3 ms·

> why the matter was ever treated as a criminal matter I'm not any category of credentialed legal expert, and I haven't had the heart to dig into the gory deta

> why the matter was ever treated as a criminal matter I'm not any category of credentialed legal expert, and I haven't had the heart to dig into the gory details of this particular disaster, but I'd point at the No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act. This legislation broadened the category of criminal copyright infringement to an almost absurd degree, redefining "commercial advantage" to include the mere expectation of others reciprocating by sharing their own stashes of infringing material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Electronic_Theft_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Electronic_Theft_Act

smcin 3y ago
But we're talking about JSTOR's behavior and reputation here, not the legalities, which have been discussed many times (although not tested in courts). In particular after state and federal prosecutors went berserk and MIT admin didn't push back in the name of these same freedoms that JSTOR is telling us were so beloved and apple-pie back in WWII. It's not like JSTOR publicly said "This federal criminal indictment is massive overreaction; not in our name". It's a matter of record that JSTOR executives were threatening MIT. Swartz was (criminally) charged with up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million(!) [0]. Harsher than many indictments for cases of terrorism or mass murder. For something that may well not even have been a criminal act. By a group of people who may well not even have been the actual rights holders - that claim never saw the inside of a courtroon since the massive overcharge made it unlikely that Swartz would contest; and in fact it caused him to commit suicide. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#Federal_prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#Federa...
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  I don't disagree with you overall; I was just trying to seek out the point where it jumped the gap between civil and criminal processes. I suppose that the NET Act sticks in my mind because it was probably the first legislation I read that shocked me with how blatant the disconnect was between legal and practical definitions of terms.
  - smcin 3y ago
    Agreed; I want to keep the focus on JSTOR's behavior, not the legislation, but: (The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act (1997) was introduced by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), whose big donors include media rights holders and law firms and their PACs [0]. And that legislation was brought specifically to "remedy" the inability to criminally prosecute non-commercial infringements in the 1994 LaMacchia case [1][2], although that was about a warez bulletin-board of commercial software, not published academic papers. The NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works" (still not seeing any of that applied to Swartz, but they would have cheerfully bankrupted him fighting it, and destroyed his life if they'd won an adverse ruling). But now, back to JSTOR's behavior and reputation. [0]: Bob Goodlatte Representative (R-VA) | Donor Summary https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/bob-goodlatte/summary?cid=N00009154 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/bob-goodlatt... [1]: "United States v. LaMacchia" (1994) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia [2]: "Before there was Aaron Swartz, there was David LaMacchia" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5143897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5143897
  - smcin 3y ago
    Yes, Goodlatte and his donors introduced legislation which was a massive overreaction to the issue it was "remedying". But noone had the deep pockets to fight it. Oh, and there are some killer ironies in Bob Goodlatte's trajectory (I never thought I'd see a revolving door made out of paper, but now we have): Goodlatte stepped down from Congress (and House Judiciary Chair) in 2018. In February 2020, he registered as a lobbyist [0] representing (media rights holders and) and the Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability, a nonprofit that describes itself on its website as “a nonpartisan group of U.S. citizens who advocate for greater protection of our privacy and civil liberties in government surveillance programs.”(!) In an interview, Goodlatte said he is lobbying Congress and the administration on behalf of the nonprofit on three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizing government surveillance programs set to expire in March 2020. [1] > Goodlatte invoked surveillance abuse against Martin Luther King Jr. in the context of [alleged surveillance abuses in 2016] [2] [0]: Lobbying Firm Profile: Goodlatte, Robert https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/firms/summary?cycle=2022&id=F319290 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/firms/summary?c... [1]: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2020/02/14/goodlatte-registers-to-lobby-785437 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2020... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte#Russia_probe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte#Russia_probe

smcin 3y ago

But we're talking about JSTOR's behavior and reputation here, not the legalities, which have been discussed many times (although not tested in courts). In particular after state and federal prosecutors went berserk and MIT admin didn't push back in the name of these same freedoms that JSTOR is telling us were so beloved and apple-pie back in WWII. It's not like JSTOR publicly said "This federal criminal indictment is massive overreaction; not in our name". It's a matter of record that JSTOR executives were threatening MIT. Swartz was (criminally) charged with up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million(!) [0]. Harsher than many indictments for cases of terrorism or mass murder. For something that may well not even have been a criminal act. By a group of people who may well not even have been the actual rights holders - that claim never saw the inside of a courtroon since the massive overcharge made it unlikely that Swartz would contest; and in fact it caused him to commit suicide. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#Federal_prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz#Federa...

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
I don't disagree with you overall; I was just trying to seek out the point where it jumped the gap between civil and criminal processes. I suppose that the NET Act sticks in my mind because it was probably the first legislation I read that shocked me with how blatant the disconnect was between legal and practical definitions of terms.
- smcin 3y ago
  Agreed; I want to keep the focus on JSTOR's behavior, not the legislation, but: (The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act (1997) was introduced by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), whose big donors include media rights holders and law firms and their PACs [0]. And that legislation was brought specifically to "remedy" the inability to criminally prosecute non-commercial infringements in the 1994 LaMacchia case [1][2], although that was about a warez bulletin-board of commercial software, not published academic papers. The NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works" (still not seeing any of that applied to Swartz, but they would have cheerfully bankrupted him fighting it, and destroyed his life if they'd won an adverse ruling). But now, back to JSTOR's behavior and reputation. [0]: Bob Goodlatte Representative (R-VA) | Donor Summary https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/bob-goodlatte/summary?cid=N00009154 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/bob-goodlatt... [1]: "United States v. LaMacchia" (1994) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia [2]: "Before there was Aaron Swartz, there was David LaMacchia" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5143897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5143897
- smcin 3y ago
  Yes, Goodlatte and his donors introduced legislation which was a massive overreaction to the issue it was "remedying". But noone had the deep pockets to fight it. Oh, and there are some killer ironies in Bob Goodlatte's trajectory (I never thought I'd see a revolving door made out of paper, but now we have): Goodlatte stepped down from Congress (and House Judiciary Chair) in 2018. In February 2020, he registered as a lobbyist [0] representing (media rights holders and) and the Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability, a nonprofit that describes itself on its website as “a nonpartisan group of U.S. citizens who advocate for greater protection of our privacy and civil liberties in government surveillance programs.”(!) In an interview, Goodlatte said he is lobbying Congress and the administration on behalf of the nonprofit on three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizing government surveillance programs set to expire in March 2020. [1] > Goodlatte invoked surveillance abuse against Martin Luther King Jr. in the context of [alleged surveillance abuses in 2016] [2] [0]: Lobbying Firm Profile: Goodlatte, Robert https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/firms/summary?cycle=2022&id=F319290 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/firms/summary?c... [1]: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2020/02/14/goodlatte-registers-to-lobby-785437 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2020... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte#Russia_probe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte#Russia_probe