Orrin Hatch, the guy who wants to destroy computers of copyright violators, guess what..

outriding · Jun 20, 2003

i just asked some of my coworkers who are on the web deveolpment team here. and here is what they said...

when they contract out any software before they put it into use the legal team makes sure thats there is no copyright infringements in the software they just purchased.

if they use that software with copyrighted software they dont have a license for they are liable for damages. it doesn't matter where they got it from.

and tscenter... as far as laws go. technology has evolved faster than the laws have. if you take someone to court that has anything to do with the internet you have to make your case from laws that dont directly apply to the internet. i do have first hand experience of this because i just took someone to court and my lawyer was citing examples from common law.

bigdog1218 · Jun 20, 2003

Originally posted by: tcsenter

tcsenter are you president of the Orrin Hatch fan club, no matter what you say to defend him, this makes Hatch look like an idiot.

Click to expand...

Sure, to the dimwitted, confused, or dishonest. I wouldn't expect anything else.

wow, good one, I mean I'm a fan now, can I subscribe to your newsletter

tcsenter · Jun 20, 2003

i just asked some of my coworkers who are on the web deveolpment team here. and here is what they said...

Sure you did.

When they contract out any software before they put it into use the legal team makes sure thats there is no copyright infringements in the software they just purchased.

Then that would mean the company who was paid to develop Hatch's website, not Hatch himself. There is no equivalency here.

Try again? Maybe not.

jjones · Jun 20, 2003

LOL, I love your continued attempt to deflect this responsibility away from Hatch and/or trivialize it. Many people perceive music piracy as trivial but thank God that the RIAA has the ability to buy the attention of Congressmen, unlike those poor lowly coders who have their work stolen and used millions of times a day across the web, as was adequately shown on Hatch's own web site. Hatch got busted throwing stones in a glass house.

tcsenter · Jun 20, 2003

LOL, I love your continued attempt to deflect this responsibility away from Hatch and/or trivialize it. Many people perceive music piracy as trivial but thank God that the RIAA has the ability to buy the attention of Congressmen, unlike those poor lowly coders who have their work stolen and used millions of times a day across the web, as was adequately shown on Hatch's own web site. Hatch got busted throwing stones in a glass house

This has nothing to do with degree of severity. It has everything to do with culpability. Severe or trivial, Hatch didn't code the webpages, he paid a web design firm to. That removes culpability from Hatch and places it on whoever designed his webpage. PERIOD.

But since you want to persist in your childish reasoning, we'll tackle the severity issue. First, the author was not deprived of anything economic because he doesn't charge anything for public interest or non-profit uses, which Hatch's webpages qualify for.

There was an attribution and link to the copyright holder in Hatch's webpages, the author of the Wired article lied when he wrote otherwise. That attribution did not meet the "technical" requirements of Milonic's licensing agreement, but it sure as hell did provide a reference and link to Milonic which is requested of Milonic's licensing agreement. That precludes any argument that either Hatch or the webpage designer might have attempted to pass-off another's work as their own.

That means this is not a case of copyright infringement nor a case of piracy, it is a licensing dispute between two parties. This is expressly not the type of activities to which Hatch was referring when he made his speil before Congress. Even if Hatch's 'computer destroying' suggestion had been in force two weeks ago, it couldn't be applied to this situation because it isn't a case of piracy or copyright infringement.

Questions?

Zebo · Jun 20, 2003

What happens if you rent your house out to crack makers unknowingly? Does the governement still seize the property?

Tripleshot · Jun 20, 2003

Originally posted by: Zebo
What happens if you rent your house out to crack makers unknowingly? Does the governement still seize the property?

Yes, and they then condemn it. You lose. Be sure of who you rent it to.

jjones · Jun 21, 2003

Originally posted by: tcsenter

LOL, I love your continued attempt to deflect this responsibility away from Hatch and/or trivialize it. Many people perceive music piracy as trivial but thank God that the RIAA has the ability to buy the attention of Congressmen, unlike those poor lowly coders who have their work stolen and used millions of times a day across the web, as was adequately shown on Hatch's own web site. Hatch got busted throwing stones in a glass house

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with degree of severity. It has everything to do with culpability. Severe or trivial, Hatch didn't code the webpages, he paid a web design firm to. That removes culpability from Hatch and places it on whoever designed his webpage. PERIOD.

But since you want to persist in your childish reasoning, we'll tackle the severity issue. First, the author was not deprived of anything economic because he doesn't charge anything for public interest or non-profit uses, which Hatch's webpages qualify for.

There was an attribution and link to the copyright holder in Hatch's webpages, the author of the Wired article lied when he wrote otherwise. That attribution did not meet the "technical" requirements of Milonic's licensing agreement, but it sure as hell did provide a reference and link to Milonic which is requested of Milonic's licensing agreement. That precludes any argument that either Hatch or the webpage designer might have attempted to pass-off another's work as their own.

That means this is not a case of copyright infringement nor a case of piracy, it is a licensing dispute between two parties. This is expressly not the type of activities to which Hatch was referring when he made his speil before Congress. Even if Hatch's 'computer destroying' suggestion had been in force two weeks ago, it couldn't be applied to this situation because it isn't a case of piracy or copyright infringement.

Questions?

Do you know what the hell you are talking about? Have you looked at the code from the cached page? Obviously not. Even the current page does not have a link back to Milonic but, since they say all is well, I have to assume they waived that for Hatch. The code from the cached page has absolutely no copyright or license information on it at all and does not have a link either. This is not a "technical requirement"; it's copyright infringement. And don't say this has cost them nothing. From Milonic's own FAQ page:

Why is the DHTML menu no longer free?
The DHTML Menu was issued to everyone that was prepared to download it and could use it on their website free of charge as long as certain criteria were met.

However, a vast number of users started to remove copyright notices and did not place links on their site back to our site which was part of the free menu deal.

Obviously he has this in place so he gets exposure in the hopes of making money; maybe you cannot quantify it but the intent is there. Milonic was deprived of the promotional effects of the free distribution of their work; promotion they rely upon to make a living.

You've always been a fairly straightforward defender of intellectual property but you've completely lost credibility with me. I don't know if Hatch paid for his web site service or gets it as a freebie. Either way it makes him look like a fool and incapable of keeping his own house in order. Keep childishly defending the indefensible if you care to.

tcsenter · Jun 21, 2003

What happens if you rent your house out to crack makers unknowingly? Does the governement still seize the property?

Some municipalities and states have passed laws authorizing civil forteiture action against property owners whose properties and tenants have been involved in a documented pattern or history of problems with drug activity and have not responded adequately to repeated requests by civil authorities to remedy the problems.

This is not an 'automatic' thing where property is seized the first time a tenant is found to be dealing or in possession of drugs, but rather after civil authorities have been telling the property owners for months (or years) their tenants are engaging in drug activity and the owners do nothing about it.

tcsenter · Jun 21, 2003

Do you know what the hell you are talking about? Have you looked at the code from the cached page? Obviously not.

///////////////////////////////////
// Editable properties START here //
////////////////////////////////////

effect = "Fade(duration=0.3);Alpha(style=0,opacity=95);Shadow(color='Black', Direction=135, Strength=3);" // Special effect string for IE5.5 or above please visit http://www.milonic.co.uk/menu/filters_sample.php for more filters <--- right here asshat here right here here HERE HERE HERE YOU STUPID IDIOT RIGHT F-CKING HERE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may not meet Milonic's licensing requirements, but it sure as hell is a link to Milonic.

Are you blind? Dumb? Both??

Another personal attack like that and you will have time away from these forums.

AnandTech Moderator

outriding · Jun 21, 2003

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Do you know what the hell you are talking about? Have you looked at the code from the cached page? Obviously not.

Click to expand...

///////////////////////////////////
// Editable properties START here //
////////////////////////////////////

effect = "Fade(duration=0.3);Alpha(style=0,opacity=95);Shadow(color='Black', Direction=135, Strength=3);" // Special effect string for IE5.5 or above please visit http://www.milonic.co.uk/menu/filters_sample.php for more filters <--- right here asshat here right here here HERE HERE HERE YOU STUPID IDIOT RIGHT F-CKING HERE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may not meet Milonic's licensing requirements, but it sure as hell is a link to Milonic.

Are you blind? Dumb? Both??

so you admit that he is in the wrong.

on a side note did anyone catch that he had links to a porn site on his page also ?

the i am not going to post it as i dont want to get banned but believe me it is nothing special

Alistar7 · Jun 21, 2003

anyone have his email addy?

tcsenter · Jun 21, 2003

so you admit that he is in the wrong.

If by "he" you mean the designer of Hatch's webpages, yes, but not Orrin Hatch (unless we believe Hatch designed his own webpages).

SuperTool · Jun 21, 2003

Republican = Hypocrite. Nothing to see here

tcsenter · Jun 21, 2003

I actually have like 300GB of pirated video, music, and software downloads. I'm just trying to up the quality of my fellow pirates' arguments by pressing them hard on all the issues.

:evil:

Kaiynne · Jun 21, 2003

Originally posted by: tcsenter
I actually have like 300GB of pirated video, music, and software downloads. I'm just trying to up the quality of my fellow pirates' arguments by pressing them hard on all the issues. :evil:

Ok tcsenter, i think you have a valid point that this is not Hatch's fault. I am sure that we could tie most people to some form of software piracy if we really tried, and isn't that the point that people are making. Why would hatch decide to single out people who pirate music over people who pirate shareware? the answer is money, obviously. This is why he looks stupid, not because he is responsible for this licensing issue, but because he could easily have come out against all forms of piracy, especially when there are numberous examples right under his nose such as the milonic one. Why did he not advocate the destruction of every computer owned by any corporation that uses unlicensed shareware? Again the answer is the "shareware" lobby has contributed exactly $0, contrast this with the $175,000 donated by the entertainment industry up to 2002, and it is painfully clear why Hatch is advocating indiotic aproaches to stop file sharing. He is being paid to do so.

And if you take offence to the term idiotic approach i am truly sorry, but you would have to be pretty technically and mentally challenged to advocate something with so many logical flaws. just one example; say his grandkids come over and want to play on his pc which contains many very important documents, lets just say his memoirs how about. So they get on there and they download some songs from their favourite source. BANG all of Hatch's hard work is down the tubes. did he do anything wrong? maybe you could stretch it that he should have been supervising them, but even if he were to watch them would he have a clue what they were doing? more than likely he would not. should he be punished? of course not, especially with the destruction of his PC. Chances are he himself could come up with even better reasons for why this approach is wrongheaded, but why would he advocate anything else when if he did he would lose up to 10% of his campaign money.

And this my friends is why corporate campaign contributions amount to little more than government authorized bribery.

tcsenter · Jun 21, 2003

Ok tcsenter, i think you have a valid point that this is not Hatch's fault. I am sure that we could tie most people to some form of software piracy if we really tried, and isn't that the point that people are making. Why would hatch decide to single out people who pirate music over people who pirate shareware?

I have in no way implied or suggested that Hatch wasn't off his rocker with his 'computer destruction' comments.

dmcowen674 · Jun 21, 2003

Originally posted by: tcsenter

What happens if you rent your house out to crack makers unknowingly? Does the governement still seize the property?

Click to expand...

Some municipalities and states have passed laws authorizing civil forteiture action against property owners whose properties and tenants have been involved in a documented pattern or history of problems with drug activity and have not responded adequately to repeated requests by civil authorities to remedy the problems.

This is not an 'automatic' thing where property is seized the first time a tenant is found to be dealing or in possession of drugs, but rather after civil authorities have been telling the property owners for months (or years) their tenants are engaging in drug activity and the owners do nothing about it.

Georgia is working on an Update to it's Computer Act Law that would make automatic Forfeiture of your Computer when you are "accused" of having any Copyrighted MP3's, Movies files, P0rn, software etc. They will consider the Computer itself as "Contraband". That is the exact wording with little or no possibility of getting the Computer back as the wording also says it will "repleven" (where do they get these words) the Jurisdiction coffers in the cost of investigation.

I highlighted "Accused" because they intend to not have the problem of going through Court like the Verizon V RIAA case. They give the RIAA/MPAA the authority to fill out a form to have the local Sheriff or Police sieze your Computer first before any Court preceedings to get a conviction for Jail time and fines later.

It's all here Georgia Senate Bill 103

jjones · Jun 21, 2003

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Do you know what the hell you are talking about? Have you looked at the code from the cached page? Obviously not.

Click to expand...

///////////////////////////////////
// Editable properties START here //
////////////////////////////////////

effect = "Fade(duration=0.3);Alpha(style=0,opacity=95);Shadow(color='Black', Direction=135, Strength=3);" // Special effect string for IE5.5 or above please visit http://www.milonic.co.uk/menu/filters_sample.php for more filters <--- right here asshat here right here here HERE HERE HERE YOU STUPID IDIOT RIGHT F-CKING HERE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may not meet Milonic's licensing requirements, but it sure as hell is a link to Milonic.

Are you blind? Dumb? Both??

Another personal attack like that and you will have time away from these forums.

AnandTech Moderator

That is not a link to Milonic. A link, since you cannot grasp the simple, is a clickable code embedded on the page that allows users to connect to another site or page url. What you pointed out is just something in the page code itself and is known as a "comment tag" and does not appear on the page as a link.

By the way, they just happened to leave out this:



It appears that they ended up paying for their use of the Milonic DHTML menu after all. And BTW, all of your posturing is just that. You have made the assumption that Hatch knows nothing of what is contained on his page, that it was contracted or provided by someone else, and that he is completely free of responsibility. But that is complete speculation on your part.

You can bet Hatch knows what's on his page to some extent, and maybe a great deal in fact. This from his welcome page:

Welcome!
Thank you for visiting my virtual office. I hope the information provided on this site will help you become a part of my work in the United States Senate. I have included information on services my office provides, news and the latest issues facing the Senate, and quick links to frequently requested sites.

Are you suggesting he has never seen his site and knows nothing of the content? How do you know that he hadn't seen this cool menu somewhere else on the internet and hadn't requested that it be used on his site? The fact is, you know nothing. In a civil litigation lawsuit, Hatch would most certainly be named as a defendent.

Keeping defending one of your champions of anti-piracy. Another hypocrite just like you.

DaiShan · Jun 21, 2003

I don't think the issue is that he is a hypocrite so much as the fact that as a United States Senator, he advocates destroying private citizens private property. That is a little bit terrifying to me, that he would propose to "automatically destroy" property of tax paying citizens. Oh and to those who have said he isn't responsible for the site: you are responsible for everything you put your name on. If you give it your stamp of apporval, you better be sure that it meets your standards, don't say "I didn't know" Under his logic that is not an acceptable excuse for pirating and should result in private property being destroyed, so too then should his private property be destroyed.

tcsenter · Jun 21, 2003

The fact is, you know nothing. In a civil litigation lawsuit, Hatch would most certainly be named as a defendent.

lol! And you know something?

Upon showing that Hatch had contracted this out to a thirdy party for fee, does not own or control the computers on which the webpages reside, his name would be removed from the lawsuit.

BaliBabyDoc · Jun 21, 2003

Ignorance is an excuse . . . isn't that convenient.

tcsenter · Jun 21, 2003

Ignorance is an excuse . . . isn't that convenient.

Well the common adage 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is actually quite a misconception. Police love saying that. Ignorance can be a bona fide defense in a court of law.

The test is whether a 'reasonable person would have known' that their actions might be morally or ethically suspect or likely unlawful. Typically, a law would have to be rather obscure and not well known in order to have any chance of sustaining this defense, and the act criminalized would have to be malium prohibitum vs. malium in se.

IOW, it is illegal because the state said so, not because the act is inherently immoral or unethical. We have tons of those.

Ignorance is particularly effective as a defense when the law imposes no duty upon one party to know. Such as, your contractor skirts building code, intentionally or not, your county building inspector gives it the rubber stamp, and someone is injured because of it. There is no duty imposed on the property owner to understand contruction codes or monitor the actions of contractors. Or being ignorant of your neighbor's actions when he's building WMD in his basement. No duty imposed upon you to know what your neighbor is up to 24 hours a day.

However, if you do happen to discover that your neighbor is making WMD in his basement and you do nothing, that may prove troublesome if he injures someone and the victims file a civil suit against you.

jjones · Jun 21, 2003

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The fact is, you know nothing. In a civil litigation lawsuit, Hatch would most certainly be named as a defendent.

Click to expand...

lol! And you know something?

Upon showing that Hatch had contracted this out to a thirdy party for fee, does not own or control the computers on which the webpages reside, his name would be removed from the lawsuit.

Not if they can show that he is responsible for the content. Keep digging.

tcsenter · Jun 21, 2003

Not if they can show that he is responsible for the content. Keep digging.

Yeah, and how might that conversation have gone...

Web designer: "Ok, Senator Hatch, here are some menu designs, check it out. When you move your mouse over it, see how it expands?"

Orrin Hatch: "Yeah, that's cool. I like that one."

Web designer: "Alright, but the code for this menu design is copyrighted. I'll need to send an email to the owner and request a free public interest license. It won't cost you any more, the code is free."

Orrin Hatch: "Screw that bullsh-t, just use it without permission or you're fired."

Web designer: "Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand..."

Orrin Hatch: "I'll f-cking ruin you, you'll never work in this town again if you ask for permission to use that code."

Oh what one must believe in order to support their little fantasies....

Orrin Hatch, the guy who wants to destroy computers of copyright violators, guess what..

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Member

Lifer

No Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer