5 ms·

I don't get this at all. If Swartz had walked into the library and told a librarian, "hi! I'd like to download the entire JStor archive. Where can I plug in?",

I don't get this at all. If Swartz had walked into the library and told a librarian, "hi! I'd like to download the entire JStor archive. Where can I plug in?", they obviously would have told him "No". Everyone knows this. Swartz knew this: that's why he did so much to conceal his identity and conceal what he was doing.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
That is the sticky bit isn't it? Allowed by (then) MIT policy: Enter library, download "some" jstor articles. There were no explicit limits other than 'we reserve the right to refuse service' sorts of things in their policy. So were he a patient person it would have been ok for him to come in each day, download some, until he had the entire set of all documents, however long that took. An analogy might be ketchup packets at a fast food restaurant. You are allowed to take a 'few' for your meal, but clearly if you poured the whole box of them into your back pack you would be asked to leave, not because you are "stealing" ketchup, but because they choose to refuse you service based on your abuse of their free ketchup. So he clearly abused their good will, and by that abuse they had the right to revoke his access. And he was clearly working to avoid automated monitoring and revocation (which is a stand in for the librarian kicking you out) But prior to them revoking his access, his access was authorized. Like I said, it's a weird thing. If someone comes to your "anyone is invited party" and then starts making an ass of themselves and you ask them to leave, you can't really accuse them of criminal trespass and breaking and entering. But you can sue them in civil court if they damage stuff, and you can call the cops to haul them away if they refuse to leave. The point though of Lessig's note is, I believe, that this was an egregious use of a poorly written law (CFAA) with a variety of legal problems with its application. Had it gone to court the case law it might have established would have been helpful in avoiding future abuses.
- MichaelSalib 13y ago
  This really seems like sophistry to me. Everyone agrees that if Swartz had asked the library staff to help him download the entire JStore archive, they would have clearly said no. The difference between "some jstor articles" and "the entire archive" is huge and significant. His authorization was never a blanket authorization to do whatever he wanted with the JStor access, in part because MIT could not offer that: they could only offer access under terms that JStor set, and those terms banned whole archive scraping.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Er, no. The more honest answer is that we'll never know what would've happened because he didn't ask the librarian--trying to make any stronger a claim is assumption.
  - brudgers 13y ago
    The idea that what is not explicitly prohibited is permitted is a very American attitude toward the laws, rules and regulations. As an illustration, compare the structure of the rules of NFL American Football: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/p... To FIFA's Laws of the Game: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/log2013en_neutral.pdf http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereei...

ChuckMcM 13y ago

That is the sticky bit isn't it? Allowed by (then) MIT policy: Enter library, download "some" jstor articles. There were no explicit limits other than 'we reserve the right to refuse service' sorts of things in their policy. So were he a patient person it would have been ok for him to come in each day, download some, until he had the entire set of all documents, however long that took. An analogy might be ketchup packets at a fast food restaurant. You are allowed to take a 'few' for your meal, but clearly if you poured the whole box of them into your back pack you would be asked to leave, not because you are "stealing" ketchup, but because they choose to refuse you service based on your abuse of their free ketchup. So he clearly abused their good will, and by that abuse they had the right to revoke his access. And he was clearly working to avoid automated monitoring and revocation (which is a stand in for the librarian kicking you out) But prior to them revoking his access, his access was authorized. Like I said, it's a weird thing. If someone comes to your "anyone is invited party" and then starts making an ass of themselves and you ask them to leave, you can't really accuse them of criminal trespass and breaking and entering. But you can sue them in civil court if they damage stuff, and you can call the cops to haul them away if they refuse to leave. The point though of Lessig's note is, I believe, that this was an egregious use of a poorly written law (CFAA) with a variety of legal problems with its application. Had it gone to court the case law it might have established would have been helpful in avoiding future abuses.

MichaelSalib 13y ago
This really seems like sophistry to me. Everyone agrees that if Swartz had asked the library staff to help him download the entire JStore archive, they would have clearly said no. The difference between "some jstor articles" and "the entire archive" is huge and significant. His authorization was never a blanket authorization to do whatever he wanted with the JStor access, in part because MIT could not offer that: they could only offer access under terms that JStor set, and those terms banned whole archive scraping.
- angersock 13y ago
  Er, no. The more honest answer is that we'll never know what would've happened because he didn't ask the librarian--trying to make any stronger a claim is assumption.
- brudgers 13y ago
  The idea that what is not explicitly prohibited is permitted is a very American attitude toward the laws, rules and regulations. As an illustration, compare the structure of the rules of NFL American Football: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/p... To FIFA's Laws of the Game: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/log2013en_neutral.pdf http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereei...