You seem rather knowledgeable, and I have had a question about this hovering in the back of my mind. Why would someone not just take apart their competitors widget and figure it out for themselves without patent law?
I'm familiar with the idea you put out, but I have never really been educated as to how it would work, or if there is even perhaps an example of it working in the past.
"You're a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity."
I mean, seriously, what is your point? That people shouldn't talk? What, do you think people didn't talk a good bit before they took up arms against England? Are you aware that journalism not entirely unlike what is done here at Techdirt was fundamental to ginning up support for independence?
Anyhow, I'm going to keep posting here, so ... have fun with whatever psychotic little head game you're playing. At least you're presence ups the traffic on the site.
Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
Well, to me this is just the sort of self serving, mealy, "let's all be calm and rational about this" mentality that is tearing this nation apart.
What Aaron did was unambiguously right, and one of the problems I have with the typical "lifelong democrats" I know of is they are oh so very assiduous about the care and feeding of various social, nigh libertarian causes when it comes to tearing apart the fabric of our culture, and then pass right on by things like banking reform, IP reform, and limited liability reform. Or worse, Thom Hartmann-like, they address these issues, but only in partisan terms.
What Aaron did was take on the topic head on. IP, at least as it is being done now, and very possibly from its very inception, is the thing that is "unambiguously wrong" here. Aaron being "too big for his briches" as you call it, is your take. It's your opinion. And it's a pretty foul opinion to be hearing just a day or two after he hanged himself dead.
To reiterate, he did nothing illegal, and in my view what he did that people like you try to pass off as "unambiguously wrong" was about as wrong as Rosa Parks sitting on the bus. That is to say, not at all wrong, and in a very real sense recklessly and bravely right.
His mistake is taking the hate the world pours out on people who stand up for what is right too much to heart. He did not yet realize the scope of the evil he was dealing with.
In short, I don't think he counted on so many people being like you.
Faced with a situation where the government harasses someone until they die, you shrug, sigh, and say, "well, it's a sad story, but he had it coming on some level."
Ok, buy I do blame her, and the Feds, and I am pretty sure blame is the word I mean to use.
The knew they were doing something wrong, and should have known there was a reasonable risk of causing him to behave in a self destructive way, seeing as harassing him was more or less the entire point of the exercise.
That, to me, is more than blame-worthy. Again, the issue is negligence. You can't just put a paper bag over your head, walk into a nursery, and start wildly swinging your baseball bat, and then get all mystified when someone "blames" you for hurting the baby.
They've been systematically upping it as more and more people use it. The petition for Swartz was already underway, and has already met its threshold, which was 25k.
He didn't understand how bad the reaction would be because he knew exactly what rules he WAS breaking. The Terms of Service. Which, for the thousandth time, is not a Federal offense.
All the charges against him are bogus. They involve unauthorized access, when he clearly had authorization both through his position at Harvard and by virtue of being in the open MIT computer lab.
The things he knows he did that the system would call wrong were things that have nothing to do with the charges. He was shocked at the response because it was an illegitimate and wildly disproportional response!
There is no excuse for what the government did here. They trumped up bogus charges trying to make an effective prank-level violation of a generic terms of service agreement into something akin to using your computer to steal money or goods.
They lied. He's dead now, little doubt in no small part because of their harassment.
Now is not the time to wag the head and tsk at Aaron. It's time to take action against the people harassing him.
Have you posted this like three times in three different threads? I find it hard to believe that many different people know about this article.
It conflates "authorization" with technical alterations to avoid getting his connection cut during downloads. He had full authorization to download.
Everyone and their dog admits he violated JSTOR's terms of service. That's not a Federal crime, I don't care how many shills you line up to imply he did.
I am disappointed in Kerr though. He is not normally someone who supports this kind of nonsense.
Because the information is being spun to make it look legitimate, is the real answer to your question. I imagine there ARE a handful of people marching somewhere, being ignored as usual by your government and your media.
Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
How 'bout what Ronald McDonald said? That's why we have trials. But this guy, who is admittedly normally pretty pro reform, is conflating "authorization" with access. What Aaron did was fiddle around with his (and MIT's) computer settings in order to get around the Terms of Service, NOT access the files without authorization.
That's where Kerr goes wrong, and I could care less whether he's a lawyer or a hamburger flipper. You don't prosecute people for violating a terms of service agreement. You let the people providing the service decide if they want to cut off their services.
JSTOR was quite clear that they did not want to do that.
So the Feds trumped up a load of bogus charges, and you're complicity here is shameful. Rather than making excuses for their evil, you should be demanding redress. Why are you not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
This has really gone on long enough.
What he was charged with were wire fraud, computer fraud, and something else related to such. Trespassing or anything like it is highly unlikely to be a Federal jurisdiction.
Just quite trying to make excuses for it, ok? He violated a terms of service agreement and the Feds trumped up some charges because they did not like his political activism.
Look, I'm no lawyer, so forgive me if I speak out of turn, but I do have three in my relatively close family and NONE of them think squaring off with the Feds is a cake walk, innocent or not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Red Meat for the True Believers
I never said global. In fact, I mean specifically private, and competitive. Like any endeavor, government would be involved, but only to the extent it is involved at whatever level the clearing houses are situated. Local government for local clearing house trades, and so on up the ladder.
What rubs me the wrong way about IP is what rubs me the wrong way about interest. Someone, somewhere, is getting paid NOT to work, and the person paying them is having to sacrifice something real for something that is not real.
In lending, the thing that is not real is the medium of sale. That is, you are "buying" the right to buy, which you already had as it turns out. In IP, you are buying the right to copy.
IP is worse because at least when you buy money, there is some convenience in having this generic intermediate trade good. But being required to buy a copy of something I could more easily and cheaply copy myself is rather infuriating.
There's something in the air. I don't know if it's a legitimate revolution or the imminent demise of civilization as we know it, but there's definitely something in the air.
I think they are going to get away with it anyhow, and that's why it is infuriating to me that people are trying to paint this as if it were a tragic but unavoidable death.
It was gross abuse and something akin to negligent homicide, is what it really was. Yet many seem to feel honor bound to defend the indefensible.
You're not going to tend to hear anything about such things because they tend to be what is colloquially referred to as "none of your business".
=)
I mean, I get your concern, but... it's no one's business. The prosecutor, on the other hand, should have been aware and, in any event, was harassing an innocent man, so to my mind is guilty of misconduct. The (other) authorities need to look into her behavior and treat her overreach with the seriousness it deserves.
Because a politician asserting out of the clear blue sky that the US IP system is the envy of the world is the very soul of a well researched and statistically valid statement of fact, I suppose?
On the post: Is The US IP System Really 'The Envy Of The World'?
Re: Re:
You seem rather knowledgeable, and I have had a question about this hovering in the back of my mind. Why would someone not just take apart their competitors widget and figure it out for themselves without patent law?
I'm familiar with the idea you put out, but I have never really been educated as to how it would work, or if there is even perhaps an example of it working in the past.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You're a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity."
I mean, seriously, what is your point? That people shouldn't talk? What, do you think people didn't talk a good bit before they took up arms against England? Are you aware that journalism not entirely unlike what is done here at Techdirt was fundamental to ginning up support for independence?
Anyhow, I'm going to keep posting here, so ... have fun with whatever psychotic little head game you're playing. At least you're presence ups the traffic on the site.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
What Aaron did was unambiguously right, and one of the problems I have with the typical "lifelong democrats" I know of is they are oh so very assiduous about the care and feeding of various social, nigh libertarian causes when it comes to tearing apart the fabric of our culture, and then pass right on by things like banking reform, IP reform, and limited liability reform. Or worse, Thom Hartmann-like, they address these issues, but only in partisan terms.
What Aaron did was take on the topic head on. IP, at least as it is being done now, and very possibly from its very inception, is the thing that is "unambiguously wrong" here. Aaron being "too big for his briches" as you call it, is your take. It's your opinion. And it's a pretty foul opinion to be hearing just a day or two after he hanged himself dead.
To reiterate, he did nothing illegal, and in my view what he did that people like you try to pass off as "unambiguously wrong" was about as wrong as Rosa Parks sitting on the bus. That is to say, not at all wrong, and in a very real sense recklessly and bravely right.
His mistake is taking the hate the world pours out on people who stand up for what is right too much to heart. He did not yet realize the scope of the evil he was dealing with.
In short, I don't think he counted on so many people being like you.
Faced with a situation where the government harasses someone until they die, you shrug, sigh, and say, "well, it's a sad story, but he had it coming on some level."
No sir. No, he did not.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger
Ok, buy I do blame her, and the Feds, and I am pretty sure blame is the word I mean to use.
The knew they were doing something wrong, and should have known there was a reasonable risk of causing him to behave in a self destructive way, seeing as harassing him was more or less the entire point of the exercise.
That, to me, is more than blame-worthy. Again, the issue is negligence. You can't just put a paper bag over your head, walk into a nursery, and start wildly swinging your baseball bat, and then get all mystified when someone "blames" you for hurting the baby.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
It's fine
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-orti z-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?
All the charges against him are bogus. They involve unauthorized access, when he clearly had authorization both through his position at Harvard and by virtue of being in the open MIT computer lab.
The things he knows he did that the system would call wrong were things that have nothing to do with the charges. He was shocked at the response because it was an illegitimate and wildly disproportional response!
There is no excuse for what the government did here. They trumped up bogus charges trying to make an effective prank-level violation of a generic terms of service agreement into something akin to using your computer to steal money or goods.
They lied. He's dead now, little doubt in no small part because of their harassment.
Now is not the time to wag the head and tsk at Aaron. It's time to take action against the people harassing him.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?
It conflates "authorization" with technical alterations to avoid getting his connection cut during downloads. He had full authorization to download.
Everyone and their dog admits he violated JSTOR's terms of service. That's not a Federal crime, I don't care how many shills you line up to imply he did.
I am disappointed in Kerr though. He is not normally someone who supports this kind of nonsense.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re:
And by most of you.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
That's where Kerr goes wrong, and I could care less whether he's a lawyer or a hamburger flipper. You don't prosecute people for violating a terms of service agreement. You let the people providing the service decide if they want to cut off their services.
JSTOR was quite clear that they did not want to do that.
So the Feds trumped up a load of bogus charges, and you're complicity here is shameful. Rather than making excuses for their evil, you should be demanding redress. Why are you not?
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
If there were a Federal crime to be had it would not matter to me if MIT wanted to press charges or not. But there wasn't.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
Note the complete lack of a "trespassing" charge.
These laws were meant to deal with people using computers to steal, not to download stuff that's already free.
He used his technical saavy to download things faster than the ToS allowed. These charges are bogus.
Theeeeee end.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
What he was charged with were wire fraud, computer fraud, and something else related to such. Trespassing or anything like it is highly unlikely to be a Federal jurisdiction.
Just quite trying to make excuses for it, ok? He violated a terms of service agreement and the Feds trumped up some charges because they did not like his political activism.
There IS no Federal law against what he did.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Defense Attorney
Look, I'm no lawyer, so forgive me if I speak out of turn, but I do have three in my relatively close family and NONE of them think squaring off with the Feds is a cake walk, innocent or not.
You don't sound credible to me.
On the post: Is The US IP System Really 'The Envy Of The World'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Red Meat for the True Believers
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
IP
In lending, the thing that is not real is the medium of sale. That is, you are "buying" the right to buy, which you already had as it turns out. In IP, you are buying the right to copy.
IP is worse because at least when you buy money, there is some convenience in having this generic intermediate trade good. But being required to buy a copy of something I could more easily and cheaply copy myself is rather infuriating.
On the post: Former Chief Judge Of Patent Court: We Need To Strengthen, Not Weaken, The Patent System Because [Reasons]
You Make Me Smile
There's something in the air. I don't know if it's a legitimate revolution or the imminent demise of civilization as we know it, but there's definitely something in the air.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger
I think they are going to get away with it anyhow, and that's why it is infuriating to me that people are trying to paint this as if it were a tragic but unavoidable death.
It was gross abuse and something akin to negligent homicide, is what it really was. Yet many seem to feel honor bound to defend the indefensible.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: It's called a trigger
=)
I mean, I get your concern, but... it's no one's business. The prosecutor, on the other hand, should have been aware and, in any event, was harassing an innocent man, so to my mind is guilty of misconduct. The (other) authorities need to look into her behavior and treat her overreach with the seriousness it deserves.
On the post: Is The US IP System Really 'The Envy Of The World'?
Blergh
Next >>