In our system even if one is acquitted you have lost. The cost of defense is quite impressive even if no crime is found.

You have the right to an attorney if you can not afford one

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

More correctly, don't be accused as the adversarial system of justice will do it's best to ensure you can't afford it. That explains many plea deals. AS for public defenders, most have a case load that precludes any competent defense.

---

In our system even if one is acquitted you have lost. The cost of defense is quite impressive even if no crime is found.

You have the right to an attorney if you can not afford one

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

More correctly, don't be accused as the adversarial system of justice will do it's best to ensure you can't afford it. That explains many plea deals. AS for public defenders, most have a case load that precludes any competent defense.

Which is why said cases should automaticaly be appealed.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Isn't this a case of differing meanings of the same word.

Academic papers should be freely (or openly) available, but that does not mean they should be free (as in $0.00).

edit] Cause if they were not available, how would you know I had already discovered the cure for Stupidity, several years ago. And you cannot find a cure it is like flu an ever moving target, they just keep making "better" idiots.

So, for all the trolling on this, which bit of:

Obama's Justice Department is Cruel and Vindictive.

Here in Boston, the news is more disturbing. This was originally a local matter for MIT security and Boston police. It was a simple illegal entry violation for breaking and entering into an MIT storage closet where he had his laptop stashed, ...

Swartz would have gotten off with a slap on the wrist, maybe a fine. But then...

... Six months later, Obama's Justice Department tripled the intimidation with a 13-count indictment. The Boston Globe reported that the DOJ was pushing for the full 35-year sentence.

These journals were paid for by Federal grants, and BY LAW must be freely available. ...

is not understood?

So, you are all advocating chopping off someone's ears for the felony of 'ripping' a music cd so that you can listen to the music via mp3?


If any would care to look a little further: JSTOR is given all the academic material for 'free'. It is a charity to offer easier access and search facilities to the academic papers. That search service is paid for by the universities themselves. There's a little murkiness in how some publications outside of JSTOR insist on draconian 'copyright' restrictions on the academic papers they have been given!

Regardless of the tangential arguments, the bare facts are that we have a victim who was intimidated with charges totaling 50+ years in jail and a multimillion dollar fine, and had already been bankrupted by months of legal persecution, for a 'crime' that wasn't even theft. He was traumatized enough to kill himself.

The only apparent crime appears to be that of "breaking and entry" into closet!


So... In the USA you must chop your hands off lest you dare type anything? Rip out your tongue also lest you speak out of turn?


All just my own random personal opinions as must be the case...

Disgusted,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

is not understood?

Ah, so if you call the cops for a B&E but when they arrive they find a dead body you are saying they shouldn't be able to do anything about the dead body. Makes perfect sense.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

---

is not understood?

... Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Even when the prosecution is taken to such ridiculous excess as to become persecution and victimization for something so trivial?...


So, you advocate chopping the hands off all shoplifters? To be consistent, what do you advocate for the bankers that recently profited grandly from gaming the system whilst betraying hard working lay people to an impoverished pension?...


Only in the USA? And Canada?

Disgusted!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

is not understood?

... Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Even when the prosecution is taken to such ridiculous excess as to become persecution and victimization for something so trivial?...

That is what jury nullification is for.

So, you advocate chopping the hands off all shoplifters?

That is the penalty under sharia law. If I did that crime where that law applied, yes I would expect it.

To be consistent, what do you advocate for the bankers that recently profited grandly from gaming the system whilst betraying hard working lay people to an impoverished pension?...

Are the games they played illegal or just immoral? Immoral is punished by god if you believe in one. Illegal is punished by law. If they broke the law I expect them to receive the punishment that the law states.

---

Gary, you stated " If they broke the law I expect them to receive the punishment that the law states." Sure just like the bankers at HBSC who by their money laundering were helping to finance wars against your govt. The height of hypocrisy from the prosecutors.

---

Gary, you stated " If they broke the law I expect them to receive the punishment that the law states." Sure just like the bankers at HBSC who by their money laundering were helping to finance wars against your govt. The height of hypocrisy from the prosecutors.

Money talks, Truth walks!

---

Gary, you stated " If they broke the law I expect them to receive the punishment that the law states." Sure just like the bankers at HBSC who by their money laundering were helping to finance wars against your govt. The height of hypocrisy from the prosecutors.

Care to look up the specific of that law? Cite should be in the form of Title ## Sec #### United States Code, or ## Part ## Code of Federal Regulations. Then look for the part that states the punishment. You may be surprised.

---

From the LA Times
Aaron Swartz suicide has U.S. lawmakers scrutinizing prosecutors

From the LA Times
Aaron Swartz suicide has U.S. lawmakers scrutinizing prosecutors

And well they should look into the abuses.And not just the swartz case either.

But Swartz was no innocent he knew damn well waht he was doing was wrong. He was a rebel activist who belived he was right and the system was wrong. I agree that out of copyright material should be in the public domain. But he also decreed that secret files should be in the open also. What kind of secrets? defense plans, undercover police officers, secret service details on the protection of the president.

As far as I can tell he was opposed to groups making money off of those research papers. In a free market why not make money? Maybe the owner of said papers ran out of cash and cant take his reasearch any farther. So if you want to expand on my work you have to pay my fee or you cant get access to my work.

Just like buying a movie on a dvd. Buying it give you the right to watch it as many or as little as you want. But it does not give you the right to set up a tent and charge money for other people to watch it.

While some of his goals may have been worthy, the way he went about doing it was against the law. His generation thinks that just because its on the internet it has to be free and we can share it with who ever we feel like it.

---

[/quote]

Old James

His generation thinks that just because its on the internet it has to be free and we can share it with who ever we feel like it.

+1

---

Maybe the owner of said papers ran out of cash and cant take his reasearch any farther. So if you want to expand on my work you have to pay my fee or you cant get access to my work.

Write a grant. Apply for NSF funding. Or even a Pepsi Grant. (Yes, they exist.)

Maybe the owner of said papers ran out of cash and cant take his reasearch any farther. So if you want to expand on my work you have to pay my fee or you cant get access to my work.

Write a grant. Apply for NSF funding. Or even a Pepsi Grant. (Yes, they exist.)

Correct me if Im wrong but isnt a grant a gift? So even if the Government gave me a grant to continue my private research work. That dosent mean that it should be open to public view? Unless I give my specific permission to be so displayed.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Maybe the owner of said papers ran out of cash and cant take his reasearch any farther. So if you want to expand on my work you have to pay my fee or you cant get access to my work.

Write a grant. Apply for NSF funding. Or even a Pepsi Grant. (Yes, they exist.)

Correct me if Im wrong but isnt a grant a gift? So even if the Government gave me a grant to continue my private research work. That dosent mean that it should be open to public view? Unless I give my specific permission to be so displayed.

But what if your private (hidden) research work is good enough for a "prize", and some other person(s) were doing exactly the same research but allowed open access. Who would get the "Prize"?

That is one of the reasons why all academic work should be available to others. It also allows others to confirm or reject your work, remember Cold fusion.
The open process reduces disputes on who discovered things and reduces redundant research.

The main reason for the costs on academic papers is to cover the storage and publishing costs. The item that should be one of the major costs, peer review, is usually done free.

And if you want tenure in some University then start publishing asap and get others to quote and reference you in their papers.

If you do want your research to be private then you have to fund it yourself, not do it inside Academia and do not apply for a patent.

From the LA Times
Aaron Swartz suicide has U.S. lawmakers scrutinizing prosecutors

To my reading and personal interpretation: That looks like the prosecutors are exploiting the USA 'plea bargaining' system, broad legal interpretations to make anything fit, and the imposition of high legal costs on a defence, so as to play God, judge and jury to determine for themselves to impose guilt and sentence upon whatever victim they choose.


Is that Justice in supposedly the Land of The Free?

Only in the USA?

Disgusted,
Martin

Usual personal views warning and disclaimer for all and everything!

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

From the LA Times
Aaron Swartz suicide has U.S. lawmakers scrutinizing prosecutors

To my reading and personal interpretation: That looks like the prosecutors are exploiting the USA 'plea bargaining' system, broad legal interpretations to make anything fit, and the imposition of high legal costs on a defence, so as to play God, judge and jury to determine for themselves to impose guilt and sentence upon whatever victim they choose.


Is that Justice in supposedly the Land of The Free?

It is justice in the land of the bankrupt government.
http://judicialnominations.org/
http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/without-court-reporters-our-justice-system-is-at-risk/

Not enough courts on cash for them, so anything that reduces the number of trials is fantastic. Bonus given if you keep the case out of the courtroom!

---

This directly affects and sets a precedent for ALL INTERNET USERS in the USA:


Wikipedia: Aaron Swartz

"Aaron’s downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail." [Or death.]


Did the Government Drive Aaron Swartz to Suicide?

Even though Swartz was charged under an anti-hacking statute, he was not accused of hacking anyone’s computer. With unauthorized software, he simply used his own computer to download more published articles than allowed.


Why the Prosecution of Internet Activist Aaron Swartz Matters to You, Personally

(Under federal law, Swartz would have faced less prison time if he'd committed manslaughter.)

And here's where the story gets personal -- relevant to you -- dear reader.

Simply put, you are most likely a criminal given the same sort of broad reading of the CFAA that Ortiz's office used to go after Swartz.


And then there is also the aspect of how the "plea bargaining system" appears to be in total disrupt and a tool for extra-judicial persecution... In this example, unto death of the victim.


Hence: ALL AMERICANS ARE CRIMINAL?

Disgusted!
Martin

Essential disclaimer: All just my own personal views as always.

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Hence: ALL AMERICANS ARE CRIMINAL?

But of course. You can't introduce communism unless you have a persecuted class. ;-)

---