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?

---

[/quote]

Old James

...
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.

---

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.

---

...
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?

---

Reality Internet Personality

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?)

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 for one am getting sick of being called a criminal.

Clearly, you are not reading the posts in full.

Well then please enlighten me.

---

[/quote]

Old James

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?

---

[/quote]

Old James

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

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

Clearly, you are not reading the posts in full.

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.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Hence: ALL AMERICANS ARE CRIMINAL?

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

---

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)

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!

---

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)

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.

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.)

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

---

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