2013/1/18 ag@gmail <amarendra.godb...@gmail.com>: > So do I read it something like this: While walking on the street, I found an > unlocked door to a bar and walked in, grabbed a bottle of vodka, gulped it > down, and walked out. I was caught, since I was 17. > > Now blame the bar for having its door unlocked or the person who forgot the > bottle of vodka on the table. Don't every utter anything about underage > drinking... (though it is illegal). Not exact, but you get the idea.
The point is, MIT kept the network open as well thought out policy. It is MIT culture not to restrict their network. Do you not see the proportion as an issue? Agreed, it is rude on Aaron's part to have misused the access, but does it deserve 35 years in jail? Also remember JSTOR did not want to prosecute Aaron. > If JSTOR should be free - one should put efforts to gather those many > articles on their own. Why steal? Another thing - part of JSTOR fees goes > towards paying the authors of those articles, from what I read. By wanting it > for free, you also deny rightful money to the very people who put their ideas > on paper. I consider this abuse of the term Free... Gandhi did not take away > salt from the British, it was rightfully given to those who owned it. In this > case, the papers were not rightfully Aaron's or of public... Copying is not stealing and Aaron did not distribute the articles he copied. The people who wrote the papers are already paid. "Another thing to consider is that academic writers are paid through salaries and grants; they aren't paid (not directly, anyway) for the publication of their work. The whole system of compensation for academic content is very different from commercial publishing. When you pay for a JSTOR article online, none of the money goes to the author, it goes to the publisher." http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/was-aaron-swartz-stealing > We don't need more Aarons, for sure. > > YMMV. Yes, I believe we need more Aarons and that is why I'm talking about his work with as many people as possible. From the same article, "Swartz is being charged with hacker crimes, not copyright-infringement crimes, because he didn't actually distribute any documents, plus JSTOR didn't even want him prosecuted. These charges are: Wire Fraud, Computer Fraud, Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer, Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer, Aiding and Abetting, and Criminal Forfeiture, and Being Too Smart for Being Such a Young Guy, and That Seems Dangerous (I made up only the last bit.)" And closing statement, The conclusion of Lessig's CERN presentation is particularly stirring. We need to recognize in the academy, I think, an ethical obligation [...] An ethical obligation which is at the core of our mission. Our mission is universal access to knowledge—not American university access to knowledge, but universal access to knowledge in every part of the globe. We don't need, for our work, exclusivity; and we shouldn't practice, with our work, exclusivity. And we should name those who do, wrong. Those who do are inconsistent with the ethic of our work. The aims and ideals of Aaron Swartz can, I believe, be laid to some degree at this man's door. That is something I would be very proud of, if I were Lawrence Lessig. Whatever the results of the government's actions against Swartz—and whether or not those actions are ultimately motivated by an instinct toward intellectual property protectionism of the kind demonstrated by the RIAA and others in the U.S.—there can be little doubt that the motives of people like Lawrence Lessig and Aaron Swartz spring from a desire to serve the public good. To that extent we are in their debt, rather than the reverse. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution. _______________________________________ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
