enforcement.
He sponsored the DMCA, but perhaps he couldn't get it passed without the ambiguous language in section 1201. Perhaps he's now trying to fix that section, but he can't do it without public support.
I know this seems a bit of a stretch, but his suggestion is so crazy that it is quite unreasonable to take him literally. This could be a clever way to meet his real goals.
OTOH, perhaps the insanity of DC traffic has driven him mad. I hear it's a common phenomenon.
can we beat these people with sticks yet?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Can you imagine what a virus writer could do once this technology got into the wild ? Imagine a virus that could would wipe out all those PCs, or maybe a select set of IPs ... scary ... hmmm ... wonder what the IP addresses of the RIAA are ?
Bitter and proud of it.
Ya, they can figure you the tech to nuke the guilty parties computer by nothing more than an IP and/or Mac address -- yet we don't have the technology to stop the spammers.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
The old DRM Lobby has been trying a bit too hard. Some old folks in congress have got such a huge misunderstanding of how the machines that power our lives work it's incredible.
BTW, according to netcraft http://www.hatchmusic.com/ is running Apache on Linux.
That means Linus, as well as most other programmers who have worked on Linux or Apache would be able to remotely destroy his site. Bill Gates would be able to destroy 90% of the computers in existence.
I suppose this law would quickly be followed by a law making it illegal to block the port they pick. Or maybe they will just talk to your ISP, go to your house and take your computer. They can cut them up with axes in the street like the old prohibition days. I bet Hatch can remember those days himself. :)
This could be rich. On Orrin Hatch's website he is using the Milonic DHTML menu script quite possibly in violation of copyright and terms of use. Milonic's conditions of use is explicit and includes a requisite link back if not paid for. Guess what kids, no link and in the coders comments is this line: /* i am the license for the menu (duh) */. Within mmenu_license.js there is no indication that this is a paid for version with only the standard language found. Same thing is true for the actual DHTML script, mmenu.js.
It would be quite embarrassing for the good Senaturd from Utah if it was actually found that he himself was a copyright violator, ripping off the hard work of Milonic Solutions Ltd., with all such made public in light of his recent comments. What choice would he have but to rig his own computers and pompous ass for detonation.
Email or fax your senators. Let them know that you don not approve of these ideas. Mailing Senator Hatch is useless unless you live in Utah.
Click here to find your senators
Here's what I mailed my senators:
Dear Sir,
Senator Orrin G. Hatch made statements about destroying computers belonging to suspected online file traders.
He said "Damaging someone's computer may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
He 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.
I feel that he needs to be reminded of the fact that we already have a system in place to handle issues like this. It's our justice system, and in our justice system, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We can't have copyright owners destroying computers because they think their work may have been illegally obtained.
I just wanted to make sure you are aware of Senator Hatch's remarks and let you know that I am not in support of anything that would give copyright owners more power than our justice system.
Respectfully,
Common sense is not so common.
We might as well use Bochs in order to prevent this. Guess he never thought of that (VMware and Virtual PC might actually pass the self-destruct command to your main system)
18 June 2004
Gordon B. Hinckley
President
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
50 West North Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
http://www.lds.org
The Honorable Orrin Hatch
135 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
http://www.senate.gov/~hatch
Dear President Hinckley and Senator Hatch,
I am very, very sorry that we cannot come to an agreement to bridge the differences between us on this issue. However, as Senator Hatch's law stated directly, the importance of protecting ones' coprights is paramount over all other issues, and demands the highest priority.
I hope you understand that the actions we have taken and are about to take to protect oursevles in this matter, which follows the guidelines that Senator Hatch set out last year in his speech to the US Senate Judiciary Committee.
In my encyclical of last September, I made it perfectly clear that the Roman Catholic Church was unwilling to tolerate further theft of copyright and theft of concept regarding its well-known properties Jesus Christ (tm) and its variants and the various and sundry trademarked images and copyrighted concepts of the Passion, the Crucifixion, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. The encyclical, as you remember, gave sixty (60) days for all churches violating those copyrights and trademarks to accomplish a licensing deal with RCC.
Within that sixty-day period, I had received compliance on this issue with the Church of England, Church of Scotland, and numerous Protestant denominations. In fact, the discussions were quite fruitful, and I hope that Senator Hatch will be among the official United States delegation to the Reunification Mass at Westminster Abbey this autumn.
Also, as you know, after the sixty-day period was up, I released a follow-up encyclical giving a second warning, as Senator Hatch had provided for in the aforementioned discussion. After the second encyclical, most of the other holdouts, including the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches the various Baptist sects in the southern United States, and even J. K. Rowling, acknowledged our rights and made licensing deals.
The LDS Church, however, did not. The deadline for compliance passed on 15 June 2004, and thereforde, we will have to take the following actions:
1) Any religion following the precepts of the teachings of Jesus Christ (tm) will be required, as part of the licensing terms, to acknowledge that you no longer have any rights to use those teachings as part of your religious philosophy. Your people, should they not convert to a license-compliant religion, are damned to Hell, never to see the face of God.
2) All LDS temples will be destroyed by crack squadrons of Swiss Guards.
3) All copies of the Book Of Mormon will be seized and pulped. All copies of the Holy Bible not endorsed by a license-compliant religion will be seized and pulped. However, in the interest of compromise, we will allow you limited copyright use of Jesus Christ (tm) in the name of your religion.
4) No LDS service shall use any of RCC's trademarked phrases or any copyrighted concepts. Also, various Lutheran demoninations have requested that we act as a clearance house for their copyright on the serving of punch and cookies after services. On their behalf, we are denying your use of this as well.
5) Brigham Young University will be turned over to the Society of Jesus.
6) All intellectual property allegedly belonging to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will be confiscated and, as a penalty, placed under permanent copyright of the RCC. The Choir itself will be retrained to sing Gregorian chants.
7) Donny Osmond shall be provided with a high-ranking Franciscan for a manager.
Any and all resistance to these measures will be dealt with in the highest of terms.
We apologize in advance for the inconvenience this will give you, but you put it upon yourselves by failing to respect copyright and trademark.
Yours in Christ,
His Holiness John Paul II
CEO and COO, Roman Catholic Church, LLC
http://www.vatican.va
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
What happens when they wipe out computers belonging to traders at the New York Stock Exchange? Investment bankers? White House? Congress itself? Department of Defense? *AA major label computers? The WETA renderfarm? What makes anyone think that the damage will be limited to the USA?
Everybody who voted to legalize black-hat bullshit is going to be in seriously deep shit. Guess who they are going to try to unload the blame on? Guess what the Congressional hearings investigating the *AA members and the *AAs themselves will look like?
No matter how good immunity provisions are protecting *AA and its scr1pt k1dd13z, the best legal minds in America will be working 24/7 to figure out how to bypass the provisions to make it possible to file both civil suits and criminal charges against corporations and individually against corporate officers... and these corporate officers won't be going to country-club prisons. They're going into cells along with people named "Bubba". Perhaps they can be found in violation of RICO and the Patriot Act. While the PATRIOT Act is an abomination, something tells me that if the *AA label CEOs suddenly find themselves in Guantanamo Bay, even their own attorneys won't be lifting a finger to defend them. If they have any sense, they'll be looking for places they can't be legally extradited from.
A recent estimate says that there are 43,000,000 file traders. Even if they miraculously only limit the damage to the "guilty", some of those machines are going to be critical to somebody bigger than the *AA organizations, their member labels, or their owners.
So they ratfuck only 10,000,000 computers, some "innocent", some loaded with MP3s ripped by the legal owners of the CDs, some with MP3s of non-*AA content? The aggregate value of the data is going to be far above the current net worth of the labels combined. I don't actually expect damage to be this bad, I think any netblock RIAA black hats work out of will be disconnected by their upstream providers *quickly*.
It's time for the major players in the *AA organizations to go down.
They want to commit suicide? Encourage them..
And look to your firewalls and IDS.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The problem is that entertainment companies don't exist to promote or encourage the arts, they exist to make and sell copies. Period.
To them music isn't art, it's a product that they can own and profit from.
Musicians make money by playing gigs, not by selling records. Recording contracts are written such that all expenses of production, manufacturing, distribution and advertising a CD are paid out of the musician's share, usually leaving zero. What the musician gets from CD sales is exposure, which translates to gigs. Musicians know this, but most of them aren't convinced yet that they can make it big without a recording contract. Very few superstars have taken strong stands against file sharing. A few who are smart enough at business (Madonna) to get a bigger percentage and actually make money from record sales, and a few idiots (Metallica).
If you are interested in a long-time singer's in-depth details of working with record companies, read some of Janis Ian's excellent writings on the subject.
1) a comment that carries no significant political/voting booth cost from his base constituency of Utahns, but
2) serves to give the national debate a swift kick to one side. The reactions to such a goofy extreme comment will immediately draw more attention to the issue than one could buy, and (very subtly) draw all sides to quicker DRM "solutions" (because by defining the crazy as a "possibility," the borders have been redrawn).
Hatch is full of it in many ways but isn't stupid. This is a calculated, no-cost public statement (he's a pro at it, the average /.er is not) that he doesn't intend to pursue. Not to be cynical, but it's certainly nothing to get apoplectic about. Write your representatives about the DMCA instead.
...what I want to know is, how exactly is he planning on destroying my computer?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
So, despite file trading and p2p networks, Sen. Hatch is earning more money than before. And they say file sharing is taking money away from artists, eh? Must be all those sales of the soundtrack from Rat Race.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
1. You have to be able to distinguish licensed from unlicensed materials. If I buy a CD you'd better belive I can copy the tracks to my computer to listen to them. If I trade those tracks to someone else how do they know they are now unlicensed?
2. If it is LEGAL to hack into and destroy a computer with non-licensed materials think about the Hackers who will write a song, copy it to a target computer, then destroy said computer LEGALLY.
3. Congress has no place dictating technology policy to the world. Let the civil courts decide who has been hurt, how badly, and decide the remedy. Copyrights infringement is not a criminal act, or at least it shouldnt be. If it is costing someone money, they can sue for damages. More laws != More gooder...
In other news, Senator Hatch has just proposed an anti-speeding law. The new law, if enacted, would allow law enforcement to use lethal force when enforcing speeding laws.
"Inspite of heavy fines and expensive insurance, people still continue to break the speed limits of our nation's highways" Hatch said.
"If death is the only way to teach these people to drive slower, than i'm all for it" he said. "Pop a few caps in their ass and they'll start listening!"
Local law enforcement could not be reached for comment.
-ted
Here's a letter that I wrote to my representitives (which I fould at the EFF site). It is a little bit bombastic and inflamatory, but when you're writing off a random letter like this I think it's necessary to get their attention.
p /20030617/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music) Senator Hatch endorses giving copyright holders the ability to remotely destroy the computers of people who download illegal music. Here is an exerpt from the article -
Representitives-
I wish to bring a disturbing article concerning remarks made by Senator Orrin Hatch regarding remotely destroying the computers of copyright violaters to your attention. I ask your attention not just as a constituent, but also as a computer engineer and student at Northwestern Law school. In case you are already aware of the article, let me say that the Senator's ideas are dangerous, unconstitutional, and demonstrate to me a complete disconnect with the Senators supposed job of serving the people, as opposed to serving corporations and himself - according to the article the senator is a copyright holder who made $18,000 last year.
In this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a
"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.
Even without getting into a discussion of the way copyright law has been perverted so as to prevent material from ever entering the public domain (I challenge you to find material that has entered the public domain via any process except an artist explicitly contributing it to the public domain), the idea of giving copyright holders vigilante power, especially in a case where they cannot possibly know the value of what they are destroying, defies reasonable explanation. What if an email from a soldier to his mother was on the destroyed computer? What if it was an innocent relative's entire financial records? Taken to an extreme, it is possible that a person could hold the cure for cancer on their computer, all to be wiped out because a copyright holder thinks that person has violated the law.
Finally, if you have a moment further I ask you to consider this. I would just like to say that intellectual property is explicitly different from other properties. Whereas when you create something physical, like a piece of furniture, it is very clear that you should own that one piece of furniture completely because you paid for each piece of it, and all the labor was your own. Furthermore, your building that piece of furniture does not prohibit someone else from doing it. However, with every single piece of intellectual property, a person has truley stood on the shoulders of thousands of years of civilization, and owes a debt to everyone from the first human who harnassed the power of fire and basic tools to more modern day people such as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. The intellectual property owner owes a huge debt to society, because their idea isn't composed solely of their own contribution - it is one tiny part in an idea composed of the work of centuries of human effort. This is why an intellectual property holder owes a debt to society, and why they should be granted limited rights for a limited time over their idea or creation. In the constitution, intellectual property rights were created expressly with the idea of promting the useful arts and sciences, not to compensate those who came up with the ideas. The compensation was merely viewed as a necessary way to motivate people to innovate. However, if we follow the intent of the constitution this compensation should not our primary goal, rather it should be the promotion of the useful arts and sciences for the good of society at large.
Thank you for your time.
Adam Grove