Slashdot Mirror
Senator Orrin Hatch a Pirate?
Stigmata669 writes "Remember a few days ago when Senator Orrin Hatch decided that software piracy was punishable by destruction of computers? Well a bored and unemployed Sys. Admin in Houston smelled a rat when he was rooting through Hatch's website source. As it turns out Sen. Hatch is a common software pirate himself."
The article title is just alittle bit senstational... The senator's web designer didn't register *free* software (you have to pay for commerical use only). He was in violation of the software license. Obviously nobody on slashdot has ever violated a software license (if not please direct me to all that shareware you registered in under 30 days).
It hardly damages his stance against downloading music.
I'd say the only thing really damaging there is that he's from Utah.
Oh well, keep fighting the good fight.
-Rob
You're right. Hatch isn't the pirate, his web designer is, but it doesn't make it any less funny and ironic. :P
This guys knows how to advertise himself. Imagine getting your name out there in the mass median and the fact you are unemployed.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Don't call him a "pirate," unless he was proven guilty of abordage! Otherwise we just sound silly, claiming that Dimitry was not a pirate, but Orrin Hatch suddenly is. Please don't be so inconsistent. Pirate is a pirate. A person guilty of copyright infringement is a person guilty of copyright infringement. Please don't use incorrect meanings of words, at least on Slashdot.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
You're an idiot. I live in utah too and even though Orrin Hatch is scum, the only way he won't be reelected is if he decides not to run.
Not to mention the fact that the seniority system in the senate pretty much means that if he isn't elected utah takes a hit as far as influence goes. Not that utah has a lot of influence, but he is the most influential utah politician in washington right now.
I think this episode just verified that observation.
The scary thing is that because none of us are perfect, anyone with an axe to grind can mill through the most innant details of our personal lives and bring it to the public attention, that of our wife, boss, friends, co-workers, etc.., highly magnifying what they think we did wrong.
This could be quite a way for one to harass another.
Like, now Senator Hatch himself has gone onto public record as advocating destruction of other's private property.. what if instead of some government official talking about destruction of other's property, it was somebody else talking about it? Where are we going to draw the line between a "patriot" and a "terrorist"?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
People have different definitions of right and wrong. But all definitions of wrong action have one element in common: it's something somebody else does.
First of all, it probably wouldn't work. I would bet that the US Government has plenty of bandwidth.
Second, if you were to take that site down, you would take down every senator's site, including the sites of some good senators. Its isn't right to do that just because of one dumbass senator.
#include "sig.h"
It's the glass house idea. I know it isn't piracy per se, but it's a close enough cousin.
Before a person in office criticizes an action, they should make pretty darn sure that they don't even have the appearance of being tainted by the act or anything close. Delegate the role. But check.
The bar is lower for nonpublic figures. Our words don't weigh as much in the public eye.
Now he'll have to be the brunt of embarrassing questions like "why should your computer not be destroyed?" It just weakens his stance.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
Surely the Senator didn't create the page himself? He might not even know what the Javascript is for. Sure, if he knew that the webmaster was doing something wrong, and he didn't stop it, then he would be at fault, but there's no proof of that here.
Of course, my opinion above is from a common sense perspective, rather than a legal one.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
The House of Represenatives has a re-election rate of some 96%.
God we need term limits!
> Where are we going to draw the line between a
> "patriot" and a "terrorist"?
A patriot is a terrorist who's on our side; a terrorist is a patriot who's on their side
Got any more?
Someone notify CNN/Fox/whoever. that's the kind of shit that could DESTROY Hatch's career, if approached right.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
And yes, I understand that no such bill would ever make it anywhere,
...
Well I'm sure people thought the same thing of the PATRIOT ACT
Chicken fried butter sticks? Do
A lot of people turn it off. Even regular users who heard about it in USA Today turn it off.
Its stealing. Plain and simple. If someone creates a piece of software its a service. Would you like it if I made you paint my house and not pay you?
Bla bla bla only businesses can afford the software. That is true but what about supporting free alternatives?
Is it really fair that corporations pay hundreds of billions worldwide for software licensing why you don't?
The good news is OSS exists on Windows too.
I even paid $300 for my copy of Windows2k when I only made 7.50 an hour. I know you guys maybe laughing at me but if you do not use free alternatives your supporting Microsoft and all the other crazy proprietary software makers.
The great thing about WindowsXP product activation for example is it is helping linux.
I can not expect to not pay for software that is non free and at the same time demand a paycheck from my boss. Is it really fair?
http://saveie6.com/
Opportunities to fight oppression don't come up like this everyday. If this doesn't get picked up by the popular press, the word needs to be spread. Email the URL to anyone you think it might influnce. Print the story and show it to you mom or grandma.
This reminds me of all the adulterous legislators who impeached Clinton.
Having taken absolutist or extreme positions on an issue, you can't credibly defend yourself for things that most people would just shrug off.
Bill Bennet cannot credibly author a "Book of Virtues" in adult and children's editions, make $25,000 a speech daily, and then point out that most people gamble and private lives are nobody's business.
Rhonda Storms could not credibly call for the dismantling of Hillsborough Countie's Public Access stations for supposed IP abuses (after losing for years to overcome first amendment responses to her efforts to censor what she deemed offensive programming), requiring that all producers undertake IP sensitivity training, and then defend her unlicensed synchronized parody of the Beach Boys' tune "Help Me Rhonda" in an election commercial as a reasonable oversight.
Likewise, Orin Hatch cannot insist that a few infringements of a few tunes are evil enough to justify a government official's call for destruction of personal property without due process and simultaneously argue that he should be forgiven for not studying a licensing agreement.
Who's the owner of the site ? Hatch or the webmonkey ?
His name is all over the place, it is HIS website, so he should be held accountable of what's found on it. I remember hearing something like "ignorance is not a valid defense".
If I was going to put my name on something I did not write, I'd damn well make sure my legal team audits each and every bit of it to insure I wouldnt get myself in hot water over it.
This man is a self-proclaimed copyright professional. I guess he should have known better.
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
This of course does not take away from the fact that he's a scumbag of the lowest level, comparable with Ernest Hollings (Sen. Disney).
If you see both of them talk in public, you might note they share a lot of mannerisms, including the skeevy condescension.
I'm a Republican and a conservative and I think he sucks moose dick.
Too bad this Wired story won't get as much play as it deserves.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
This is similar to those horrid things that the RIAA is trying to produce, and they are clearly getting not too far, like their new "restricted" audio format, and a block switch for portable MP3 players.
It would be extremely difficult to place a hardware kill switch on commodity computers, as that would require going through all computer/motherboard manufacturers, and unless those without these "kill switches" are made illegal, then the manufacturers who comply are likely to be made extremely unpopular. Even if this scenario was to happen, what's preventing people from finding out what kind of packet that this thing uses, and then using this information to either block these "kill requests" or sending them to other people's computers?
In a software solution, that would be even more of a problem, as even in heavily restricted platforms like XP, the company behind it, Microsoft, still exercises only minimial control over the user's computer, and nothing's there to stop them from modifying parts of the OS to prevent it from recognizing the kill signal.
Protocols on the internet only work when they are open, and this particular protocol to "destroy" people's computers is quite closed. If this is to take place, it would be only a matter of time when malicious users could use it to destroy the computers of other people.
I'm visiting the US for a week, and have realised where the power here comes from: The Media.
CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, ABC/Disney, and ALL of the others seem to be based on pure viceral knee-jerk reporting. If you want to see Sen. Hatch get in trouble, sic the reporters on him.
Seriously. The media is living on exploitation, either their own or others. Exploit them to the best of your abilities, and watch things explode.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Hatch is on the Senate Judiciary committee
Hatch is strongly in favor of extending the length covered by copyright holders.
Obviously he doesn't thing copyright laws apply to him...
Even better, if Hatch's suggested remedy of remote destruction of computers violating IP was legal, the owner of the script in question would be entitled to DESTROY THE US SENATE.GOV SERVER.
Yep, that sure sounds like the kind of guy I want making decisions about IP and technology.
Lets just notify the BSA, and I'm sure they and Senator Hatch can amicably (massive audit) settle this "oversight".
- NOPIRACY
http://www.bsa.org/usa/report/report.php
1-888
Lets see how Mr. Hatch likes his computers destroyed.
Well, I seem to recall they stopped this practice, since a judge somewhere determined that this was depriving the defendant of "due process."
So-- how could the use of computer-destroying technology be legally sanctioned? There is no due process. Sure, the technology could be used, but officially, the perpetrator would be subject to fines, legal damages, and/or jail time, just like any other virus-writing script-kiddie.
Orrin Hatch is really just advocating vigilanteism, which is an abandonment of the whole legal system. What's next? Should I start waving a pistol at everybody who cuts me off, or torching the car of that guy down the street who plays his stereo too loud?
Let's take it one step further. Let's have it so that we not only destroy the music pirate's computer, but we overload his power supply, cause a fire, and burn down his house, and hopefully all his neighbors' houses, too, since they probably were in on it as well...
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
And your point is...?
If my daughter downloads songs on my machine, will Hatch NOT blow mine up?
It's his site; it's his responsibility.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
No, that's the kind of mistake that will end his webmaster's employment, that's all.
First, the webmaster uses unlicensed software, resulting in a media black eye (you really didn't think Orrin himself installed the software, did you!!?!).
Now the genius has outdone himself with a direct link to a porn site on a congressional site. Bravo. One more web designer looking for work.
Never meant half of the things I said to you. So you know, there's a half that might be true - G. Phillips
The Wired article brought a few important points to mind.
3 and 5 hours are about how long this legislation would last if "Continental Airlines" had one of their computer "blown up". Imagine a business with an unregistered copy of winzip getting zapped.
The senator must be one of those DICK-headed Americans who shoots off their mouths without thinking.
I mean... just imagine this scenario: a government employee in China (maybe Russia/France or whatever country) is downloading bootlegged music off the Internet. Granted that the guy might be violating U.S copyright law (though technically he is not, because he is not in U.S), but that doesn't give the U.S government the right to sabotage other countries' computers (especially government computers).
So do yourselves a favor and kick this joker out before he causes an international incident which might spark off another war.
Just for the record, I AM NOT AMERICAN.
Just the fact that you can say "the Church" and "Orrin Hatch" or "Utah" and everyone knows which religion you are talking about is interesting in the context of power. Blessings aside, he might not need to do anything other than claim to be a member of "the Church" to get the support of the majority of it's membership.
...until a senator can have a reasonable conversation with an average person and explain the entire context and impact of their proposed laws, why it is needed, and why it is better than the other alternatives, I claim that they are not informed enough and should not be allowed to decide if the proposed law is a good thing or not.
'xcuse me, but this is not just an idiotic comment. This was a very, very inflammatory comment that pissed off a lot of people; it was also very stupid.
Now, I have to look at it 3 ways:
Either
1) His political/technical advisors told him to say this, in which case he ought to fire their asses, because they don't know jack squat;
or
2) This is his real opinion, and he's simply been following his advisors opinions about what he should say before this;
or
3) He really made a fool of himself with an idiotic comment; and you know, if I made a comment like that in front of my peers, I would get flamed too.
So, what should I believe? Eh?
The man is a UNITED STATES SENATOR. He has a responsibility to the people he represents. If he cannot fulfill that, than WTF is he doing there?
"Don't get angry because somebody stated a strong opinion that doesn't mesh with the rest of the country's watered-down political speech. "
This comment just doesn't make sense in the context of what you were trying to say...at least, I don't understand it...
Not flaming, just wondering what the hell you were trying to say.
Now, I'll agree that he should not necessarily be considered for the 10WorstAnything just because of that comment. HOWEVER - Where does the truth lie? Eh? Do you know him, personally? Voting records mean NOTHING.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
A politician's staffmember dodged responsibility, blew off complaints, and exhibited cluelessness?
STOP THE PRESSES!
You wanted contrition? From a SENATOR? They are far more equal than you, citizen. Get back in your hole.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"Don't get angry because somebody stated a strong opinion that doesn't mesh with the rest of the country's watered-down political speech. "
This comment just doesn't make sense in the context of what you were trying to say...at least, I don't understand it...
What I meant was that Americans have come to expect very bland, boring speech from their politicians. When a politician says something like: "I'm all for good stuff, and I'm against bad stuff" we cheer like monkeys. Sen. Hatch broke this mold for a second and actually stated a strong personal opinion, and he gets nailed for it. I'll bet if you were to have an honest talk with any national representative in private you would find that they hold a very strong opinion on something--but because of the way our political system works, they have to water their opinions down for the masses.
Now, I'll agree that he should not necessarily be considered for the 10WorstAnything just because of that comment. HOWEVER - Where does the truth lie? Eh? Do you know him, personally? Voting records mean NOTHING.
You're right; his voting record is probably equal parts personal philosophy and campaign donations. I don't know exactly where the truth lies here, but I do know that it's not found in any single quote. All I'm saying is that if you want to hate Sen. Hatch, that's fine, but find a real reason to do it. This is getting as bad as people who hated Dan Quayle because he couldn't spell potato (potatoe!) or because Bill Clinton smoked weed once. Nobody is defined in any single instant.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
LOL. You're proving my point. Perhaps you should read more history, you may surprise your assumptions over the governance of Mr. Young.
My point is simply that you cannot separate cleanly religion and politics in Utah. They coexist.
Just to fill you in, though, Young had a kind of secret police that kept people in line, and assassinated people who were out of step. Dissent really wasn't an option.
It's an interesting read, and Arthur Conan Doyle wrote about as well it in his novel "The Valley of Fear."
Or did I miss that informative story about the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act on network television?
or in the newspaper?
or at my office water cooler discussion?
Out of people I know who don't get their news online,
I have met absolutly zero people informed about that issue, or this issue, or the DMCA. To name a few.
I've asked many musicians about it too.
of the ones I've asked, I'd say the majority is totally oblivious.
Somewhere a media industry executive places his fingertips together and mutters: "Excellent"
would join the Democrats except for the obvious fact that they whore to the trial lawyers
Why not join another party. Politics in the US and here in Oz and dominanted by two parties only because people lack the courage to vote for minor parties (thats just my thought but they don't vote for them for some reason). THey arn't all kooks and special interest parties. I don't like either of the big parties in th US or in Oz. They are all taking it up the arse from big business.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
I don't know what the legal situation is eactly in the US, but in the UK anyone who creates a work that can be copyrighted, automatically gets the copyright assigned to them (i.e. they do not need to write (c) 2003 Joe Blow or register their work anywhere etc.). I imagine that much the same is true in the US.
So, in order for the antihacking laws to be properly circumvented, thus allowing a copyright holder to blow up the computer of anyone breaching their copyright, then everyone who holds a copyright must be made exempt from those antihacking laws.
This will be anyone who has written a story, painted a picture, put up a website, etc. -- i.e. pretty much every US citizen. So, the law would allow anyone to distroy anyone else's computer.
Unless of course, by "compyright holder", what is really meant is "the music and film industries".
This really is a stupid law.
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race"---Hans Blix
Nice ad hominem. Still doesn't change the fact that Hatch is a hypocrite. The failure to properly license the software is legally his responsibility--if employers could shove responsibility off to contractors, don't you think we would all be contractors? I'm sure if I had a contractor who failed to obtain a license for a piece of software he used on my site, the BSA would be so far up my ass I could taste Brylcreem.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Someone should have a little chat with Mr. Orin. Does he believe that ALL computers should be nuked if they contain illegal copyrighted material?
If so, then what about those computers in the government which may contain terabytes of important information, and maybe one single illegal file? Does that one single file give the copyright owner the right to destroy all that information?
What would stop the next senator (extremist or just looking for the political spotlight) from taking that next step?
Here's a scenario, Someone at, say the FBI has access to their mainframe, and while doing their job they like to listen to music, so they have Mp3s on their PC. Well one day they are told they are getting a new PC, and happily transfer all their personal data onto the mainframe so it can be copied to their new PC later.
Say they like to listen to Metalica, and one of the files they had was an old file originally illegally traded through Napster or Kazaa or such.
Does Metalica now have the right to destroy the FBI mainframe, and doing so destroy any data contained therein about criminals and terrorists?
Doing so would directly jeopardize the safety of millions upon millions of people.
What about software that was created using illegally gained SDKs? Should that software be destroyed as well?
Sorry Jimmy, I know your in middle of your kidney dialysis, but the firmware for this machine was written using an illegal download of a copyrighted compiler. Oh and by the way, your dad's pacemaker? the firmware for that was written using the Notepad of an illegally pirated copy of Microsoft Windows 3.1. It's going to have to be nuked.
You can say good bye to your dad now. Yep bye bye....bye bye!
You mom? oh she's on a flight here...
oh shit...the navigational software on that plane...
I think Orin should be enlightened to the ramifications of opening this Pandora's box.
What would then stop a terrorist from alleging that the vital computers he fried contained his copyrighted material?
The sad truth about this whole thread is that with all the licensing debates and jokes the real problem is ignored. That being that a government with no real grasp on the technology or its implications, good or bad, is debating on a daily basis legislation to regulate that technology.
I think, as most groups are doing these days, that free software advocates should be lobbying congress and that a grasp on technology should be an issue in any election campaign. The US senate is the big time, not some triple A farm team - lets treat it as such.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Remember, he doesn't want YOU to get a defense when you're accused by a media company of violating copyrights. They can just take action to hurt your computer or your connection, no matter the cost OR the proof. It's his site, he's responsible for it. Think RIAA care if you know you're comitting piracy? No.
I think this post was deceptively titled.
:p) to rail against their senator (who, by the way, is generally held as a moral and respectable senator..on both sides of party lines), I don't see much good, if any, this has done.
The first thing I thought when I read this is "Why would Senator Hatch be the pirate?". I wasn't aware that any Senators designed their own websites. The fact is, they don't. It is kind of ironic that Mr. Hatche's own website has a pirated script...in light of his recent proposals on piracy prevention. BUT I think that he is not a pirate, he is actually a victim of piracy in this occassion.
He paid a company a lot of money to design his website, and like so many others...he got screwed. It is not uncommon for paid web designers to lift other people's designs, use pirated software, or even steal scripts entirely. It happens every day, the responsible party is the company that stole it, not the unknowing customer.
The headline and the possible irony may have drawn a lot of posts, but outside of a chance for unhappy Utahans (I just coined a phrase
Sure, his philosophy on how to deal with computer piracy is extreme, and even scary. We can rest knowing that such legislation would never make it through the Senate, House, President...or hold up in Courts. It violates every constitutional right that protects individual property.
Speaking of property though, maybe if we'd stop defending Kazaa and filesharing...and admit that 99% of its users pirate software and music, we wouldn't need this legislation. It is users (myself included) that keep it a float.
Clif
clifgriffin > blog
t's not like it's Hatch's responsibility to personally police his web site.
His website. His responsibility.
It is that simple.
Yeah, definitely.
Especially if you completely fail to understand the American political system.
The software that is 'pirated' is from a UK company. Sen. Hatch is not interesting in protecting the rights of anyone but the big American companies that pay his bills...
On a side note, with this becoming more and more common, is there any kind of plan for a tag in the future? Seems like the right thing to do.
So under Hatch's system, the computer destroyer sends him a warning. He then registers the software and puts up the link (he doesn't actually owe the company any money if he has non-profit status), thereby avoiding having his computer destroyed. He then thinks, "Great, the system works." Maybe if some bug in the sw didn't notice he was now in compliance and destroyed his computer anyway, hee'd think twice about his policy.
Vote for Pedro