Frustrated by the lack of progress on the part of the record business and the PC makers to stem the flow of illegally distributed music, US Senator Orrin Hatch has suggested digital music thieves should have their computers auto-destroyed after two warning to stop stealing music.

Sen. Hatch, who earned $18,000 in songwriter royalties last year, wants aggressive action to stop the stealing of music over the Internet.

Do you think music thieves should have their computers auto-destroyed?

Big NO for a couple of reasons.  One. the person who executes the code on the possible offending machine would be the copyright holder.  Aside from the mistake made and liabilities, there are other issues.  I write songs, so wouldn’t I be entitled to go on p2p and make sure no one is sharing my song?  With the tools easily available you can imagine script kiddies unleashing this on any computer connected p2p, offending or not.  I’d bet there would be a patch the day before it’s released.

Second, this would make the copyright holders, judge jury and executioner.  First you would have to be proven to share copyrighted files.  Would this authorise the **AA to cause damage far greater in monitary value than the files be shares.

I take this as a disasterous plan.  Sure the **AA would love it.  It’s just not practicle and really, I don’t think it would happen.

-iswitcher-

Senator Hatch has been arms-deep in this discussion for years now and, to his credit so far, I think he’s made some reasonably good arguments for keeping the government out of this as much as possible and leaving it up to industry.  He seems pretty knowledgable about the industry (he operates his own site selling his music) and I’m sure he feels frustrated with piracy and the effect, however minimal, it might have on his sales, but this is just a ridiculous idea.

First off, how is anyone going to design software reliable enough to tell if the material being downloaded is copyrighted work, if permission of any kind (even unattached) has been given and what the use of the material is (some materials are authorized for limited personal or other uses - my Mom’s church is allowed to download certain songs as long as they are used in limited worship-based activities from sites like MP3.com)?

Secondly, how is this software going to get on everyone’s machine?  Almost any method that involves the music industry or the federal government transferring the software to my computer would, I’m almost certain, violate federal and state anti-hacking laws.  It would be an interesting federal mandate that required individual companies or the governemtn themselves to break their own law.

Finally, I can’t think of a more “ends justify the means” type of arugement.  We’ll destroy your computer to prevent you from downloading illegal music, rather than deal with the issues that bring you to download the music in the first place.

IMO, this is one of the most absurd things I’ve heard come from Senator Hatch’s mouth (and he’s said some doozies over the years).  I don’t practice or support the stealing of music, but this idea is frought with technical and legal hurdles and, IMO, a very reckless proposal from the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Good topic. The story I read suggested that Hatch is basically making an outrageous proposal to bring some media attention to the issue ... altho I think in the online community the issue is already pretty high profile.
I think it’s safe to predict a nearly 100 percent “no” vote on your poll, anyone with a computer who downloads anything, legally or otherwise, will be uncomfortable if such technology is unleashed. There are a host of other issues surrounding this, as iswitcher points out.
I would only add that such technology would also hurt legal download sites, since some computer users would be confused as to what is and is not allowed, and would likely just avoid music downloads altogether to play it safe.

One would think that Senator Hatch, as a former nominee to the Supreme Court, would understand that term I like to call “due process.”

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Hatch (on some issues), but his seemingly off-hand remarks are just that side of nutty.  In terms of legality, the judge/jury/executioner issue that iswitcher mentioned, the idea of an exemption for product liability to the damned recording industry (!?!?!?), and the practical matters of distribution that scott w. mentioned, it’s just silly.

Now, Senator Hatch is not a stupid man, and doesn’t often pop off with public off-hand comments.  That does make me hope he is just trying to raise some attention on this issue, but I think he chose a very dangerous and inappropriate way to do so.

I voted ‘yes’; heck, they used to hang horse thieves.

Then again, I believe in an instant, painful death penalty to anyone going under the speed limit in the passing lane of an interstate for no reason.

I know computer/car anaologies can get kind of pedantic, but I just couldn’t resist:

Should shoplifter’s cars self-destruct?

I mean, seriously.  This idea is very bad.  It requires either some kind of sentient computer that can distinguish between right and wrong (hah!), or it basically requires the government to spy on all of us so that they’ll know when/if we are stealing music.  Due process exists for a reason.  Restriction of privacy is a slippery slope.  It starts with something like this and can than easily snowball out of control.  Invasions of privacy almost universally start out with good intentions (restric thievery) but can be very, very easily abused.

Concidering this would just throw ‘due process’ out the window, It’s a very bad idea.

If they can warn them once or twice… why don’t they take them to court on the third time?

The answer: money

It’s cheaper for the media companies to become virus makers and wipe out some’s HD than to take individual users to court. (BTW it seems like Sen Hatch is clueless about technology (no surprise): you can’t destroy a computer remotely. Unless he want’s to force computer makers to put remote control bombs in computers, in which case this country is doomed with leaders like these).

It’s also cheaper for the government to blow up Microsoft’s HQ than for the government to try to judicate a fair anti-trust solution that would actually make a difference.

Yeah, that’s our dear old Senator here in Utah.  What did you expect?

I like The Register’s sub-heading:  “Orrin Hatch Goes Off His Meds.”  My feeling exactly.  If he has to miss his anti-gas medication, the least he could do is refrain from belching out useless drivel like this.

[quote author=“tbone1”]I voted ‘yes’; heck, they used to hang horse thieves.

Then again, I believe in an instant, painful death penalty to anyone going under the speed limit in the passing lane of an interstate for no reason.

I second that.

Also… concider this:

If they put some sort of self-destruct coding in the microporcessor or hard drive that can be triggered remotely, how long do you think it’ll take hackers to find out how it works and start frying people’s computers?

And, of course, the worse of the bootleggers out there will find a way to circumvent the ability to trigger this self-destruct so the media companies won’t be able to fry the biggest perpertrators anyway.

“There’s no such think as an un-hackable system.”

I’m reading this, and thinking “There’s no way he could have meant that as anything but a joke.”

To the poll: of course not. Due process and all that. Radar detectors and stop-light cameras can give me a ticket, but I can still fight them in court. I also am neither guilty nor obligated to pay until I have a chance to defend myself, and even then I could appeal if I really wanted to. Even if my privaleges are suspended (like the loss of a licence for drunk driving), I still retain posession of my property. If I drive drunk and kill someone, no-one puts my car through the trash compactor.

I think if speeding tickets or running a red light meant people would have to turn over their cars for destruction, the courts would be swamped to the point of uselessness by people fighting these issues. Same would happen with computers.

And that’s not to mention The sort of problems that could be opened even by simple ticketing. I wonder how many states would demand that they be allowed to ticket people who downloaded porn?

“Gentlemen, the state budget crisis is over!  We’re ticketing porn downloaders now!” 

[quote author=“tbone1”]I voted ‘yes’; heck, they used to hang horse thieves.

Then again, I believe in an instant, painful death penalty to anyone going under the speed limit in the passing lane of an interstate for no reason.

Outstanding!  Let’s pass that on to the kids who were playing “2 Fast 2 Furious” up and down the street last night at 4am, while we’re at it.

Hatch: what a coot.

I don’t have a problem with it. I have absolutely no sympathy for the thieving bastards (can I say that word here? Sorry if I can’t, just mod me please). Due process is something we have too much of at times. It just keeps blood-sucking, bottom feeders (lawyers) in fancy cars and nice suits, while wasting a lot of time and money prosecuting scum bags and dirt balls.

[quote author=“KitsuneStudios”]To the poll: of course not. Due process and all that. Radar detectors and stop-light cameras can give me a ticket, but I can still fight them in court.

Yeah but why would you want to do that? If you were speeding just fess up and pay your fine.

[quote author=“KitsuneStudios”]I still retain posession of my property. If I drive drunk and kill someone, no-one puts my car through the trash compactor.

Where I live 1st. or 2nd. degree DWI’rs lose their vehicles.

I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you Jon. I just think due process isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be sometimes. Hazard of the job. But that’s just me. I’m a bit cynical about our legal system sometimes and I’m definitely prejudiced against those who willingly engage in illegal activities. Swift and harsh punishment to evil doers I say!

Willy