RSS
Twitter
Senator Hatch: It May Be Wrong, But It Needs To Be Done
from the huh dept
Well, it looks like the hearings on the INDUCE Act went pretty much as expected. Senator Hatch explained why P2P systems need to be banned, even if it's wrong to do so. That's not exactly what he said, but he did say, "If you help us, we just might get it right. If you don't, we're going to do it." As far as I can tell, that statement means, "We know we might be wrong, but we still have to do it." But why? "Something has to be done." Inspired law making. "This must be done, even if it makes things worse." This is followed by Senator Leahy's ridiculous explanation supporting the bill: "We have to understand that some people use P2P technology in ways that are wrong and illegal." Apparently, Senator Leahy needs a refresher course on the law. If it's already being used for illegal things then that means the law already covers it, and making other things illegal is pretty pointless.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
hatch
it may be wrong but he was paid by the Riaa to screw the american people
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hatch usually gets a cut on legislation he sponsor
Check the growth of his fortune since joining the senate.
He frequently gets a cut of the revenue generated by his legislation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hatch usually gets a cut on legislation he spo
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
"If we outlaw P2P, then only outlaws will have P2P."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How Predictable!
This result is perfectly predictable coming from people who believe that copying is stealing. Their intellectual-property dynasties depend on their limiting the supply of ideas, and fixing the prices for ideas, not meeting a demand for ideas. But they fail to realize that everybody has their own ideas. And once an idea is communicated, it will be copied freely. People who would outlaw P2P will go even further. They will kill to protect their notion of ownership. They regard their methods of making money as a right, and your paying them a privelege. They make money by selling their points of view, and buying your attention to them. But digital copies cost nothing to make. And soon, with videophones and whatnot, everybody will be able to connect and report and share their ideas without referring to the points of view of anybody but each other. And then nobody will need authorities to inform them of anything, and they will realize that the information authorities provide is mostly propaganda. Authority perpetuates itself by promoting itself. And authorities will fear the radical independence of ideas that technology may soon permit, if they anticipate it; or worse, they will outlaw it if they believe they can do so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment