Every once in awhile a piece of legislation comes down the pike that shows exactly how much control over our government certain industry groups have. And this time I'm not talking about the Vice President and Haliburton. I'm referring to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who is planning on introducing a bill that would ban file-sharing, Replay TV, VCRs, DVD Recorders, and pretty much any other electronic media device that could potentially be used to violate copyright by someone, somewhere.
This nasty little measure would overturn the famous Betamax case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that VCRs were legal because they could be used for so many things that didn't infringe on copyright. The MPAA didn't and Television industry didn't like the ruling then, and they still don't like it, especially considering the time-shifting capabilities of Tivo and other Digital Video Recording devices.
It seems that RIAA and the MPAA have gotten Senator Hatch firmly in their pockets, as this isn't the first radical attempt to expand copyright protections that he has advanced. The last one was a suggestion that RIAA be empowered to remotely destroy the computers of anyone they suspected of sharing copyrighted material -- without recourse to the legal system or much proof.
Leaving aside the normal copyright issues of "Fair Use", length of copyright, or the ethics/legality of file sharing, this whole concept is assinine. If we start banning things because they might help someone break the law, we'll soon be left with nothing. Let's start a list of potential enabling/inducing devices:
1. Guns
2. Cars
3. Alcohol
4. Computers
5. Cell phones/pagers/walkie talkies
6. Flash lights
7. Radar detectors
8. GPS systems
9. Airplanes
10. Model rockets (wait, they already did that)
11. Household cleansers
12. Fertilizer
13. Charcoal
14. Matches
15. Gasoline
I'm sure I coudl go on and on with items to ban.
The issue here is that we have a Senator who under the guise of protecting children from "exploitation" is doing the bidding of large industry groups who have lots of money, not his constituents. He's also attempting to overturn a court decision with legislation. In this case, I would say it should fall under the portion of the U.S. Constitution forbidding ex post facto laws or bill of attainder, as this would ban devices that have already been declared legal and might be used to punish people who have sold those devices in the past...
I think it's time to investigate Mr. Hatch's finances and campaign contributions to see what he's getting from the MPAA and RIAA for pushing this agenda, which is clearly contrary to public needs or wishes.
Posted by Chris at June 18, 2004 01:02 PM