3 ms·

Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. The difference is that they did so in a public and organized way. Aaron, on the other hand, broke into

Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. The difference is that they did so in a public and organized way. Aaron, on the other hand, broke into the computer closet at MIT as a lone individual. Therefore he was persecuted. Keep in mind that during the 50s and 60s, half the country (mostly the northern half), as well as the federal government, supported the civil rights movement. The same can't be said about intellectual property today. In fact there is no such thing as the Intellectual Property Movement. Which is why Aaron was perceived to have acted alone, despite the fact that many people agreed with his views.

grzm 10y ago
Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. They also understood that they'd likely be arrested and prosecuted. And many were.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Yes, but not by the federal government. That's a BIG difference.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I'm not sure that was always the case, but for the sake of argument: what's the significant difference?
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      I can't speak for what enraged_camel is thinking about. What pops into my mind is how you have the feds coming down on you in all locations. With states, you might just dodge the ones that are corrupt enough to consider your actions crimes. Keep a distance or sneak through them. If it's federal, you're screwed wherever you go with likely worse sentence on top of it. The federal cases also bring better-trained cops and equipment to the situation than many local jurisdictions.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      During the civil rights movement, the federal government was on the side of blacks. It was the state governments that resisted things like desegregation (which the Supreme Court had found to be unconstitutional in Brown vs. Board of Education) and allowing blacks to register to vote. Having the federal government on your side is very important. The reason is simple: it has the power to enforce its will. For example, when the governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to prevent nine black students to attend Little Rock Central High School, President Eisenhower countermanded the order and told them to return to their barracks, then deployed elements of the 101st Airborne Division to protect the black students while they attended the school for an entire year. In contrast, Aaron Swartz had the federal government against him. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on four felony charges, which were later increased to thirteen. Unlike with the civil rights movement, he had broken federal law, and could not turn to a superior authority for justice.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. The difference is that they did so in a public and organized way. Aaron, on the other hand, broke into the computer closet at MIT as a lone individual. Therefore he was persecuted." ", half the country (mostly the northern half), as well as the federal government, supported the civil rights movement. The same can't be said about intellectual property today." These are tremendously good points everyone should remember when evaluating whether to promote or reject Aaron's path. I just made a similar one. The guy was a lone warrior fighting a battle hardly anyone cares about in a way much of the country would want him prosecuted for. They'd say something like, "I understand this stuff matters to him or maybe me but we can't just let college kids go around doing B&E's and other crimes to make political points." They then might wonder how far that could go for various causes before being sure they wanted him arrested. A big issue I have in the I.P. side is formulating strategies to get people to care about it. They especially need to know the I.P. holders, esp patent trolls or CompSci paywalls, largely aren't earning the monopolies in terms of benefits provided. They're just robbing others claiming they're taking what's owed. It's a trick subject if the audience is laypersons, esp unlimited copying part.

grzm 10y ago

Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. They also understood that they'd likely be arrested and prosecuted. And many were.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Yes, but not by the federal government. That's a BIG difference.
- grzm 10y ago
  I'm not sure that was always the case, but for the sake of argument: what's the significant difference?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    I can't speak for what enraged_camel is thinking about. What pops into my mind is how you have the feds coming down on you in all locations. With states, you might just dodge the ones that are corrupt enough to consider your actions crimes. Keep a distance or sneak through them. If it's federal, you're screwed wherever you go with likely worse sentence on top of it. The federal cases also bring better-trained cops and equipment to the situation than many local jurisdictions.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    During the civil rights movement, the federal government was on the side of blacks. It was the state governments that resisted things like desegregation (which the Supreme Court had found to be unconstitutional in Brown vs. Board of Education) and allowing blacks to register to vote. Having the federal government on your side is very important. The reason is simple: it has the power to enforce its will. For example, when the governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to prevent nine black students to attend Little Rock Central High School, President Eisenhower countermanded the order and told them to return to their barracks, then deployed elements of the 101st Airborne Division to protect the black students while they attended the school for an entire year. In contrast, Aaron Swartz had the federal government against him. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on four felony charges, which were later increased to thirteen. Unlike with the civil rights movement, he had broken federal law, and could not turn to a superior authority for justice.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"Of course people in the civil rights movement broke laws. The difference is that they did so in a public and organized way. Aaron, on the other hand, broke into the computer closet at MIT as a lone individual. Therefore he was persecuted." ", half the country (mostly the northern half), as well as the federal government, supported the civil rights movement. The same can't be said about intellectual property today." These are tremendously good points everyone should remember when evaluating whether to promote or reject Aaron's path. I just made a similar one. The guy was a lone warrior fighting a battle hardly anyone cares about in a way much of the country would want him prosecuted for. They'd say something like, "I understand this stuff matters to him or maybe me but we can't just let college kids go around doing B&E's and other crimes to make political points." They then might wonder how far that could go for various causes before being sure they wanted him arrested. A big issue I have in the I.P. side is formulating strategies to get people to care about it. They especially need to know the I.P. holders, esp patent trolls or CompSci paywalls, largely aren't earning the monopolies in terms of benefits provided. They're just robbing others claiming they're taking what's owed. It's a trick subject if the audience is laypersons, esp unlimited copying part.