Senator Hatch has been swallowed by the extremists. (Though this might not be such a bad idea. Can we bomb the offices of stock brokers thought to be violating SEC regulations? Or bulldoze houses of citizens with unregistered guns? Or — yes, this is good — short the telephones of people who use indecent language?)
-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
Maybe give us all the right to destroy the computers of spammers while they’re at it?
Shoot out the speakers of that guy down the street that plays his music too loud?
Destroy the computers of copyright holders who destroy computers of people who weren’t actually violating copyrights?
Electrocute people who use cell phones in theaters.
Legalize road rage! (That person was speeding and cut me off while going through a red light. Therefore, I shot him.)
Wasn’t vigilantism outlawed some time ago? What is it about the repercussions of allowing such action that Hatch and Berman don’t understand? Would they be suggesting that we can empty their bank accounts because they misappropriately accepted campaign contributions? Destroy their cars for driving drunk?
Well, I have to say Sen. Hatch appears to be a bit batty but…
But they won’t be ‘self-appointed doers of justice’, they would be legally authorized doers of “justice”. Of course, the fact that they did not go through a judicial review process before punishing the alleged crime still does not look like justice to me.
But look on the bright side – it won’t just be your computer that blows up. Lexmark could blow up your printer if you put a 3rd party ink cartridge into it. ABC/NBC/CBS could blow up your DVR for skipping over a commercial.
Disney could melt down your DVD player for trying to play an expired disposable DVD.
Think of how this could help out the economy by forcing consumers to buy new equipment on a frequent basis!
Don’t get me started on Walker v. Rock Against Racism or I’ll never shut up.
Yes, but then they would still have to abide by those little things called the fourth and fifth amendments….
Probably worth noting his campaign contributions. OpenSecrets reports that TV, Music, and Movie producers were the #4 largest contributing industry to his campaign. Not to mention Pharmaceutical companies, at #2, who also have a strong interest in strong IP. Walt Disney gave $17,000. Gee, whiz.
I liked the EFF response: Hatch’s proposal is the equivalent of allowing the creditors to come and blow up your garage after 2 missed car payments…
The RIAA of course loved his proposal…
To the honorable Senator ___________
This email is copyrighted per the Berne convention and is licensed to be
viewed only by the Senator ___________
To assure that the copyright and license terms are met, I must
reserve the right to examine all traffic into, and out of your computer.
I reserve the right to examine any file on your computer. This is needed
to make sure that you have not simply renamed it.
Per your suggestion, I will provide two notifications if this letter is found
to be used in violation my copyright and/or license. Then, regretfully,
I must destoy your computer. Sorry about that. No ill will, or anything.
Just following the law. What’s good for the RIAA is good for the Senate,
all that.
Now, I have it on the best of terms that there is a movement afoot that
will have enormous effects on the entire Westeren portion of the US. Dams
are being filled with silt! Please correct this ….
While the criticism of Hatch is not meritless, I think that it is overblown.
First, Hatch suggested such measures only as a last resort. Re-read the quoted language in The Washington Post article to which Professor Lessig links. You don’t really have to engage in a great deal of parsing to see that Hatch would prefer another solution.
Second, the analogies in the preceding comments are correct insofar as they suggest that Hatch’s proposal appears to be a highly disproportionate response to the problem. But I think that the various analogies go too far in suggesting that self-help remedies are wrong even in principle.
Technological obstacles may effectively rule out Hatch’s suggestion, but the very idea of self-help remedies in the context of protecting property rights does not strike me as extreme. Consider, by way of analogy, the laws that exist in many (if not all) states that allow one to exercise the use of force in protecting one’s own tangible personal property.
I try to offer a fuller and more charitable view of Hatch’s comments and a justification of such self-help remedies in principle over at my blog.
Hatch didn’t say that he would reluctantly consider severe measures if moderate measures failed. He said he was “all for” the extreme measures if no others could be found. “All for”: The emotional weight of these words implies that he considers the adoption of his extreme proposal both likely and good.
What he was “all for” was not confiscation of computers after due process. It was the destruction of computers by a private party, remotely, on mere suspicion, without regard for the error that remote detection by mindless computer programs is prone to, without regard for whether the destruction endangers life or limb (by starting a fire, for instance) and without regard for whether the computer in question was at the same time running a program on which someone’s life or livelihood depends: for modern computers (as Sen. Hatch seems to have forgotten) are capable of multitasking, that is, sharing their processors’ time among a number of different process in a way that looks simultaneous to the human users.
“Hatch suggested such measures only as a last resort….You don’t really have to engage in a great deal of parsing to see that Hatch would prefer another solution.”
If that is the case, then why doesn’t he put his constituents money to good use and come up with a workable solution, or at least something that may lead to one, instead of suggesting widely derised ideas that (according to later assertions) even HE doesn’t like?
“I think that the various analogies go too far in suggesting that self-help remedies are wrong even in principle….Consider, by way of analogy, the laws that exist in many (if not all) states that allow one to exercise the use of force in protecting one’s own tangible personal property.”
The key here is protecting. We aren’t talking about trying to prevent a crime, Hatch’s proposal would sanction extreme reactions to a (suspected) crime that has already occured. We allow force to be used in defence of life, liberty and property as a practical matter, but we do not condone vigilante justice after the fact, especially if guilt has yet to be proven. The penal code you cite even has the word immediate in it. I can see no reasonable parallel between the two scenarios.
Furthermore, consistently treating copyrights as if they were real estate ignores the fact that copyrights are more like laws governing forms of transportation; they are defined by technology, not simply affected by them. One does not adjust copyright laws they way one changes real estate laws to accomodate for flight patterns. Trying to apply copyrights that were designed for old media, which is a relatively passive experience for the user, to new media, which is more interactive and malleable, is like trying to govern air and ground travel by the same rules.
The RIAA and friends are not losing money because people like to steal stuff, they are losing money because they insist on seeing MP3s and other digital media as if they were font changes. It would be as if the scribes and ruling class of Europe had reacted to the printing press only by marveling at the nice block letters and wondering how best to fill in the gaps with illustrations.
it’s all just noise, anyway.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946/2003/06/18.html#a557
rick boucher’s got it figured out.
Wired News is running a story about the senator using unlicensed software on his web site, thus turning him into a software pirate.
James,
Even if you are correct in all the above, the stories I’ve read insist that the license requires registration with the author, something that the author was quoted as saying he never saw from Hatch or the company in charge of his website.
-kd
There are versions available with a license which matches the claims the author made. The cached version of the site shows that the Senator’s site wasn’t using one of those versions.
Natural enough for the news stories to reflect the juicy claims without going so far as to put the address of the javascript file with the license in a browser URL, download it and read it.
Since I notified the author of the lack of foundation for his claims, it’s possible that there will soon be updated distributions available, with a less free license.
Gee, James, it appears that you need to apologize to the author, since according to those terribly untrustworthy news people, the company responsible for Sen. Hatch’s website admitted making a mistake.
I’ve no current plans to do so. The company ws undoubtedly told to make this issue go away. Regardless of whether the use was permitted or not. The Senator probably has little interest in his site being a case study in incorrect copyright infringement claims. It wouldn’t serve the interests of his financial supporters.
If the author cares to explain why my analysis of what the license actually contained is in any way inaccurate, and I agree, I’ll be more than happy to apologize for my erroneous statement. At the moment, the facts I’ve seen do not appear to support the infringement claim.
cool idea