4 ms·

There's a nice two step shuffle here. On the one hand, people say "JSTOR is keeping this vitally important knowledge away from THE PEOPLE!" and imply that Swart

There's a nice two step shuffle here. On the one hand, people say "JSTOR is keeping this vitally important knowledge away from THE PEOPLE!" and imply that Swartz was going to rectify that by releasing the JSTOR archive. Then, when I point out that releasing the JSTOR archive would completely undermine JSTOR's viability as a going concern, the same people argue that "there's no way that the JSTOR archive Swartz was going to release could possibly substitute for the service JSTOR provides now!". Well, if that's true, then I can't see how Swartz's actions were going to help anyone. After all, if the archive torrented is completely inferior to the JSTOR service, then no one would find it valuable. It wouldn't help anyone. So why exactly was Swartz interested in it? Aaron's intent, as expressed by the manifesto, was to increase access to knowledge. I doubt he particularly cared about destroying JSTOR one way or another. But he did care about making it so that everyone on earth could have completely free access to every single JSTOR article. If he had achieved that goal, there's no way JSTOR could function as a going concern now. I mean, maybe JSTOR could continue as an company charging $1/month for a search index, but it wouldn't be scanning in new material like crazy right now. Making a particular business model obsolete is not in itself criminal. Of course not. But violating the CFAA is. Copyright infringement, on a large enough scale certainly is.

ucee054 14y ago
The 2-step shuffle is yours. If Swartz's material had been released, J Random Hacker, who simply wouldn't have read any of the JSTOR papers before, would now read them. MIT, on the other hand, would still pay for them. Though I can see how Podunk Community College in ThirdWorldistan might not pay for it. The same way that you can get pirate Windows now, and some 15 year old kid in Thailand does. But Goldman Sachs still pays for a license. But some dodgy outfit in Beijing might not. The principle here is not a legal principle, it is an economic principle. It is called loss of earnings. Look it up. Instead of whinging that Swartz was going to destroy a $50 Million business, admit that the loss of earnings he would have caused would have been ZERO. More disturbing than your ignorance of Econ101 is how you are fixating on the cost of Swartz's "crime", excluding the wider social aspects including the deadweight loss imposed on society as a result of copyright lobbying. It's like a hobbit-sized version of somebody complaining about how the cotton industry would shrink - the horrors! - if we were to stop slavery.
nitrogen 14y ago
After all, if the archive torrented is completely inferior to the JSTOR service, then no one would find it valuable. It wouldn't help anyone. An analogy: margarine is inferior in taste to butter. To those who can afford butter (universities), margarine is undesirable. To those who cannot (laypeople, journalists), margarine may be an acceptable substitute. Inferior does not mean valueless, nor does it mean the value of the superior product is diminished. Of course not. But violating the CFAA is. Copyright infringement, on a large enough scale certainly is. This is a completely separate debate, and addressed elsewhere. Summarized, it is debatable whether Aaron's actions (changing MAC address) do or should constitute Wire Fraud or CFAA violations. It is also debatable whether any nonviolent crime should ever have a penalty larger than any violent crime. I will not address any of these points further in this thread.

ucee054 14y ago

The 2-step shuffle is yours. If Swartz's material had been released, J Random Hacker, who simply wouldn't have read any of the JSTOR papers before, would now read them. MIT, on the other hand, would still pay for them. Though I can see how Podunk Community College in ThirdWorldistan might not pay for it. The same way that you can get pirate Windows now, and some 15 year old kid in Thailand does. But Goldman Sachs still pays for a license. But some dodgy outfit in Beijing might not. The principle here is not a legal principle, it is an economic principle. It is called loss of earnings. Look it up. Instead of whinging that Swartz was going to destroy a $50 Million business, admit that the loss of earnings he would have caused would have been ZERO. More disturbing than your ignorance of Econ101 is how you are fixating on the cost of Swartz's "crime", excluding the wider social aspects including the deadweight loss imposed on society as a result of copyright lobbying. It's like a hobbit-sized version of somebody complaining about how the cotton industry would shrink - the horrors! - if we were to stop slavery.

nitrogen 14y ago

After all, if the archive torrented is completely inferior to the JSTOR service, then no one would find it valuable. It wouldn't help anyone. An analogy: margarine is inferior in taste to butter. To those who can afford butter (universities), margarine is undesirable. To those who cannot (laypeople, journalists), margarine may be an acceptable substitute. Inferior does not mean valueless, nor does it mean the value of the superior product is diminished. Of course not. But violating the CFAA is. Copyright infringement, on a large enough scale certainly is. This is a completely separate debate, and addressed elsewhere. Summarized, it is debatable whether Aaron's actions (changing MAC address) do or should constitute Wire Fraud or CFAA violations. It is also debatable whether any nonviolent crime should ever have a penalty larger than any violent crime. I will not address any of these points further in this thread.