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
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]
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?
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/
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...
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
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
For instance, if Hatch suggested a law allowing you to destroy the computers of spammers, he'd be a hero. If he suggested being able to destroy the computers of anti-trust violators, Slashdotters would be singing his praises. But instead he talks about music piracy, so out comes the tar and the feathers.
The Wired article brought a few important points to mind.
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...