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
http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/index.cfm?Fuseaction= Students.Utah
And click on the MyUtahSearch.com graphic...
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
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]
I'm also from Utah, an ardent Democrat, and there's no chance in hell Hatch will be kicked out of office.
The problem is that he already has a ton of power and pull in Washington where seniority rules. He's chairman of the most esteemed committee in Washington, and has blessing from the Church.
The only person that has a shot to beat him is someone like Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake's Mayor, (also featured on Insomniac tonight) and they would make him out to be the next coming of the devil. After all, he's for (shock) environmental concern, and civil liberties! Utah is a recessive state. Or at least for now...
Face it, Utah politics is as complacent as it gets, and probably why Orrin can say this kind of silliness and get away with it.
When I read about Hatch's little idea, this is what I came up with as responses:
1. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
2. What ever happened to getting a warrant?
3. What ever happened to a fair trial in front of a jury of peers?
4. What ever happened to the government running the police, instead of the corporations.
5. What ever happens when someone at a record label royally screws up and fries the hard drive of someone with legiminate copies of MP3's (say of my band or ripped legally from CD's I own)?
Holy crap:
The "My Utah Search" graphic here links to a porn site. This is beautiful.
> 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?
yeah, go ahead and click on Hatch's pr0n link... I'm sure he'll have the last laugh when he gets a phat check at the end of the month for generating all these click-thoughs...
I was somewhat involved with Napster back in its heyday. I once visited their office, and was introduced to a new employee who came straight out of Orrin Hatch's office. He used to be an assistant of some sort to Hatch, and was clearly hired by Napster because he could serve as a lobbyist of sorts with some very direct Washington contacts. The funny thing is, as soon as they hired this guy, Hatch came out in strong support of Napster and defended them for a time.
I was amazed, but not surprised. That's not the sort of position one would have expected from the likes of Orrin Hatch, but clearly is ex-assistant was having significant influence on him in Napster's favor. How ironic, yet also unsurprising, that in the wake of Napster's demise, Hatch has pretty much gone 180 degrees from his previous stance.
The Milonic DHTML Menu was totally free a little while ago.
For them to change the licensing terms retroactively ( "EVERY copy of our JavaScript menu needs to be licensed" - are they really insiting that older copies that were downloaded with it was advertised as free now be paid for and/or registered?) seems very shady to me.
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...
wow, great news. now if only he were a congressman and not a senator.
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...
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 page has already been changed, but google still has the cache
Grab it while you can!
I just got done writing him a letter and submitting it through his site.
Here it is:
Dear Sir,
Having read your recent proposition that copyright holders be able to "destroy" the computers of those who download their works without permission I am frankly appalled. I understand that as a copyright holder yourself this might be a hot topic for you but please do not let your emotions overcome common sense.
As a profesional Systems Administrator, I understand the problem of unlicenced downloading. It is a plauge on the bandwith of the systems I administer. However, your proposed solution is one of the worst I have ever heard suggested. Copyright does not take precedence over private property laws. Second this would cause untold financial damage to buisnesses, educational institutions, and government agencies who's machiens were used by employees to download music. In the case of medical, or military computers it could even cause loss of life.
Since your website was recently discovered to be running unlicenced software this campaign of yours is rather hypocritical.
I strongly suggest that you drop this idea immediatly as unrealistic. I suggest instead that you pursue reducing the length of copyrights and/or making it much easier for material to go into the public domain. This would allow for a much greater amount of material to be LEGALLY downloaded. People prefer to do the right and honest thing, as well as avoid possible crimes and their consequences. If they have more legal options for downloads many will choose the legal choice rather than the immoral one - thus allowing artists seeking to make a just profit from their recent works, while fulfilling the original intent of copyright - to provide a limited short term monopoly on creative works as an incentive for more material to be released and the public domain be nurtured.
Respectfully,
-name ommited from slashdot-