4 ms·

Yes, in this particular case you are right. This case is interesting because Aaron is doing this as an "activist" and as such it becomes political-legal theatre

by rdouble 15y ago

Yes, in this particular case you are right. This case is interesting because Aaron is doing this as an "activist" and as such it becomes political-legal theatre. He is friends with a bunch of lawyers and legal researchers who are working at the intersection of IP rights and freedom of information rights. If he was just some nobody kid in Schaumburg stealing PDFs from Motorola, he'd either be in jail already or slapped on the wrist and sent home. Nobody would have heard about it, and there'd be no internet dialectic about it.

tptacek 15y ago
We don't really know if this was an "activist" crime. It's very possible that he just intended to analyze the documents and publish aggregated results. If that's the case, I think this prosecution is a mistake; an extreme overreaction. Scholarly analysis of JSTOR documents is not a criminal intent. His actions may leave him culpable to a variety of minor crimes, but his impact on the social good is minimal at worst. On the other hand, it's possible (though less likely, I think) that the intent here was to mirror JSTOR onto BitTorrent. I might sympathize with this goal, but I don't think its prosecution as wire fraud is an overreaction. I'll root for Aaron at trial, though.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  The problem with that analysis is that there's nothing criminal (or even illegal) about sharing public domain works over BitTorrent. So whether he copied the documents for personal use or distribution, it was still the initial copying that was at fault. It's a little like someone broke into a library every night for a few months and scanned a bunch of public domain books. The only actual crimes are breaking and entering, and using the scanning equipment without authorization. What he intended to do with the scans is irrelevant.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    JSTOR's particular collection of documents is protected by copyright and has been valued, by virtually every one of the most learned and respected educational institutions in the country, at millions of dollars annually. Let's say I come into possession of a trove of public domain documents from the 1800s, and I take the time to scan every one of them painstakingly and from those scans to assemble an academically useful database, for which I charge $100/person/year for access. Your contention is that because the underlying documents are public domain, you are entitled to unfettered access to my work product, despite the fact that I took steps to gate access to my work product. The law isn't going to see it that way, I don't think. But maybe you're right. I'm not a lawyer. Like everyone else on HN, I wish all these documents were freely available too.
    - jcarreiro 15y ago
      > JSTOR's particular collection of documents is protected by copyright We've discussed this on HN before. Reproductions of public domain works are not protected by copyright. Edit: Of course a significant portion of JSTOR's archive does consist of copyrighted works.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        I thought collection copyright applied, but am happy to be wrong about that.
        jcarreiro 15y ago
        There is a "collective works" copyright, so I guess -- I am also not a lawyer -- that if one made a copy of some database, it may be infringing on the creator's rights even if the contents of the database consisted solely of public domain works. So I think you are correct.
        lukeschlather 15y ago
        http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/... >You are free to copy and use individual images but copying and distributing the complete collection may infringe what is known as the “collective works” copyright. Collections of public domain material will be protected if the person who created it has used creativity in the choices and organization of the public domain material. This usually involves some unique selection process, for example, a poetry scholar compiling a book -- The Greatest Poems of e.e. cummings. I don't think JSTOR is using what could be described as a unique selection process.
    - brlewis 15y ago
      Copyright protects creative work. If you used creativity (as defined in case law) in choosing documents for your compilation, or got creative with your scanning, then you can claim exclusive rights. Look for links in the phrase "such scans are often considered uncopyrightable" in the original article for more on this topic.
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    JSTOR is not just public domain works, and there is no indication that the downloading was limited to public domain works.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I found this comment greyed. How does anyone downvote this? It's a single sentence with two clauses both of which state objectively verifiable facts relevant to the thread and responsive to the parent comment.
      - tedunangst 15y ago
        People downvote things they don't like, including the truth. They are also generally unable to distinguish between "this is how things are" and "this is how things should be", and will generally downvote as if you'd written the latter.

by rdouble 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

We don't really know if this was an "activist" crime. It's very possible that he just intended to analyze the documents and publish aggregated results. If that's the case, I think this prosecution is a mistake; an extreme overreaction. Scholarly analysis of JSTOR documents is not a criminal intent. His actions may leave him culpable to a variety of minor crimes, but his impact on the social good is minimal at worst. On the other hand, it's possible (though less likely, I think) that the intent here was to mirror JSTOR onto BitTorrent. I might sympathize with this goal, but I don't think its prosecution as wire fraud is an overreaction. I'll root for Aaron at trial, though.

lukeschlather 15y ago
The problem with that analysis is that there's nothing criminal (or even illegal) about sharing public domain works over BitTorrent. So whether he copied the documents for personal use or distribution, it was still the initial copying that was at fault. It's a little like someone broke into a library every night for a few months and scanned a bunch of public domain books. The only actual crimes are breaking and entering, and using the scanning equipment without authorization. What he intended to do with the scans is irrelevant.
- tptacek 15y ago
  JSTOR's particular collection of documents is protected by copyright and has been valued, by virtually every one of the most learned and respected educational institutions in the country, at millions of dollars annually. Let's say I come into possession of a trove of public domain documents from the 1800s, and I take the time to scan every one of them painstakingly and from those scans to assemble an academically useful database, for which I charge $100/person/year for access. Your contention is that because the underlying documents are public domain, you are entitled to unfettered access to my work product, despite the fact that I took steps to gate access to my work product. The law isn't going to see it that way, I don't think. But maybe you're right. I'm not a lawyer. Like everyone else on HN, I wish all these documents were freely available too.
  - jcarreiro 15y ago
    > JSTOR's particular collection of documents is protected by copyright We've discussed this on HN before. Reproductions of public domain works are not protected by copyright. Edit: Of course a significant portion of JSTOR's archive does consist of copyrighted works.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I thought collection copyright applied, but am happy to be wrong about that.
      - jcarreiro 15y ago
        There is a "collective works" copyright, so I guess -- I am also not a lawyer -- that if one made a copy of some database, it may be infringing on the creator's rights even if the contents of the database consisted solely of public domain works. So I think you are correct.
        lukeschlather 15y ago
        http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/... >You are free to copy and use individual images but copying and distributing the complete collection may infringe what is known as the “collective works” copyright. Collections of public domain material will be protected if the person who created it has used creativity in the choices and organization of the public domain material. This usually involves some unique selection process, for example, a poetry scholar compiling a book -- The Greatest Poems of e.e. cummings. I don't think JSTOR is using what could be described as a unique selection process.
  - brlewis 15y ago
    Copyright protects creative work. If you used creativity (as defined in case law) in choosing documents for your compilation, or got creative with your scanning, then you can claim exclusive rights. Look for links in the phrase "such scans are often considered uncopyrightable" in the original article for more on this topic.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  JSTOR is not just public domain works, and there is no indication that the downloading was limited to public domain works.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I found this comment greyed. How does anyone downvote this? It's a single sentence with two clauses both of which state objectively verifiable facts relevant to the thread and responsive to the parent comment.
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      People downvote things they don't like, including the truth. They are also generally unable to distinguish between "this is how things are" and "this is how things should be", and will generally downvote as if you'd written the latter.