So, yes, everyone hates the DCMA, which basically allows copyright holders to sue you into oblivion if they think that you might be, oh, say, downloading music. Now, I’m not going to say that everything should be free and all that, but I think that the opposite extreme, taken by the RIAA for one, is worse. In the face of customers who are unsatisfied with their products, they threaten to hunt them down, drag them out of their homes, and publicly flog them.
Basically, they took the most antagonistic path possible. Now, sure, they don’t want to lose money; this is understandable, and we’re talking about profit-obsessed, faceless, monolithic corporate entities. Meaning that they have more lawyers than you do. But, as is obvious to almost everyone else, threatening to sue/kill/maim people who download music/movies/etc., even if only a few, is a brilliant way of alienating even more customers.
So, yes, you know all this. What’s my point? Simply this: Orrin Hatch is nuts.
Ok, fine: He’s even more nuts than I had previously suspected. And being a conservative from Utah, he was already pretty far up there. But now he’s just gone over the edge. Here, let me quote the most interesting bits:
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet.
…
"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."
So, yes, the senator wants to blow up your computer. Oh yes, I know you’ve downloaded a few songs, at the very least. And, dammit, you need to learn. So, because you stole from needy publishing companies, Senator Crazy wants to destroy your computer. Steal a few songs, lose your $1000+ machine. Sounds completely fair, doesn’t it? Because then you’ll learn won’t you? Next time, you’ll be properly respectful, and you’ll go out and buy albums instead of stealing from the mouths of record company executives. Heck, you probably will. You seem like a reasonable person. Obviously, you’ll be pissed, though, right? And just maybe some people will be very unhappy about losing their computers, or the mere threat to their property, unhappy enough to, say, preemtively attack the enforcers?
I’m surprised this hasn’t happened already. It’s galling that the copyright holders be given the right act as judge, jury, and (computer) executioner in these cases. What are the standards of proof? What if they’re wrong? Remember, these guys, as I said, have huge corrals of lawyers, all kept lean and hungry. Is it worth your time to sue them over a $1500 loss?
But, hey, maybe the senator was quoted out of context. I’m sure that he’s dead-set against allowing a non-law enforcement body to engage in the retributive destruction of property, and the article was full of media exaggerations. Fortunately, he provides a clarificaiton on his website:
”I made my comments at yesterday’s hearing because I think that industry is not doing enough to help us find effective ways to stop people from using computers to steal copyrighted, personal or sensitive materials. I do not favor extreme remedies – unless no moderate remedies can be found. I asked the interested industries to help us find those moderate remedies.”
So there. He’s against it, unless, you know, they can’t think of a better way. Now, if Senator Hatch disregards the speed limit on my street, can I then go and puncture his car’s tires? Tear out a few key components of the engine?
What really worries me is that so many people just blindly assume that elected officials are somehow wiser, more intelligent, and generally more mentally stable than your average citizen. Obviously, this is not the case.