4 ms·
This is more of an explanation of why the law was misused in this particular case. Swartz posed a threat to the ability to privately profit off of publicly fun
by GeekyBear 5y ago
This is more of an explanation of why the law was misused in this particular case.
Swartz posed a threat to the ability to privately profit off of publicly funded science.
- duxup 5y agoI can understand that but I was responding to someone who claimed "You mean corporate lobbyists wanting federal enforcement of contract terms and corporate interests".
- GeekyBear 5y agoIsn't protecting the interests of a wealthy few exactly what happened in this case? Look at all the recent Federal activity aimed at shutting down Sci-Hub. >A reminder that Elsevier made $6 BILLION selling your academic journals and articles behind paywalls, and made more profit than Amazon, Google and Apple every year for YEARS... And paid the academics who wrote the articles $0 And paid the reviewers of the articles $0 https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status/1390798132632596488?s=20 https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status/1390798132632596488?...
- no-s 5y ago“I can understand that but I was responding to someone who claimed ''You mean corporate lobbyists wanting federal enforcement of contract terms and corporate interest.''” You left off the "had nothing to do with it?” part, which was a rhetorical assertion of equivalent hyperbole, but not a direct claim. If you want to interpret it that way you should to include the question mark in the consideration of your response....