DEAD. Murder? usa internet LAW REFORM REQUIRED!


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : DEAD. Murder? usa internet LAW REFORM REQUIRED!

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 11 · Next
Author Message
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9124
Credit: 37,612,601
RAC: 35,039
United States
Message 1330371 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 14:52:08 UTC - in response to Message 1330145.
Last modified: 23 Jan 2013, 14:53:14 UTC

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.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal. He is the one who commited suicide by HIS OWN choice. If there is any justice in the world his parents will sue the pants off his prosecutor and ruin her life to maybe suicide, And maybe get a few million cash to boot. Will that make you feel any better?
He was an activist rebel who got caught doing something stupid that should have been punished. Not like the prosicutor wanted, But he decided he wanted the cowards way out. Now hes being elevated to a Geek internet martyr.

He should have gone to court and seen what would have happend. Thats why we have juries over here. And appeals courts.
You have problems with Americas justice system,Fine. Just stop saying Americans are criminals. I doubt youd like a thread saying Brits are criminals over something stupid your leagal systems does.
____________

Old James

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,556,840
RAC: 553
United States
Message 1330380 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 15:53:03 UTC - in response to Message 1330371.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal.

Clearly, you are not reading the posts in full.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,259,599
RAC: 1,396
United Kingdom
Message 1330390 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 16:14:22 UTC - in response to Message 1330371.
Last modified: 23 Jan 2013, 16:31:43 UTC

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

[...]

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.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal. ...

... caught doing something stupid that should have been punished. Not like the prosicutor wanted, But he decided he wanted the cowards way out. ...

He should have gone to court and seen what would have happend. Thats why we have juries over here. And appeals courts. ...


If you have an internet connection or use one or you are in any way associated with such, then apparently, according to the RIAA, MPIAA, and "Hollywood", and Ortiz's office, you most certainly will be criminal punishable by over 50 years in an American jail.


Note that your predecessor Swartz exhausted all his money defending himself.

So... What should be the punishment for opening an unlocked closet and exceeding your permitted internet download limit?


Only in America, supposedly the land of the free?

Disgusted!
Martin

Essential disclaimer: All just my own personal views as always.
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9124
Credit: 37,612,601
RAC: 35,039
United States
Message 1330401 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 16:40:11 UTC - in response to Message 1330390.

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

[...]

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.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal. ...

... caught doing something stupid that should have been punished. Not like the prosicutor wanted, But he decided he wanted the cowards way out. ...

He should have gone to court and seen what would have happend. Thats why we have juries over here. And appeals courts. ...


Apparently, according to the RIAA, MPIAA, and "Hollywood", and Ortiz's office, you most certainly will be criminal punishable by over 50 years in an American jail.


Note that your predecessor Swartz exhausted all his money defending himself.

So... What should be the punishment for opening an unlocked closet and exceeding your permitted internet download limit?


Only in America, supposedly the land of the free?

Disgusted!
Martin

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


Note that your predecessor Swartz exhausted all his money defending himself.
Where were all his activist internet buddys? Why did they not lavish him with cash to fight off the capitalist pigs? How many pounds did you send him? Seeing you are so outraged.
As to your links. They have a right to the profits off of the copyrights. Lets say you are a movie producer and youve just spent 10 million quid on a movie you hope to recoup your investment by showing in theaters and then on DVD. But some jerkwad puts a copy on the internet and 100 million people download it. So your saying its ok?
____________

Old James

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9124
Credit: 37,612,601
RAC: 35,039
United States
Message 1330402 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 16:41:10 UTC - in response to Message 1330380.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal.

Clearly, you are not reading the posts in full.

Well then please enlighten me.
____________

Old James

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13180
Credit: 7,938,909
RAC: 15,234
United States
Message 1330452 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 18:52:11 UTC - in response to Message 1330402.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal.

Clearly, you are not reading the posts in full.

Well then please enlighten me.

I think he is making an over the top comment that it is not possible to stay within the TOS. Of course that is false, one can stay within the TOS. You simply have to realize that IP has rights and respect that. Some people do not and can't believe that all others don't think as they do. Perhaps they have a collectivist mind set and believe everything belongs to everyone.


____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,556,840
RAC: 553
United States
Message 1330457 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 19:17:16 UTC - in response to Message 1330452.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal.

Clearly, you are not reading the posts in full.

Well then please enlighten me.

I think he is making an over the top comment that it is not possible to stay within the TOS. Of course that is false, one can stay within the TOS. You simply have to realize that IP has rights and respect that. Some people do not and can't believe that all others don't think as they do. Perhaps they have a collectivist mind set and believe everything belongs to everyone.


I'm not sure who you are referring to with "he" and "they". If, perhaps, you are suggesting, that I am in complete agreement with Martin, I haven't said that. I've just been reading. I think that post and this post make just 2 posts by me in this thread.
All I said is this: James seemed to be saying that his interpretation of Martin's comment "all US citizens could be called criminals" is that he thinks/thought Martin is saying we're all responsible for Aaron's death. Martin did not appear to be any such thing at all. Instead, more along the lines of your opening to your post: Martin was saying all US citizens with an internet connection run the risk of doing something considered illegal and that, if caught, Martin believes that the punishment does not fit the crime.
(Actually, Martin seems to have made two possible points: is it a crime at all vs. it's a crime, but does the punishment fit? Which do you stand by, Martin?)

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9201
Credit: 261,317
RAC: 114
Canada
Message 1330466 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 19:49:23 UTC - in response to Message 1328791.

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

You've said that repeatedly. Which makes me wonder if you've missed the point. here are some questions you should be asking:

Why is downloading research papers and bigger crime that rape or murder?

What does that tell you about the value of things verses people in society?

Is a society that values things with a monetary value more than people, a healthy and benevolent society?

Is society something we have to benefit just an elite few, or should everyone benefit?

If society is there just to benefit an elite few, how do we decide who those people should be? What are we rewarding?
____________
"The truth which makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." - Herbert Agar

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13180
Credit: 7,938,909
RAC: 15,234
United States
Message 1330467 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 19:49:42 UTC

I suppose we should really look at the Grand Jury indictment
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf
and not rely on sensationalist media reports.

A less sensational analysis is here:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

III. Conclusion

My conclusion, at least based on what we know so far, is that the legal charges against Swartz were pretty much legit. Three of them are pretty strong; one is plausible but we would need to know more facts to be sure. Of course, there may have been reasons not to charge Swartz even though he had violated these statutes or to offer him a lenient plea. I’ll take on those questions in my next post. But to the extent we’re focused on just what the law is, I think that what Swartz was alleged to have done fits pretty well with the charges that were brought.

As to the sentence:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/
Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news.
...
To calculate how much time Swartz might have faced if he went to trial and was cvonvicted, we neeed to consider the relevant provision of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Section 2B1.1. Under that provision, the actual sentence that would have been imposed in Swartz’s case would depend largely on how you measure the pecuniary harm — that is, the loss in dollar amounts — caused or intended to be caused by Swartz’s conduct.
...
According to Swartz’s defense attorneys, prosecutors claimed that they thought the judge might impose a Guidelines sentence as much as 7 years if Swartz went to trial and was convicted. That’s consistent with a loss valuation in the range of millions of dollars. In contrast, Swartz’s lawyers thought that Swartz might get just probation, which is consistent with a loss calculation at or less than $10,000.
...
The alternative sentence to consider is what Swartz would have received if he had agreed to plead guilty. According to Swartz’s lawyers, the prosecutors in the case offered two different pleas. First, they would agree to a sentence of four months if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to the felonies. And second, they could agree to a deal in which Swartz agreed to plead guilty, the government would argue for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could argue for a lesser sentence (presumably including probation). In all likelihood, the judge would have then sentenced Swartz to 4 months under the 1st plea and whatever the judge thought appropriate, up to 6 months, under the second plea.

So, realistically, Swartz was facing anything from probation to a few years in jail if he went to trial — depending largely on how you value the loss he caused — and either a 4 months in jail or 0-6 months in jail if he pled guilty.



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


____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13180
Credit: 7,938,909
RAC: 15,234
United States
Message 1330477 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 19:59:04 UTC - in response to Message 1330466.

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

You've said that repeatedly. Which makes me wonder if you've missed the point. here are some questions you should be asking:

Why is downloading research papers and bigger crime that rape or murder?

It isn't, but saying it is sells papers.

See my previous post which I was composing as you sent yours.

____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9124
Credit: 37,612,601
RAC: 35,039
United States
Message 1330719 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 15:08:03 UTC

I suppose we should really look at the Grand Jury indictment
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf
and not rely on sensationalist media reports.

Thanks for that link Gary. Very good reading.

Swartz was not some misguided young man swayed by altruistic goals. He was a thief who knew what he was doing was downright wrong. He continually used various ruses to hide his tracks while stealing documents. For over 3 months yet.

If he had such issues with Jstor he could have used other means to make his point. Stealing documents with the point of placing them on a file sharing system is going to far.

So sorry Martin, Swartz was no poor internet geek who just made a little mistake. He was a thief by any definition.

And why does internet law in the US need to be changed. So spoiled rotten kids can rip music and movies to share with no recomp to the people who spent money to make them.

Seems the law we have is working as it was intended. Is it perfect? No but what law is?
____________

Old James

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,259,599
RAC: 1,396
United Kingdom
Message 1339998 - Posted: 21 Feb 2013, 20:26:48 UTC

A good summary is given in this media report:


Has Aaron Swartz's death made him an internet 'martyr'?

Aaron Swartz was many things - a brilliant young technologist, an entrepreneur, and an advocate for internet freedom. But according to the United States government, he was also a criminal.

After downloading millions of academic papers from the online service JSTOR, Swartz was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and faced up to 35 years in prison.

He denied the charges of computer fraud against him and his trial was set to begin this month. Tragically, Swartz committed suicide in January.

The case against Swartz and his ensuing death have brought new scrutiny to the US's anti-hacking law, which critics say is too vague and unnecessarily harsh. ...




To my personal view and opinion: A simple analogy is that of the federal prosecutors demanding the death penalty for the sake of 'stealing' an apple laying on the ground in an orchard. Just?


Judge for yourselves. By the same rules, by merely reading this post, you are already guilty under such a vague and wide description of criminality.

Only in the USA?


Only on our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13180
Credit: 7,938,909
RAC: 15,234
United States
Message 1340054 - Posted: 21 Feb 2013, 23:42:45 UTC

To my personal view and opinion: A simple analogy is that of the federal prosecutors demanding the death penalty for the sake of 'stealing' an apple laying on the ground in an orchard. Just?


A much fairer description by people who understand the US system ...
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/
So, realistically, Swartz was facing ... 0-6 months in jail if he pled guilty.

And you think zero to 6 months is the death penalty? Speaks volumes about you.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,259,599
RAC: 1,396
United Kingdom
Message 1340184 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 11:48:08 UTC - in response to Message 1340054.

To my personal view and opinion: A simple analogy is that of the federal prosecutors demanding the death penalty for the sake of 'stealing' an apple laying on the ground in an orchard. Just?


A much fairer description...

So you are happy to brand yourself "criminal" and forever gain a "criminal record" for the sake of something so trivial?

You still ignore the ridiculous threats available and levied of 50+ years in jail for something so trivial.


Also, all without a trial you are happy to be at the 'mercy' of, and victim to, the arbitrary whims of a prosecutor?

Surely only in the USA...
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13180
Credit: 7,938,909
RAC: 15,234
United States
Message 1340234 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 15:00:15 UTC - in response to Message 1340184.
Last modified: 22 Feb 2013, 15:08:32 UTC

You still ignore the ridiculous threats available and levied of 50+ years in jail for something so trivial.

Anyone who lives in the USA knows a case of the vapors when they see it, unfortunately writers from other countries who are ordered to write about the US criminal justice system aren't aware of the vapors and in their haste to sell advertising, their real purpose - it isn't writing straight news - they intentionally over sensationalize. That you somehow think this fiction is fact ...

<edit>as to trivial, that is for a jury to decide and in this case they won't get that chance. But I detect that you don't think any crime happened. As all reasonable people do think a crime was committed, how does your mind function?

You need to read the links posted. They are fair and deep. They are reality. I know you won't like it, you want the fiction of the sensationalism to be the truth.
____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9124
Credit: 37,612,601
RAC: 35,039
United States
Message 1340320 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 17:48:48 UTC

Martin did you read the grand jury indictment? Now matter how anyone feels about jstor. Stealing those papers was against the law. And he did steal them. by circumventing the safegauards jstor had put in place. He didnt do it just once he did it repeatedly and used various names and personnas to get them for over two months.

Why do you think no crime was committed?

And seeing as he took the moral cowards way out, We will never know what a jury would have arrived at.
____________

Old James

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1340323 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 17:53:06 UTC - in response to Message 1340320.

Martin did you read the grand jury indictment? Now matter how anyone feels about jstor. Stealing those papers was against the law. And he did steal them. by circumventing the safegauards jstor had put in place. He didnt do it just once he did it repeatedly and used various names and personnas to get them for over two months.

Why do you think no crime was committed?

And seeing as he took the moral cowards way out, We will never know what a jury would have arrived at.

Because the majority of the people that wrote what he "stole" thought their material should be open for all to read. It is the institution that has a problem with the legality of it all
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9124
Credit: 37,612,601
RAC: 35,039
United States
Message 1340327 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 17:59:19 UTC - in response to Message 1340323.

Martin did you read the grand jury indictment? Now matter how anyone feels about jstor. Stealing those papers was against the law. And he did steal them. by circumventing the safegauards jstor had put in place. He didnt do it just once he did it repeatedly and used various names and personnas to get them for over two months.

Why do you think no crime was committed?

And seeing as he took the moral cowards way out, We will never know what a jury would have arrived at.

Because the majority of the people that wrote what he "stole" thought their material should be open for all to read. It is the institution that has a problem with the legality of it all

And who is the institution? If the majority of people who wrote the papers said they should be availabel why not self publish them? Make them available on the internet? Mabey because said institutions maight own them?
____________

Old James

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8777
Credit: 25,935,241
RAC: 17,168
United Kingdom
Message 1340354 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 19:03:25 UTC - in response to Message 1340327.

Martin did you read the grand jury indictment? Now matter how anyone feels about jstor. Stealing those papers was against the law. And he did steal them. by circumventing the safegauards jstor had put in place. He didnt do it just once he did it repeatedly and used various names and personnas to get them for over two months.

Why do you think no crime was committed?

And seeing as he took the moral cowards way out, We will never know what a jury would have arrived at.

Because the majority of the people that wrote what he "stole" thought their material should be open for all to read. It is the institution that has a problem with the legality of it all

And who is the institution? If the majority of people who wrote the papers said they should be availabel why not self publish them? Make them available on the internet? Mabey because said institutions maight own them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13180
Credit: 7,938,909
RAC: 15,234
United States
Message 1340427 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 22:20:33 UTC - in response to Message 1340354.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR

Inquiries have been made about the possibility of making JSTOR open access. According to Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, JSTOR had been asked "how much would it cost to make this available to the whole world, how much would we need to pay you? The answer was $250 million". [31]

So Schwartz was out to steal $250,000,000.00 from Jstor, and the journal publishers by downloading and publishing all their content for free.

And Martin is saying that 0 to 6 months is like a death penalty for the theft of $250,000,000.00. At least that is how it comes across. I would say six months is a lot of forgiveness, just consider Kenneth Lay or Bernie Madoff.

The journals, not Jstor owns the content. The authors signed the copyright over to the journal. Jstor has to negotiate the usage and the payment for the content with the journal and might even be on the hook for the misuse of that content by their customers or by not securing it from misuse.

You may think the journal adds nothing of value to the paper. So get rid of them. Everyone can just upload papers to their blog. Heck, just hit post to thread here at Seti ...

How about this analogy. You are a research library so you charge your patrons a small flat fee because you have to buy every book and journal on your shelf. A person impersonates your patron and eventually checks out every book on your shelf and makes a copy. Then he opens up a library across the street using the copies and gives access for free.

____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 11 · Next

Message boards : Politics : DEAD. Murder? usa internet LAW REFORM REQUIRED!

Copyright © 2014 University of California