I wonder if Orrin has thought through the consequences of making such a statement.

It's already news all over the Internet, including sites like Slashdot.org.

I bet his email will be flooded with spam, his website DOS attacked (or worse), and his office flooded with calls tomorrow.

There are plenty of people out there who will take this kind of statement personally and decided to do something about it.

I'm not condoning the above actions, but you have to admit it would be kind of funny if it happened =)

It sounds remarkably like the e-version of Saudi justice - steal and we chop off your hand; steal music and we chop off your PC.

Or maybe it's more like poisoning random lots of drugs that come into the country to teach those addicts a lesson.

Either way, it's misguided and idiotic.

It would be frightening to think of the government doing this, scarier still that he wants to give that power (and immunity from prosecution) to privately held companies.

What confuses me is what the potential gain from making these comments might be.

He's just worried that someone, somewhere, might want to download one of his songs. As far as who would be that insane, you've got me.

So under this philosophy can I destroy the server of the website that tries to download a spyware program or read personal information from my computer?

They always compared the internet to the wild west...DRAW!

Hatch may not be stupid, but these ill advised statements on a subject I imagine he knows very little about have just promoted him to official asshat status.

Congratulations Orrin.

Welcome back Stephen. Congratulations on the dog; very cool name.

My social life is eagerly anticipating the boost it should get when your cookbook is done. So chop chop. :)

Oh, please get over yourself. You're going to vote Democrat because Orrin Hatch says something dumb? Get some perspective.

Clearly an indictment of the entire Republican Party. I mean, if the party has one asshole in it, you definitely can extrapolate to every Republican politician. Hell, this reflects on every registered Republican, maybe everyone who ever voted Republican. In fact, this is why I am against Republics in general.

Maybe not all Republicans, but still...

Gary Aldrich was on Fox the other night promoting a book, and said (paraphrasing) "Republicans in Washington are no different from Democrats in that they are addicted to the idea that government can solve the country's important problems better than individuals can. They disagree on what the problems are and what the solutions should be, but they agree that government is the solution."

Aldrich is in many ways a nutjob himself, but I thought this agrument was dead on and I'm surprised I haven't seen it picked up on more. Democrats: government should regulate the sexual orientation of Boy Scout leaders but not private bedroom behavior. Republicans: The boy scouts should pick their own leaders but adults can't pick their own lovers. We seem to be given a choice between activist right wing or activist left wing government. Whatever happened to "that government is best which governs least."?

After Senator Hatch has finished destroying our scofflaw computers, I trust he'll forcibly enter every church office in America and smash the Xerox machines that for years have been illegally copying sheet music.

JC: "...You're going to vote Democrat because Orrin Hatch says something dumb?..."

PH: "...Clearly an indictment of the entire Republican Party. I mean, if the party has one asshole in it, you definitely can extrapolate to every Republican politician..."

Come on, people. Think before you post:

SG: "Anyone still wondering why I've never voted straight-ticket Republican..."

Steve is clearly saying here that he considers each individual on the merits; I would hope that all of us do as well. If I lived in Utah, I wouldn't vote for Hatch either, and I am a republican.

Anyone who would even consider abrogating the Constitution in such a manner deserves to be run out of Washington on a rail.

First, the good thing is that this is a democracy, sort of (Yeah, I know, a federal republic blah blah blah) and just because one guy in the Senate says something might be a good idea doesn't mean that it happens.

And, once again, this is a difference between left and right. When someone on the left says something nutty, noone goes "I'll never vote straight ticket Democrat!"

I think that is probably a good thing.

But Stephen, if this means you won't vote for Orrin Hatch, well, okay. I don't think you live in Utah. Will Orrin Hatch keep you from voting for Republicans where you live?

It's never wise to give one's allegiance -- or vote -- uncritically because of party affiliation. That allows candidates to practice radically different philosophies from those they preach, usually to the extreme detriment of freedom.

The Republican Party is preferable to the Democratic Party most of the time, but it must be given clear and regular incentives to remain true to republican principles: free markets, sharply limited government, and the rule of law. As a political party is a mechanism for seeking power through the electoral process, the only incentives it will respect are electoral: victory when it behaves well, defeat when it betrays us. When Republican politicos depart from republican convictions, they should be given the bum's rush.

Some will disagree, arguing that a pol who says the right things is always preferable to one who doesn't. I disagree. Being tyrannized by a hypocrite is even worse than being tyrannized by a sincere statist. Over time, people will internalize the hypocrite's implied definition of "freedom" as his particular brand of statism. What could be worse than that?

"Words are weapons. Words are tools Define or be defined!" -- Michael Emerling.

I'm no Hatch apologist, but I really do believe he made the "destroy the computers" remark just to get everyone's attention. And, certainly, it has done that.

I'm still a bit confused as to why people (like Mr. Green himself) refuse to call "file sharing" stealing. It IS stealing. Stealing is stealing. Thus, the stealers should be dealt with as criminals.

Wow, pardon my French/Freedom, but is Hatch out of his f**king mind? Him and O'Reilly should run on the Luddite ticket in 2004.

Am I the only one who sees the brilliant sarcasm in:

"...Clearly an indictment of the entire Republican Party. I mean, if the party has one asshole in it, you definitely can extrapolate to every Republican politician..."

There seem to be a bunch of search engines that are downloading, storing and distributing copyrighted material. Under the Hatch theroy, we should give Google two warnings and then destroy their server farm.

"Thus, the stealers should be dealt with as criminals."

Um, dude, there's this thing called the rule of law, you know, due process? You are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court. Remotely destroying your computer because you *might* have some MP3s on it doesn't quite jibe with these quaint notions.

Me, I'm sending a warning to the IRS next payday to stop stealing my property. After a couple warnings, I will then be free to 'deal' with the little bastards.

I work engineering data storage devices, so this rhetoric scares me even more than most people.

Disk drives and tape drives have no knowledge of the type of data stored on them. Bits is bits. Interpretation of the data is left to the host (usually an operating system). This is the most elegant and simple way to construct such a device. (At the low level anyway.)

DVDs and CDs especially are formatted with special data types for music, digital data, etc… This makes them more complicated, expensive to develop, and has lead to numerous compatibility issues and other cluster****s.

I am worried that these luddites will decide that copyright protection must be implemented at the storage device level. Disk drives as we know them will become illegal, because gosh, you know, someone might have stolen those bits. This would be an enormous setback for the computer revolution.

"I'm still a bit confused as to why people (like Mr. Green himself) refuse to call "file sharing" stealing. It IS stealing. Stealing is stealing. Thus, the stealers should be dealt with as criminals."

Stealing is stealing. MP3 downloading is misappropriation of copyrighted material, and is (AFAIK) remediable only through civil suit. Even if it were theft, are you then saying that it would be OK if, for instance, your TV was stolen, and you were just real gosh darn sure who did it, it would be OK for you to break into their house and reclaim the TV? And what if you were wrong?

What nation do you live in?

I support Senator Hatch 100% on this!

You see, he's been sent back in time to prevent this...

Until Republicans like Hatch get serious about civil liberties

Basically, none of the Republicans are serious about civil liberties. Neither are any of the Democrats. The Libertarian Party is, but it's run by a bunch of incompetent kooks.

Joy.

I'm checking into something that I suspect may be Orrin Hatch's pot calling the kettle black.

Hatch is also co-sponsor of the DREAM Act. That would give illegal aliens college tuition at the in-state rate, the same rate that in-state citizens pay. In other words, an out-of-state citizen would pay higher tuition than an in-state illegal alien. Details here.

"Stealing is stealing. MP3 downloading is misappropriation of copyrighted material, and is (AFAIK) remediable only through civil suit."

I always thought that taking something that didn't belong to you was stealing. The music doesn't belong to you, nor have you been given the right by the owner to take it. Thus, you have stolen if you possess it (or are at the absolute least in possession of stolen goods, which must be forfeited).

As it is, I have yet to hear an argument for downloading MP3s that isn't based, roughly, on "well, you know, a CD costs $15, and I only want three of the songs, and, you know, the record companies are rich anyway and I really like this band."

This is no different than shoplifting or making copies of tapes from Blockbuster. It is stealing, and the government ought to deal with it as such. It's not like we're being denied bread, water, or electricity in the middle of winter. Those who download songs for which they do not have a right are simply throwing a hissy fit because they can't get the luxuries they want without making sacrifices.

Does anyone remember way back in the old days? Recording tapes off of records, or off the radio? Trading copies of the tapes you had with tapes your friends had? Then there was the movie industries brouhaha when the VCR became popular. Whether you condone or despise it, "file-sharing" has been around for a long time. So far, I've not seen any record company or movie house go out of business, nor do I invision Britanny Spears being forced to move into a 1-bedroom trailer anytime soon (much as I might wish otherwise).

My personal opinion is that Hatch is being an asshole six ways from Sunday, and I -don't- have any illegal .mp3's on my machines. He's trying to push the unthinkable to enforce the unenforceable.

Yes, unenforceable. As ArtD0dger pointed out, bits is bits. If Hatch were actually push his agenda through, how could his enforcement group tell the difference between legal and illegal .mp3s?

I can go to several websites and download files that have been made available for free (usually as a promotional gimmick). I can also purchase .mp3's off the web, and I can record .mp3's off of my CDs for personal use.

How can those files be distinguished from files illegally obtained through file sharing?

The mind boggles at the sheer potential insanity that could occur.

When I showed my 16 yr old son this he said "Good Luck" and I asked him if others in his age group would see this as a declaration of 'cyber' War, his response was "Definitely". I'm seeing a possibilty of a 'cure being worse then the disease'. Sen. Hatch should be careful what he wishes for.....

Robert: It would be one thing if Hatch had decided to classify any downloading as theft, punishable by law just as if you had shoplifted a cd with the appropriate songs on it.

There is a marked difference between allowing police to arrest "file traders" as garden variety thieves, and what has been proposed.

Even taking as a given your premise that downloading a song is exactly equivalent to stealing a CD single of that song, how would that justify a law allowing copyright owners to destroy the computers of anyone who downloads even a single song, without fair trial or due process protections, and which exempts them from liability for so doing?

Steve posted: "Stealing is stealing. MP3 downloading is misappropriation of copyrighted material, and is (AFAIK) remediable only through civil suit."

Robert is confused by the distinction between theft (a criminal act) and copyright piracy (a civil tort). If you take a video from Blockbuster and don't return it, you have committed the crime of theft against Blockbuster. If you copy it but return the original, you have committed a civil tort against the copyright holder. The remedy is not prison, but a civil judgement. Which is one of the reasons the Hatch plan is so outrageous. Even under the concept of treble damages, it would take an awful lot of pirated CDs to equal the cost of a computer. And then there's the "takings clause"/due process arguments.

Well, criminal penalties are available as a remedy for willful copyright infringement done a) for purposes of commerical advantage or private financial gain or b) by reproducing or distributing, electronically or otherwise, at least 1 copy of at least 1 copyrighted work having a total retail value in excess of $1000, within a six month period. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a).

As a practical matter, criminal copyright prosecutions are very rare, as copyright owners want to punish the offender monetarily, and most U.S. Attorneys take the position that they have bigger fish to fry.

Treble damages apply in trademark cases brought under the Lanham Act, not copyright cases. The hammer in copyright cases is statutory damages under Sec. 504(c), which currently allows for damage awards of up to $150K per work infringed, regardless of how many copies were actually manufactured/distributed, so long as the work was registered with the Copyright Office prior to the infringement.

OK, as usual I'm drawn to the tangential, anal naval gazing issue of Steve ragging on we repubs- as opposed to the substance of downloading/stealing. Or at least I was when I saw Glenn's link. And then I actually read the seemingly tempered, reasonable remarks on this and I thought- My god Steve is not condemning all republicans for the inanity on one issue of of one senator. Or at least not too much. And then I see the profound, learned comments on this and I realize, once again that my uncharacteristic disinclination to take Steve to task must be in error. Or... maybe if that new Eurolaw were in effect, Steve could take Glenn to court for putting insufficient thought into his link.

"Robert is confused by the distinction between theft (a criminal act) and copyright piracy (a civil tort)."

Actually, I never mentioned theft in my response. Theft is when you steal something and the person who formerly had it is deprived of it (though I think an argument could be made that this is what happens). Stealing is when you take the property of another without right or permission, especially through deception or artifice. There is no question that artifice is being used, and I'm sure deception would be acknowledged as well.

I'm not sure I support Hatch's idea, especially if it's not the government doing it, but it does have precedent. If a drug dealer's car can be confiscated for having some drugs in it, then your computer could be confiscated (or damaged) for having other illegal substances. As noted, though, there are bigger fish to fry. You and I probably wouldn't have anything to worry about, but there are people who have their very own mini- server farms full of MP3s (I know one or two of them). If you have a million MP3s on your system, then we all know you're not listening to them all on a regular basis. I have about four hundred (all either from albums I own or as free downloads, such as the Brunching Shuttlecocks' Bjork Song), and I don't even listen to half of those regularly.

If we're going to cease thinking of having illegal MP3s as wrong, then no one should have grounds to sue over any copyright infringement. I should be able to walk right into Borders' with a laptop and portable scanner and simply scan any book I choose without interference. I should be able to set up video cameras to catch my co-workers in the bathroom and make bootleg copies of movies in theaters. When Stephen's cookbook comes out, I'll just scan it, put it in .pdf format, and put it up on KaZaA. What's the difference?

Robert,

You're a frequent and welcome -- and well-spoken -- commenter here, but I think you've missed the point entirely.

No one here, least of all me, has come out in favor of illegal file-sharing. You can read my own thoughts on that entirely separate issue here and here.

Is file-sharing a problem? You bet it is. So is any other kind of theft, but we seem to have (sigh, mostly) found ways to deal with it shy of gutting the Bill of Rights.

What has us all so riled up is the idea that for a civil offence, Orrin Hatch wants to give Big Business the power to harm or destroy your computer with nothing resembling due process.

Hatch is wrong. So are you. Good news is, I doubt the courts would find such a law constitutional.

Just when I thought that Democrats had a monopoly on shooting yourself in the foot...

If they could get it through their heads to move away from their mullahs and slap down the wackos like Santorum and Lott, the Republicans could cinch a major realignment. Why is this so hard for them to grasp?

Tombo, maybe you missed it, but the Republicans have already cinched up a major realignment. "Mullahs" and all.

"So here we have the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee eager to have (or give away) the power to destroy personal property without due process. Unless, that is, you consider a couple of emails or IM popups to be due process."

Excellent point. I wish to point out that 30 years ago the Supreme Court provided people with the power to deny an even more important 5th amendment right without due process.

Stephen, perhaps I'm wrong, but I honestly think that Hatch was just trying to kick the debate up a notch. I don't think he really wants to be able to destroy the computers. But a lot more people are thinking about this than were 2 days ago.

And what of Mr. Bauer's assertion that the computers could be seized in a manner analagous to drug dealer's cars? That seems to stand the test of first scrutiny to me. Where is he wrong?

Stephen,

Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that you were in favor of file-sharing. If it came out that way, it shouldn't have.

While I personally don't think it's a very bright idea to give the government, or especially private entities, the right to destroy computers without due process, it's possible that Hatch was, as Nick points out, just making a point. He's not normally nuts, and so when he says something that sounds that way it's usually a good idea for people to stop and think what it means.

If you've been found guilty of software piracy (or whatever they decide this falls under), it would seem to me that the loss of one's computer would be an appropriate remedy, much like taking the car of a habitual drunk driver. I know you're a Libertarian, and would thus prefer to keep the gov't out of it, but would you find Hatch's proposal to be more acceptable if it was administered by a judge, and not some bureaucrats who delegate it to the RIAA?

As it is, the only remedy music companies can seek is to try and get fines out of college students. That's obviously not going to work, and so the only solutions that would seem to work are jail time, which would be unconscionable for a civil offense like this, technology-based solutions, which aren't fair in that they force the victim (yes, yes, I know...) to protect themselves without regulating the pirates (arrrgh!), or physically taking away the pirates' (arrrgh!) ability to download music. To take away this ability, the only solutions I can see are to take away their computer or to restrict it in such a way as to prevent it from dealing with MP3s, which is what Hatch is suggesting.

I don't see the legal problem with this. There appears to be precedent with regards to drug dealers' cars (or even the cars loaned to drug dealers). There is no effective remedy for file-sharing at present, and so one needs to be developed. While Hatch's suggestion seems outlandish at first, I think he has a valid point.

Also, as was pointed out in the article, it likely wouldn't be passed, as it would risk damaging the computers of the innocent.

Here's a scenario: in their copyright notice, a music company declares that a particular song may not be copied for any reason without the express written consent of that company. When MP3s of the song begin appearing, they release a "spiked" file that tells them which users downloaded that file. After receiving three such spikes, the company sends a form email to that user, telling them that it has come to their attention that they are trafficking in copyrighted files, and that they must cease and desist. If another three spikes go through, a second letter is sent. If another spike occurs, the company turns over the records of these spikes to a court and seeks redress. Simply turning over the records and a record showing that no written authorization was given to the downloader ought to be pretty airtight, and allow for damages to be sought. Punitive damages may also include the right of the music company to take possession of the computer in question. Of course, we then get into questions of whether the entire computer can be seized or just the hard drive, or what should be done if the files are erased, but those are other bridges to be crossed.

And as soon as the Geeks &trade find out about the "spikes" they will figure out a way to remove them. Geeks &trade are stronger than anyone trying to oppose them.

I am a Geek &trade, and I don't support theft, but I know how things work in cyberspace. This is the information age, baybee. You cannot stop the file transfers for long. Instead, the RIAA and whoever need to realize they cannot continue to charge inflated prices for product. The artist should get the revenue, but typicallly, the majority of the money goes to the company, not the artists. As an artist, I find the situation reprehensible.

Situations like this are going to arise more and more in the future. We will be gaining information access in the future, while losing privacy and copyright. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.

I think that Hatch's comments have been somewhat misconstrued. Hatch himself emphasized that he contemplated the measure only as a last resort, which supports his subsequent clarification of his remarks (i.e., that he was more or less attempting to get everyone's undivided attention). And though I would not necessarily propose such a solution myself, it seems to me that the very idea of a self-help remedy in this context is less than outrageous. I try to offer a more fulsome defense of Hatch's remarks at my blog.

I buy a cd, I convert the songs to mp3s, and then connect to kazaa/etc., I'm a _thief_? If I own St. Anger CD but download the mp3s off kazaa/etc. I'm a thief?

I fail to see any discernable difference between downloading mp3s off those filesharing networks or web sites or wherever people can find them vs. taping songs off the radio & converting them to mp3s. Or instead of that, using my digital cable service that broadcasts music digitally and creating mp3s from that source. The people trying to protect their copyrights are IMO failing to make a distinction between these behaviors that makes 1 thing "ok" and another "immoral". These (the RIAA/MPA/MPAA) are people who've sued camping groups over children singing their songs, sued business owners for playing a CD they purchased in their store or restaurant.