sen. hatch has already developed something to destroy your computer when it's played on it - http://www.hatchmusic.com/songs.html seriously - doesn't this seem like a conflict of interest him being a songwriter and all? Todd Ellner wrote: > [Lots of crazy ideas bubble up out of Washington. Let's hope this one sinks > quietly back into the muck] > > --------------------- > http://theregister.com/content/6/31287.html > > US Senator would destroy MP3 traders' PCs > By Thomas C Greene in Washington > Posted: 18/06/2003 at 14:57 GMT > > > The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch (Republican, > Utah), thinks it would be a fabulous idea if copyright owners could remotely > destroy computers that contain pirated material, the Associated Press > reports. > > "I'm all for destroying their machines," Hatch said during a Committee > hearing Tuesday. "'If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think > people would realize' the seriousness of their actions," the wire service > quotes him as saying. > > This would involve creating new legislation to exempt copyright owners from > old-fashioned laws that make it a crime to destroy other people's property, > and from somewhat newer computer trespass and misuse statutes as well. > > Such legislation would be in line with US Representative Howard Berman > (Democrat, California) and his vision of allowing copyright owners and their > agents to hack computer systems where copyright violations might be going on > Hatch would simply take it a bit further, permitting copyright owners to > take overtly malicious action. > > While there may soon be an excuse for willful destruction of property, > there's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch explained. > > We can't quite picture the sort of attack our visionary Utah Senator has in > mind. Obviously there is little danger of actually destroying a PC remotely; > in spite of great advances in malware, it remains the sort of business for > which a hatchet comes in most handy. You could wipe the HDD or re-flash the > BIOS remotely, but victims can recover from this sort of thing. > > Benefit of the doubt > > One has to wonder how much evidence of wrongdoing a copyright owner would > need before their exemption from prosecution would kick in. Would they have > to maintain copious records of their investigations and findings? Or would > they be granted a blanket benefit of the doubt and therefor not have to > justify it at all? And what happens when an innocent person is victimized? > If their HDD were wiped by some malicious program, they would have an awful > time seeking a legal remedy with no data to challenge the media pigopolists' > evidence. > > Perhaps Hatch is imagining of some sort of Mission-Impossible-style DRM > self-destruct regime, possibly one mandated by a law like the one > contemplated by Senator Fritz Hollings (Democrat, South Carolina) known as > the CBDTPA. > > A mandatory DRM scheme of this sort could monitor the copyright status of > content being accessed, and after a set number of 'violations' sabotage the > PC with a Hatch attack. To further inconvenience copyright miscreants, the > DRM mechanism could be tied to some sort of Win-XP-style 'product activation > discipline, possibly requiring users to purchase and install a new copy of > their operating system to regain full control of their computers. > > Or perhaps Congress will realize that Hatch is talking utter nonsense and > ignore his bizarre suggestion. It all depends on how much money the MPAA and > RIAA lobbyists can slip into the pockets of their Congressional lapdogs. > > Citizens are welcome to e-mail Senator Hatch here to offer him their kind > words of support. . > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 10:41:20 PDT