Not to defend them but what other response could they give? Is that something that's supposed to get them to be more lenient, drop the charges, come to a better plea deal? Kind of vague.

common sense and responsibility should have done that.

Swartz would have likely gotten seven years in prison had he lost at trial:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ison-time.html

I agree - seems like a dumb cause and has already been settled on by the academic community. Federally funded biomedical research (NIH) for example requires public access to funded research within six months. The six months gives the journals chance to make some profit but the public still gets access to the research in a timely manner.

The open access model, in contrast, has been a disaster.

Why do you need someone to tell you what to think at all? Just read about it yourself.

Here's the indictment:

http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/it...37971.53.0.pdf

Here are the statutes Swartz was accused of violating:

18 USC § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
18 USC § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

How can it be wire fraud when he was clearly using tubes?

You know what you should totally do? You should totally present a reasoned, thoughtful argument supported by relevant statutes and case law that proves the assertions you're making about fair use doctrine. Dude, that would make me look soooo dumb if you did that. I'll even get you started. Here is the federal statute:

17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Btw, still waiting on the citations for those claims you made about the 6 month plea deal offer and the "approved method" you talked about here:

I mean, "the approved method permitted one file at a time" just sounds so official. So there's no way you just completely made that up. I'm just asking for the citation so I can read up on it and make sure I don't accidentally violate the approved method, ya know?

Yeah....and this is really the main issue that needs to be solved. Everybody agrees the old system of hugely expensive journals that only a select few have access to is not the way to go....but something needs to be put up in it's place. JSTOR is a great step in that direction. The main journal I've dealt with is the Annals of Mathematics and they couldn't go to open access and get libraries to pay for operating costs despite being one of the most prestigious journals in the world. Work towards building a new system>>>>>>>>>>just tearing down the old one.

lol ok ok, obv I've been getting leveled, wp.

lol

yeah, i read them when they first came out. Has nothing to do with what tomcollins was talking about.

Huh. Weird.

Well what was he talking about?

Try reading his post?

RIP Aaron

The post where he made a comment that directly referenced a verbatim quote from the indictment?

Is that the one that you say has nothing to do with the indictment?

Like I said.....waiting for somebody else to chime in is the way to go.

But having JSTOR access at Harvard and using guest access at MIT is not illegal and does not violate any terms and conditions and nobody is saying that it did. The government is claiming (rather weakly imo) that the fact that he could have accessed this data at Harvard indicates an intent to do something wrong with it. Perfectly legal behavior can be part of an indictment if it goes to intent to do something illegal. Like if the government has reason to believe a person is plotting to blow up a building, the fact that he bought legal things that can be made into a bomb is relevant (and will be mentioned in an indictment) even though buying those things is obv not illegal.

Scientific journals are a niche market, but institutions pay good money for access. In my field, the demand almost exclusively comes from researchers/academics who have institutional access bc there just aren't a whole lot of amateurs out there who needs to read up on the latest findings in J. Vac. Sci. B. There's a cost associated with it, but I don't think I'd say there is a massive slowdown of research because of it. idk if this is the same way in fields like computer sci or math.

I suppose this is an improvement on just flatly denying reality like you were doing earlier, so this is certainly progress. Unfortunately, though, it is wrong.

Your conspiracy analogy is way off base. The government is NOT claiming that the fact that he could have accessed from Harvard indicates an intent to do something wrong.

The government is claiming that the fact that he could have accessed from Harvard indicates that he DID do something wrong.

Do you see the difference?

I'll bet any amount you want that this

will be deemed false (and furthermore not what the government is claiming is illegal about what he did) by any group of agreed upon experts.

I completely agree. The DOJ, however, does not.

Sigh.....

I guess I shouldn't be surprised....if you don't want to bet I'll bow out of the conversation now as I can't imagine anybody else here has any doubt on this (I'm not certain tomcollins wasn't making a joke originally that only you could somehow think was serious)

The poor guy was charged with 50 years in prison basically for violating the terms of service of his agreement with JSTOR. (Jstor didn't even want to pursue civil charges, this was pretty much all at the behest of the US DOJ)

Consider that HSBC just recently got away with a FINE for (among other stuff) wire fraud involving the Mexican Cartels, Iran, and terrorist groups. Also notice the lack of prosecutions for those responsible for the financial crisis, or those whom were involved in institutional mortgage fraud.

I would think even the most braindead 'hurr durr he did a crime do the time' types should be able to see the obvious duality in the American justice system. Your country is corrupt to the core.

The government offered him a deal with six months of jail time. He said no thanks.

I've read that he could've gotten as little as 4 months. Regardless of 4 or 6 months, he would've had to plead guilty to 13 felony charges. Being labeled a felon is a big deal. There is also the fact that he was a suicide risk, to which the DOJ basically said "we don't give a ****" after being informed of such.

Obviously the major factor in Swartz's death was his mental instability, but could justice not have been achieved without resulting in his suicide? Does the DOJ have blood on their hands here?

If there was less government around there would be less suicides and murders. Ban government.

Obv they shouldn't treat him differently because he was a suicide risk.