RIAA To Blow Up Your Computer

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-06-18 09:19am

Hatch Takes Aim at Illegal Downloading

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet.

The surprise remarks by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, during a hearing on copyright abuses represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against illegal music downloads.

During a discussion on methods to frustrate computer users who illegally exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading. Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal anti-hacking laws.

"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to disrupt music downloads. One technique deliberately downloads pirated material very slowly so other users can't.

"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."

The senator, a composer who earned $18,000 last year in song writing royalties, acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."

"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions, he said.

"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.

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.

"The rights of copyright holders need to be protected, 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 copyright debates in Washington, urged Hatch to reconsider. Boucher described Hatch's role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee as "a very important position, so when Senator Hatch indicates his views with regard to a particular subject, we all take those views very seriously."

A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), Jonathan Lamy, said 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." The RIAA represents the major music labels.

Some legal experts suggested Hatch's provocative remarks were more likely intended to compel technology and music executives to work faster toward ways to protect copyrights online than to signal forthcoming legislation.

"It's just the frustration of those who are looking at enforcing laws that are proving very hard to enforce," said Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department (news - web sites) cybercrimes prosecutor and associate professor at George Washington University law school.

The entertainment industry has gradually escalated its fight against Internet file-traders, targeting the most egregious pirates with civil lawsuits. The Recording Industry Association of America recently won a federal court decision making it significantly easier to identify and track consumers — even those hiding behind aliases — using popular Internet file-sharing software.

Kerr predicted it was "extremely unlikely" for Congress to approve a hacking exemption for copyright owners, partly because of risks of collateral damage when innocent users might be wrongly targeted.

"It wouldn't work," Kerr said. "There's no way of limiting the damage."

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-18 09:22am

Nice they should apply it to child porn too.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-06-18 09:23am

Montcalm wrote: Nice they should apply it to child porn too.

Hey, if it helps justify an otherwise illegal action, who are we to complain?

I used to think Americans had more freedom than this, I hope such idiocy is quashed quickly and decisively.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-18 09:28am

Its something i`ve been thinking about for years,but i definitly think it should be used only against pedophiles,many catholic priests would die but who`d care.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-06-18 09:30am

Montcalm wrote:Its something i`ve been thinking about for years,but i definitly think it should be used only against pedophiles,many catholic priests would die but who`d care.

The Catholic priests?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-18 09:35am

I wasn't aware of any copyright provisions in the Constitution which granted copyright holders the right to be judge, jury and executioner whenever they suspect that someone might be infringing on their copyrights. Perhaps someone could point me to the relevant section.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-06-18 09:41am

Durandal wrote:I wasn't aware of any copyright provisions in the Constitution which granted copyright holders the right to be judge, jury and executioner whenever they suspect that someone might be infringing on their copyrights. Perhaps someone could point me to the relevant section.

You may have to wait for that, say, eternity.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-06-18 10:08am

WTF??

Now they've gone too far.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-18 10:38am

Goddammit, where are all the good-guy lawyers? Did they all die out in the thirties or something?

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-06-18 10:58am

HemlockGrey wrote:Goddammit, where are all the good-guy lawyers? Did they all die out in the thirties or something?

Maybe the joke "the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer" had been taken too seriously... by the bad ones.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. If nothing else, what happens if such programs misread legit mp3 files as pirated and decide to pop your brand spanking new multi-grand machine? Who's responsible?

... stupid money greedy arseholes...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-18 11:04am

HemlockGrey wrote:Goddammit, where are all the good-guy lawyers? Did they all die out in the thirties or something?

This has nothing to do with lawyers. This is up to the legislative branch of the government to decide. Lawyers operate under the law, they don't make it.

Besides, I'm a good guy

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-18 11:09am

This has nothing to do with lawyers. This is up to the legislative branch of the government to decide. Lawyers operate under the law, they don't make it.

Yes, but they can challenge the law.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-18 11:11am

HemlockGrey wrote:
Yes, but they can challenge the law.

No, that's up to the judicial branch (judges)- who can 'interpret' legislation to soften it up, or just strike it down as unconstitutional (I love legal speak: this Act was STRUCK DOWN- it sounds like Star Wars).

And in order for a case regarding any such legislation to come before them, a citizen will have to bring an action. Which any lawyer would be happy to do. We need the money.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-06-18 11:28am

This just disturbs me to the core. Can someone explain to me how this is different than back in the day when we used to copy movies with two VCRs. Did the Movie industry threaten to blow up our VCR's?? Seriously this is an assault on our fucking PRIVATE PROPERTY - expensive property at that!! Besides a computer has multiple uses it ios HARDLY a single purpose MP3 downloading machine.

russellb6666 · Post by **russellb6666** » 2003-06-18 11:50am

.......................WTF that has got to be damn near the stupidest most asinine thing I have ever read you would think that the RIAA would get the fucking program find some decent artists that create MUSIC and not bullcrap like Linkin Park or Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys or whatever get a wide selection of really good music have an online store like apples and charge reasonably( i.e. not $20 for a decent song and 19 other crap ones) then maybe they wouldn't have to worry about this shit

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-18 11:57am

Stravo wrote:This just disturbs me to the core. Can someone explain to me how this is different than back in the day when we used to copy movies with two VCRs. Did the Movie industry threaten to blow up our VCR's?? Seriously this is an assault on our fucking PRIVATE PROPERTY - expensive property at that!! Besides a computer has multiple uses it ios HARDLY a single purpose MP3 downloading machine.

The idea is that an MP3 is a perfect copy that doesnt degreade, and thus doesnt give you any incentive to buy from the industry. Tho they already did try to kill VCRs. Honestly, I download music, mostly because someone says "oh hey this song is real good" so I download it. I don't really have the money to buy CDs so frequently, or to pay 1 dollar per song like Apple Music is charging, however if I could subscribe to an online music service, maybe $20-50 a month, then I wouldn't download illegally. Could meaning if such a service existed and if I had a job.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-06-18 12:31pm

Stravo wrote:This just disturbs me to the core. Can someone explain to me how this is different than back in the day when we used to copy movies with two VCRs. Did the Movie industry threaten to blow up our VCR's?? Seriously this is an assault on our fucking PRIVATE PROPERTY - expensive property at that!! Besides a computer has multiple uses it ios HARDLY a single purpose MP3 downloading machine.

Apparently most of these idiots look at computers as all copyright-violation devices

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-06-18 12:59pm

Let us not forget this violates that little due-process thing.

Basically they skip the trial and immediately pass judgement, quite unconstitutional. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but since when are computers shipped with self-destruct devices that can be remotely triggered?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-06-18 01:03pm

Steven Snyder wrote:Let us not forget this violates that little due-process thing.

Basically they skip the trial and immediately pass judgement, quite unconstitutional. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but since when are computers shipped with self-destruct devices that can be remotely triggered?

I think even Microsoft might object to that.

JodoForce · Post by **JodoForce** » 2003-06-18 01:27pm

And in other news...

Lawyers against the RIAA prepare to blow up their office

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-06-18 02:35pm

Good thing I'm done downloading mp3s for now. Say, wasn't Hatch in the news a few years ago?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-06-18 02:46pm

Does all this include video files....(thinks of massive porn collection)

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-06-18 02:52pm

I don't think so. The 1st paragraph specified only music, and when you think about it, videos would be more under the movie industry jurisdiction rather than the RIAA.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-06-18 03:02pm

And how would they even do this? Yes, they're going to blow it up, never mind that my little brother happened to be right next to it and died because of it. Thanks RIAA.

Saurencaerthai · Post by **Saurencaerthai** » 2003-06-18 04:08pm

Censorship of one of the worse kinds. If that ever happens, they can go deal with a destruction of property lawsuite, including PAID FOR RECORDING PROGRAMS, MP3'S OF MUSIC THAT CAME FROM THE RECORDING PROGRAMS, and other such things.