3 ms·

Well this is more akin to breaking into the storage facility and making a copy of all the Paintings stored there. The value of the goods being stored has not be

by dman 15y ago

Well this is more akin to breaking into the storage facility and making a copy of all the Paintings stored there. The value of the goods being stored has not been reduced.

anigbrowl 15y ago
Not to torture this analogy any further, but would you feel safe storing your stuff at such a facility after something like that? No, you'd probably look elsewhere for your storage needs. Breaking in is still bad and would be the subject of criminal charges. If the US attorneys decide that use of the word 'stole' is somewhat over the top, then guess what? they can amend the indictment - just as the defense can amend their motions. My point is not that the government is correct or morally justified in bringing this indictment, but that getting hung up on terminology like this obscures the legally problematic issue of having (allegedly) bypassed the security systems to download material he was not supposed to have access to, regardless of who actually owns said material.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  But: (1) JSTOR isn't a storage facility in that sense; the copyright holders do not pay JSTOR to store their items, so this is a bad analogy. (2) If the outrage is supposed to be about bypassing security systems, why is the government hung up on the "theft" terminology? Especially when JSTOR, the party arguably injured (in some way not specified), has asked the government not to prosecute? No, this is clearly a convenient way to get a politically inconvenient person labeled a felon.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    1. The analogy is only to point out that a 3rd party repository can be negatively affected by a break-in event if it doesn't have an ownership interest in the materials it stores. 2. The government is not hung up on the 'theft' terminology. The words 'steal' or 'stole' only appear three times in the 15 page indictment and the actual offenses he is charged with are wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer.

by dman 15y ago

Well this is more akin to breaking into the storage facility and making a copy of all the Paintings stored there. The value of the goods being stored has not been reduced.

anigbrowl 15y ago

Not to torture this analogy any further, but would you feel safe storing your stuff at such a facility after something like that? No, you'd probably look elsewhere for your storage needs. Breaking in is still bad and would be the subject of criminal charges. If the US attorneys decide that use of the word 'stole' is somewhat over the top, then guess what? they can amend the indictment - just as the defense can amend their motions. My point is not that the government is correct or morally justified in bringing this indictment, but that getting hung up on terminology like this obscures the legally problematic issue of having (allegedly) bypassed the security systems to download material he was not supposed to have access to, regardless of who actually owns said material.

Vivtek 15y ago
But: (1) JSTOR isn't a storage facility in that sense; the copyright holders do not pay JSTOR to store their items, so this is a bad analogy. (2) If the outrage is supposed to be about bypassing security systems, why is the government hung up on the "theft" terminology? Especially when JSTOR, the party arguably injured (in some way not specified), has asked the government not to prosecute? No, this is clearly a convenient way to get a politically inconvenient person labeled a felon.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  1. The analogy is only to point out that a 3rd party repository can be negatively affected by a break-in event if it doesn't have an ownership interest in the materials it stores. 2. The government is not hung up on the 'theft' terminology. The words 'steal' or 'stole' only appear three times in the 15 page indictment and the actual offenses he is charged with are wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer.