Forum Moderators: open
I wrote a huge rant on how out of order i think this idea is, but i decided to give the mods and admin a break! ;)
Scott
...new technology which would remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music tracks
damaging computers "may be the only way you can teach someone about copyright".
Or smashing up people's houses is the only way you can teach them not to steal.
Time for the techno-war, and I know who my money's gonna be on ;)
I have personally found this man to be one of the foulest people on earth, and he again justifies my opinion.
This could almost make a movie, "Hackers 2 ~ The Utah Factor"...
What a chump. I live all the way down in Sunny South Africa and just have to wonder about people in government. They always seem to bring in these unrealistic goals that are just way over the top or they just won't be able to implement them properly.
I mean imagine what a stir there would be in the internet community if this actually had to be passed by congress. They would be absolutely bombarded by angry hackers......good maybe they should pass it;-)
[wired.com...]
Somebody also had a point about due process. We have something in the U.S. called a Constitution that prevents seizure of property without due process. I'm sure this would also be interpreted to include destruction of private property without due process.
We have something in the U.S. called a Constitution that prevents seizure of property without due process.
Mr.Hatch was instrumental in the creation of Drug War laws allowing the federal government to seize property with or without a conviction.
I feel Mr.Hatch and his "Lott" find
Amendment VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state)
and
Amendment IV (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures)
to be obstacles in their path toward moral rule.
j
Granted, his talk of 'smoldering PCs' is pretty far fetched. But in reality, they're talking about DOS attacks against sites and servers that they consider to be a threat. It's not mp3s they're talking about here - his threat is to anyone on the internet who doesn't fit with people like Hatch and his small-minded puppetmasters.
On the file sharing front, I don't know if anyone else has come across a recent case by the RIAA who sued [ecommercetimes.com] 4 students [cen.uiuc.edu] for $97,800,000,000. The students made an search engine that indexed mp3s. As was to be expected, the $60,000 that was actually awarded will not go to the artists the RIAA care about so much, but to "reimburse the industry's anti-piracy efforts"...
Ouch. Now Hatch has gotten burned by a link on his to site to an expired domain. It use to point to a Utah search site, now it points to a porn site!
what is an "illegal download" anyway?
wouldnt it get a bit confusing if an mp3 from a pirate site was exactly the same as one from an official site? How would they tell the difference?
i dont really think they are gonna be able to pass that idea, it would cause what the people working in those places call 'extra work', besides the fact that it would cause massive disorders led by people who have had their computers destroyed...
if im wrong in any of the above, please correct me...im new at forums...