Can Crowdsourcing Complete The Job Aaron Swartz Started In Freeing PACER?
from the would-be-nice dept
We've talked about the importance of carrying on the work that Aaron Swartz began, and the global efforts at hackathons to do just that. However, a few have started working on very specific proposals to try to carry on some of Aaron's work. Specifically, they're trying to build on the effort over which he was first investigated by the feds: his attempts to free up public domain court documents that are locked up behind PACER's paywall.For the uninitiated, despite being public domain, court filings are locked up in an incredibly antiquated electronic document system that the federal courts all use called PACER. Anyone can get access to PACER (though using the system, which has never been an example of modernity, takes some figuring out), but it costs $0.10 per page to download any documents. That's what Aaron was trying to "free."
While his initial effort, making use of a "trial" at certain libraries allowing free access to PACER was shut down, his downloads did become the crux of the RECAP project, a browser plugin built a few years ago by some Princeton students, which would automatically upload any document you accessed via PACER to the Internet Archive where they could be viewed for free going forward.
Unfortunately, RECAP itself more or less stagnated after many of those behind it left Princeton. However, following Aaron's death, there have been a couple of interesting developments, driven in large part by a different Aaron, Aaron Greenspan. First, he set up three grants of $5,000 each to update the RECAP extension. It's currently only available in Firefox, but there are grants for expanding it to Chrome and to IE, while also updating the Firefox browser to cover appeals court documents. This would be huge. I tend to use PACER via Chrome, so I've been unable to contribute much to RECAP lately.
But the second part of the plan, also put in place by Greenspan, is what he's calling Operation Asymptote, to try to get lots of people to help out in freeing PACER documents. He's using the one slight exception to the $0.10 per page rule: PACER does not charge you if your total charges add up to less than $15 per calendar quarter. In other words, you can basically download 150 "pages" during a quarter for free. Now, that's not really 150 pages of court documents, since PACER also charges for searches. And, since some court documents can be pretty long, 150 pages can actually go pretty fast. But Greenspan is suggesting that if we can get a lot of people to sign up for PACER (and RECAP) and download a small amount, keeping under the $15 line, then effectively, a large group of people might free large parts of the public domain material in PACER for free (you need to have a valid credit card to sign up, but if you keep under the $15, then you don't get charged).
This is being done in association with Greenspan's PlainSite, a site which tries to make legal information as public as possible (we've linked to them in the past for their research into Intellectual Ventures' shell companies). Part of the goal is to actually pull together the details of cases worked on by "every US Attorney or Assistant US Attorney" during their career. For example, you could look at cases involving Stephen Heymann or those involving Carmen Ortiz. On the Operation Asymptote page, they even have a link that will automatically point you to cases where they're missing documents, so it's one click easy.
I have no idea if enough people will actually participate to make a difference, but after the slight hassle of signing up for a PACER account (and then a chance to witness just how poorly designed PACER is) anyone can help out for free. It seems like a worthwhile goal.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron greenspan, aaron swartz, crowdsourcing, pacer, recap
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Could you be any more despicable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you ever stop, for even just a second, to think that audience of this site is interested in Aaron Swartz and his beliefs and values? I, for one, am extremely interested in this stuff.
It's almost as if the ideas he expressed scare you. Why would that be the case?
If y'all didn't want some sort of martyr persona brought into these debates, why did you proceed turn him into one in the first place? Apparently, forethought on your side of the fence is bit lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Aaron Greenspan has really milked the death of Aaron Swartz to this day. Aaron Greenspan is making millions of his site and then able to right off it off as a 501c. Aaron had around 20,000 visits a day to his site because he places the names I Google search. Ask him to remove your name from Google search and he will threatens you. He realized those who ask to be removed have something to hide and will draw greater organic traffic. He will also insult you to make thinks worse. Post of the comments in this page are from Aaron Greenspan using fake names. Such as Johnf, which is John Fuenchem also know as Aaron J Greenspan.
https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2018/02/invective-intrigue-within-free-law-movement-recap-ch anges.html
https://free.law/who-is-john-fuenchem/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Firstly, why should legal documents be protected under IP law in the first place?
Secondly, you're posting anonymously, like me, and claiming that you have the moral high-ground. Yeah, no. You have no legs to stand on.
Finally, the opinions of Mike on copyright are that it's flexible, dependent on the market, but rarely is it a societal positive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In my opinion, there's pretty much no reason for litigants filings to be copyrighted. But that doesn't change the fact that they are, which is what's relevant. Want to change the law? Work to change it. But do what Swartz did and take the law into your own hands and shit all over other people's rights.
Secondly, you're posting anonymously, like me, and claiming that you have the moral high-ground. Yeah, no. You have no legs to stand on.
Mike claims that he has no opinion either way on whether or not we should have any copyright. That's obviously bullshit, and he's too scared to put any skin in the game. He just wants to criticize everyone else's beliefs while pretending like he has none of his own other people can criticize. How convenient. My leg to stand on is the obvious fact that as per usual Mike is slimy and dishonest about even his most basic beliefs. The man can dish it out--and boy does he ever--but he can't take it at all. Not in the slightest.
Finally, the opinions of Mike on copyright are that it's flexible, dependent on the market, but rarely is it a societal positive.
He obviously has an opinion about whether we should have any copyright since he's pretty much the most opinionated person in the copyright debate that there is. He has lots of high-level vagueness that only dodges the question by saying he needs more data. Well, the real world is ongoing right now, and he's got tons of data to work with. Be a man and put some skin in the game. We all know he thinks there's pretty much no positives to copyright. No need for him to pretend like he's not anti-copyright. And I'd love to pour over in detail all the reasons why he thinks it's rarely positive, but Mike will run from that discussion just as fast as he does all the others. Not only is he dishonest and willfully blind, he's also extremely slimy. He refuses to discuss his beliefs while he spends his life shitting on everyone else's. That's pretty much all you need to know about Mike to know what kind of a person he is. Insecure and angry at the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so you're trying to argue the moral perspective because it's the law. You can't explain why but because it's the law, anyone who breaks it is lower than scum. Brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm saying that there probably is no need for copyright to attach to court filings drafted by litigants. Even though I see little reason for copyright there, it doesn't follow that I think it's OK for people to scrape the PACER database. Unless and until the law changes, I think we should respect other people's rights. It's wrong to decide unilaterally that someone else's rights don't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm saying that there probably is no need for copyright to attach to court filings drafted by litigants. Even though I see little reason for copyright there, it doesn't follow that I think it's OK for people to scrape the PACER database. Unless and until the law changes, I think we should respect other people's rights. It's wrong to decide unilaterally that someone else's rights don't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Says who? Cite Please!
I don't profess to be a lawyer but guess what, unless the the court puts restrictions on it, almost everything (they do redact some things like SS#) filed with the court is a matter of public record FULL STOP.
"Public records are documents or pieces of information that are not considered confidential."
"With the advent of the Internet and the information age, access to public records in the United States to anyone who wishes to view them has dramatically increased. Third-parties such as the information broker industry make regular use of public records to compile profiles on millions of people that are easily accessible to anyone at the click of a mouse, and sometimes make a profit from the service of recompiling and mining the data."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I user PACER very frequently. Most things there are filed by the lawyers, not the court. Mike is pretending like it's all public domain, even though he knows it's not. He let's all the details that get in the way slide by, of course. It's Mike we're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you had at least a 3rd grade reading comprehension you would know that Mr. Masnick has plenty of opinions about copyright. Hell, most of his blog is dedicated to discussions about Intellectual Property in one way or another.
But don't let your lack of understanding or basic reasoning skills stand in the way of your inane, tiresome mumbling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't possibly expect that he will be able to find the link while he is awake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. Read the comments: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/14473121743/global-hackathons-prepared-to-carry-forward-wo rk-aaron-swartz.shtml
Mike--
When even your dumbest, most loyal fans can't believe that you don't have an opinion on whether you think we should have any copyright, you know that your claim is incredibly idiotic.
We ALL know that you have an opinion on this. You're the most opinionated person in the world. You're also a total fake a total coward, which is why you're too scared to take a position either way. And the dishonesty. Good grief, the dishonesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read the comments after that article. I ask Mike his opinion on whether we should have any copyright at all, and Mike pretends like he has no opinion even though we all know he's the most opinionated person in the world. The blue posts that say "Mike Masnick" are the ones you're looking for. It's not hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is not at all what I said. For those who want to read what I actually said, check it out:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/14473121743/global-hackathons-prepared-to-carry-fo rward-work-aaron-swartz.shtml#c377
I said that I think today's system is clearly broken, but I don't think we have enough data to know what the perfect system is. That is not "having no opinion" on the copyright system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say you had no opinion about "the copyright system." In fact, I've said repeatedly that you're one of the most opinionated people there is on the copyright system. That's why what you're saying is unbelievable. I said you claim to have no opinion as to whether there should be any copyright. I'm not asking about the "perfect system." I'm just asking whether in your opinion there should be any copyright. That's it. You claim to have no opinion on this point, but I think everyone here knows that's not true. You're just sitting on the fence as per usual, refusing to take a position. I get it, it's a lot easier to criticize everyone else's beliefs when they can't criticize yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said I had no opinion on the proper calibration. One option would be zero copyright. Other options would be a little bit of copyright. It would be totally dishonest of me to say that I think we should have no copyright system, when I have no idea if that would do a better job "promoting the progress" than a minimal system.
So I'm still not sure what your argument is. I've stated my opinion loud and clear. You just don't like it because it doesn't agree with the straman Mike you've built up in your head.
You seem to think that "what level of copyright" and "no copyright" are somehow mutually exclusive. That's not true at all. "no copyright" is one possible level of copyright, but I don't think there's nearly enough data to say if that would be the optimal level.
Again. I have answered your question quite clearly and have done so multiple times. If history is any indicator, you will continue to throw a childish tantrum and lie about me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So I'm still not sure what your argument is. I've stated my opinion loud and clear. You just don't like it because it doesn't agree with the straman Mike you've built up in your head.
You seem to think that "what level of copyright" and "no copyright" are somehow mutually exclusive. That's not true at all. "no copyright" is one possible level of copyright, but I don't think there's nearly enough data to say if that would be the optimal level.
Again. I have answered your question quite clearly and have done so multiple times. If history is any indicator, you will continue to throw a childish tantrum and lie about me.
Really? You're just playing word games, making silly points about how "no copyright" is actually a level of copyright. Stop dodging the question. Stop pretending you've given an answer. Yet you haven't at all answered the question. I still don't know whether or not you think there should be any copyright. And by "any copyright," I don't mean "no copyright." I mean that authors will actually have exclusive rights to writings. That's what I mean by "any copyright." So stop with the games.
The question is: In your opinion, should be any copyright? You have not answered that question. Nor will you, because you're too much of a coward to actually voice an affirmative opinion as to whether we should any copyright. Stop squirming. Stop lying. Stop playing word games. Just give a straightforward and honest answer. In your opinion, should there be any copyright? Answer THAT question. Seriously, it's not hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually we may have just found those pirates making tons of money off other peoples copyright the industry has been going on about for years..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It means that the issue couldn't be resolved through normal means.
By having access to this type of data, people can determine trends to find out if new laws need to be explored.
Today, lacking a strong middle class, determining trends, and performing research, it's easier for normal people to lobby for the right kind of legal change.
Culture has changed and regular people can perform the correct research that only the wealthy could perform in the past. It costs 10� per page.
If people and companies are disclosing copyright as part of their legal issues, they shouldn't have copyrighted it in the first place. Likey that disclosure is in another disclosure system called the US Patent and Trademark Office or Library of Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The filings from litigants are original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, ergo, they are copyrighted. The factual content wouldn't be protected, of course, but the expression itself would be. Nothing changes just because it's filed as part of a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should read up on the academic peer review system. I've found the whole system to be troubling.
Historically the whole academic peer review system has been blatantly one-sided, with publishers forcing scholars to give up their copyrights and/or paying to be published while turning around and charging Universities huge amounts for access (at +30% profit margins no less). Being published is a must for scholars to be accredited. The publishers have had the authors by the short hairs for centuries. Perhaps it was more acceptable when you knew your work would be in the public domain in 14 years (or possibly 28), but that isn't the case anymore thanks to Disney, is it?
This article lays out the situation fairly well:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/23/is-the-academic-publishing-industry-on-the-v erge-of-disruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have, as an attorney, dealt in the past with numerous journals and their overreaching terms concerning the submission of articles for possible publication. The IEEE is but one example. However, unlike most who would simply bend over and accept whatever was thrown at them, I took a hard line with the journals by insisting that at best all they would receive is a non-exclusive right to publish articles, and the authors retained the right to do whatever else they wished anent the articles. Of course, it did help that the authors with whom I worked were recognized as luminaries in their respective fields.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ahhh! now, there's the rub, ain't it...
(relatively) privileged, rich, and/or famous nekkid apes can use their high status to avoid the pettifoggery mere nobodies are subject to in a million ways...
...and -as a LAWyer no less!- you are suggesting that *that* system is 'okay', not just that it is what is, but that it is okay as it is ? ? ?
here's my thing: 1. MY (and MOST people's) personal morals -GENERALLY- FAR exceed whatever bullshit 'laws' are on the books; 2. 'The Law' has become *such* a dense, unfair, tangled web that it ONLY SERVES THE INTERESTS of the puppetmasters and their parasitic puppets, er, lawyers; 3. when the results of 'enforcing' The Law is to persecute the aaron swartz's, bradley mannings, kirikaou's, etc, THEN THE LAW IS AN ASS...
...further, any/all parasites, er, lawyers who support such a corrupted system are complicit...
"first thing let's do..."
(nota bene: lawyers USED TO be a final defense we li'l peeps had against a system run by our betters; now they have been almost totally co-opted; the few 'good' lawyers standing against this unjust system of oppression are few and far between...)
based on a true story...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can understand your view of it being problematic. I can even relate to it to some degree. I am not an anarchist whatsoever. But I do also happen do believe that acts of civil disobedience are required now and then to shed light onto unjust situations. I simply cannot shake the feeling that is exactly what Aaron was really trying to do and was prepared for what should have been reasonable consequences for his actions. The over-the-top response from the DOJ couldn't have been anticipated by any reasonable person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find the management of academic papers troubling, as it limits knowledge to those who can pay. This includes researchers in poorer countries who might be able to make use of the information to help solve some of their countries problems, if they could gain access to the knowledge locked up behind paywalls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC - Your wrong
Now the underlying items in dispute may be under copyright, but the legal system requires you free those items for use in your court battle. AKA you must prove your case, and people in the future must be able to use your case to prove there case as well.
As such the system has even said that all documents are public domain, the only reason PACER exists is to put a paywall in front of the documents and to pay for the server's and staff who keep the system running. Even if you downloaded the entire PACER system today, new items will be added as new case law is added by our court system thus a simple subscription model is not a bad deal if you work in the legal field.
Really we should be fighting to demand PACER get with the times and modernize its cost structure to be more sane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC - Your wrong
I agree. Of course before PACER you could go down to the court house and review documents for free, but if you wanted a copy you had to pay for it (basically cover the costs of paper // toner... for the courts copy machine). I believe that is where they came up with the model.
However, with the advent of the internet, that model is really broken and runs counter to the idea of "Public Records". After all if I print something from PACER I am using my ink, paper and electricity.
I think a better model for PACER (at least as far as fairness is concerned) would be to have the courts pay a annual fee for maintenance... and to have the parties pay a processing fee for each document. There really shouldn't be a cost to view the records and if I am printing them that shouldn't cost me either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC - Your wrong
I would like to see the Federal government pick up the tab on this one myself. It's certainly a better way to spend my tax dollars then most of the stupid pork barrel projects the Congress funds now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC - Your wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.dominiopublico.gov.br/pesquisa/PesquisaObraForm.jsp
That's a site that makes available some material in the Public Domain. Some songs, books, videos etc. It may be limited but it's free and funded entirely by the Brazilian Government, no cost to access (and it's probably open to users abroad).
Most Governmental arms make their production available either online or in form of specialized libraries for free (some are scanning the offline works).
Why can't the US Govt do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Read up on what Swartz did. He installed code on a computer in the federal court's library. That script allowed him to scrape the database, just as he did with JSTOR. (Notice the m.o.?) PACER had been trying out a totally-free access program at the libraries, but because of what Swartz did they cancelled the entire program.
So yeah, Swartz ruined PACER for lots of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I recall correctly, attorneys on cases get filings in their cases for free. And attorneys routinely download documents via PACER. Having even just one 1000-attorney law firm join would go a long way in helping RECAP build up its database
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Court Documents need open free access to keep many eyes on the corrupt
The �persecution� that led to the death of Aaron was simply seeing the MIT � JSTOR incident as a perfect storm to carry retaliation for Aaron�s PACER download where now a malicious prosecution could ensure a FELONY conviction; a computer crime conviction would bar Aaron from computers & his open records campaign. Risk management by the CORRUPT!! Open records would show the world the corruption in these courts!!!
Carmen Ortiz! Do your damn job and prosecute real criminals!
["�Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). Justice Louis Brandeis]
http://www.scribd.com/tired_of_corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Court Documents need open free access to keep many eyes on the corrupt
The only criminals in this instant matter are tax supported public servants who believe they are exempt from law! BTW the corrupt legal community & OUR corrupt federal court system make Bernie Madoff look like a piker! Pretense litigation in civil suit & malicious prosecutions pad pockets! Public servants run pretense litigation using computers provided by the tax payer; these show cases rob property & include the identity theft of Circuit & US District Judges. Falsifying dockets with the rendering of fraudulent opinions & judgments with the obstruction of justice to the benefit of rich clients and their �elite� attorneys receive no action by the DOJ or US Congress! These capers carry clear to the SCOTUS!
The �persecution� that led to the death of Aaron was simply seeing the MIT � JSTOR incident as a perfect storm to carry retaliation for Aaron�s PACER download where now a malicious prosecution could ensure a FELONY conviction; a computer crime conviction would bar Aaron from computers & his open records campaign. Risk management by the CORRUPT!! Open records would show the world the corruption in these courts!!!
Carmen Ortiz! Do your damn job and prosecute real criminals!
["�Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). Justice Louis Brandeis]
http://www.scribd.com/tired_of_corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems like some systems could be dedicated to indexing the documents (since they charge for search) and some systems could be dedicated to downloading the documents. You'd need to coordinate so that multiple systems don't download the same data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anybody get the source code for Subdownloader and make it work for legal documents of any country?
The program does the following:
- It searches for subtitles by language.
- Automatically recognize subtitles(uses finger printing to do so).
- Uploads subtitles to a central repository(i.e. OpenSubtitles.
Now can an app do the same for legal documents?
- Automatically fingerprints every document it comes accross.
- Scan selected folders trying to find legal documents.
- Transform documents to XML so they all can have the same fingerprint and being a simple TXT will last forever.
- Classify and tag documents, folders or zip files containing all documents related to a case number.
- Upload everything to some place.
Is there a "Schema for legal documents?
If no there should be.
Imagine you having access to the legal system not only of the US but of the entire world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See if this SCOTUS decision helps you guys make peace
...American decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right on a proprietary interest in the document or upon a need for it as evidence in a lawsuit. The interest necessary to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E. 535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L. 332, 336-339 (1879), and in a newspaper publisher's intention to publish information concerning the operation of government, see, e.g., State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis.2d 672, 677, 137 N.W.2d 470, 472 (1965), modified on other grounds, 28 Wis.2d 685a, 139 N.W.2d 241 (1966)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I honestly don't understand why you folks look up to him so much. He can't even answer honestly a simple question about his own beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The above applies with equal force to patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The above applies with equal force to patents.
"Show me the data" = too scared to just give an answer. Mike purports to pour over the data. I think he turns a willfully blind eye to everything that doesn't comport with his foregone conclusion, but he pretends like he's into the data. I'm just asking him to get off the fence and pick a side. Yes or no. No bullshit. No pretending like he's not leaning in some direction. Just answer the question. Yes, some copyright, or No, no copyright. This isn't hard. "Show me the data" is just an excuse. What is his opinion right now given what he knows. That's what I'm asking. Just pick a side of the fence. We all know that he's EXTREMELY OPINIONATED. To pretend like he's not sure is completely disingenuous. It's so frustrating talking to him because he REFUSES to ever just have a direct and honest discussion. WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't say you need more data. I'm asking you to state an opinion given the data you have already seen. Just answer the question. Don't be a coward. Give us an answer, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all know it's because you're a fake and a coward, and you're too scared to just admit that you believe what we ALL ALREADY KNOW you belief. Just so you know, I'm going to hound you day after day with this. You reap what you sow, buddy. I'm going to keep reminding everyone that you're a fake and a coward who criticizes everyone else's beliefs while lying about his own. Wanna make me go away? Man up and actually discuss these things directly and on the merits. I know, I know. It'll never happen. You're too scared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RECAP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron Greenspan
Aaron Greenspan had really milked the death of Aaron Swartz to this day. Aaron Greenspan is making millions of his site and then able to right off it off as a 501c. Aaron had around 20,000 visits a day to his site because he places the names I Google search. Ask him to remove your name from Google search and he will threatens you. He realized those who ask to be removed have something to hide and will draw greater organic traffic. He will also insult you to make thinks worse. Post of the comments in this page are from Aaron Greenspan using fake names. Such as Johnf, which is John Fuenchem also know as Aaron J Greenspan.
https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2018/02/invective-intrigue-within-free-law-movement-recap-changes.html
https://free.law/who-is-john-fuenchem/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]