4 ms·

This is what they accused Aaron Swartz of too. "Misdemeanor Terrorism" was one of the charges I believe. The lawyer that said that this is 'terrorism' should

This is what they accused Aaron Swartz of too. "Misdemeanor Terrorism" was one of the charges I believe. The lawyer that said that this is 'terrorism' should be disbarred. This is borderline slander.

yingw787 7y ago
......misdemeanor terrorism. How does that term even exist? Is that like flying a Cessna into the World Trade Center instead of a Boeing 757? Agree with you there. Either it’s terrorism or it isn’t.
- ben_w 7y ago
  That scenario has happened: * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack Curiously they both seem to have been described as “not” terrorism (though I’m not totally sure that was the final conclusion).
macspoofing 7y ago
Not quite. With Aaron Swartz there was no question of copyright infringement. He was infringing. With Carl Malamud and the state of Georgia there is ambiguity on the copyrightable status of certain kinds of legal materials (like descriptions and summaries of laws and legal decisions). This is what the courts for. Both sides have some basis for their position even though I side with Malamud on this point.
- baybal2 7y ago
  > Not quite. With Aaron Swartz there was no question of copyright infringement. He was infringing. He wasn't. He was 100% entitled to use his library access, and download every file he did download.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    I'm not sure about that. I'd think you'd be breaking the TOS by mass downloading all papers. Certainly, putting them on the internet after the fact isn't legal. I say all this, but I want to be clear that the punishment he received was far in excess to the underlying crime.
    - teddyh 7y ago
      > I'd think you'd be breaking the TOS by mass downloading all papers. Still not a breach of copyright, and not even a crime, I believe. > Certainly, putting them on the internet after the fact isn't legal. But he didn’t do that. He may very well have planned to do that, but he never did, and this was never a factor in the case against him, IIRC.
      - amyjess 7y ago
        Violation of TOS is trespassing on private property. You are only allowed to access someone's private property under a particular set of conditions, and Swartz violated those conditions. What really did him in was that he went out of his way to use an alternative means of access _after_ being kicked off. He knowingly trespassed again after being told that he wasn't welcome, which completely obliterates any defense of "I didn't know what I was doing wasn't allowed".
    - danesparza 7y ago
      "Terms of service" is not copyright infringement. Especially when when dealing with public records.
    - baybal2 7y ago
      > breaking the TOS by mass downloading all papers If you watched the case, even that point was nearing defeat. The TOS they cited were pulled and inspected. Really, nowhere there the "oblige to not to abuse the system with means of viruses, logical bombs, ..." term was breached, unlike what initial hearing with technically illiterate judge found.
  - 7y ago

This is what they accused Aaron Swartz of too. "Misdemeanor Terrorism" was one of the charges I believe. The lawyer that said that this is 'terrorism' should be disbarred. This is borderline slander.

yingw787 7y ago

......misdemeanor terrorism. How does that term even exist? Is that like flying a Cessna into the World Trade Center instead of a Boeing 757? Agree with you there. Either it’s terrorism or it isn’t.

ben_w 7y ago
That scenario has happened: * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack Curiously they both seem to have been described as “not” terrorism (though I’m not totally sure that was the final conclusion).

macspoofing 7y ago

Not quite. With Aaron Swartz there was no question of copyright infringement. He was infringing. With Carl Malamud and the state of Georgia there is ambiguity on the copyrightable status of certain kinds of legal materials (like descriptions and summaries of laws and legal decisions). This is what the courts for. Both sides have some basis for their position even though I side with Malamud on this point.

baybal2 7y ago
> Not quite. With Aaron Swartz there was no question of copyright infringement. He was infringing. He wasn't. He was 100% entitled to use his library access, and download every file he did download.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  I'm not sure about that. I'd think you'd be breaking the TOS by mass downloading all papers. Certainly, putting them on the internet after the fact isn't legal. I say all this, but I want to be clear that the punishment he received was far in excess to the underlying crime.
  - teddyh 7y ago
    > I'd think you'd be breaking the TOS by mass downloading all papers. Still not a breach of copyright, and not even a crime, I believe. > Certainly, putting them on the internet after the fact isn't legal. But he didn’t do that. He may very well have planned to do that, but he never did, and this was never a factor in the case against him, IIRC.
    - amyjess 7y ago
      Violation of TOS is trespassing on private property. You are only allowed to access someone's private property under a particular set of conditions, and Swartz violated those conditions. What really did him in was that he went out of his way to use an alternative means of access _after_ being kicked off. He knowingly trespassed again after being told that he wasn't welcome, which completely obliterates any defense of "I didn't know what I was doing wasn't allowed".
  - danesparza 7y ago
    "Terms of service" is not copyright infringement. Especially when when dealing with public records.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    > breaking the TOS by mass downloading all papers If you watched the case, even that point was nearing defeat. The TOS they cited were pulled and inspected. Really, nowhere there the "oblige to not to abuse the system with means of viruses, logical bombs, ..." term was breached, unlike what initial hearing with technically illiterate judge found.
- 7y ago