All of this in order to squelch peer to peer technology that's what? a decade and a half old now? So that Microsoft and other big money players can bring you "the cloud".
A.k.a. overpriced hosting because peer to peer file sharing works too well and they can't make a metric tone of cash off of it.
This first point about him committing wire fraud has been addressed a jillion times. He violated a terms of service agreement. That's not a federal crime. This also covers the "unauthorized access" charge. I question why in the name of all that's decent we treat computer fraud and wire fraud as two different things. Possibly to circumvent laws against double jeopardy? It's insipid.
Part of the "unauthorized access" discussion seems to be that the gentleman writing the article doesn't seem to know the difference between stealing someone's password and changing your own IP address in terms of whether you gained "unauthorized access". Passwords designate authority. IP addresses do not.
All of this to say, Aaron had authorized access by dint of being on the MIT network. He attempted to violate the terms of service. This is not a crime. Period. End of story. Stop lying.
The guy has been dealing with this law for years. I get that he seems to you to gain some credibility because of that, but any lawyer has a vested interest in making the law and its mechanisms seem reasonable. The man is attempting to blur the line between malignant attempts at theft or damage and violating a terms of service agreement.
The typical punishment for violating a terms of service agreement is to not be allowed to use the service, and neither MIT nor JSTOR seemed interested in bothering with it.
Your government, on the other hand, wanted blood. This, in no small part, is the fault of you and people like you who stubbornly defend the indefensible. They get away with murder because no one stands up to them like men and says, "no farther."
I think this is why he should have stuck it out. We will never know, I guess, why he suddenly caved under the pressure here, but the fact is for him personally the felony conviction would likely have been more of a red badge of courage than a ball and chain. Four months in prison could have garnered him nearly as much attention as he is getting now, and left him alive to fight another day.
I want to reiterate for those of you who are young and idealistic - find a way to live on and fight another day. It is very clear that our current regime is evil. It does not necessarily follow that there is no hope. Please hang in there.
The only real harm Aaron ever did was to himself and the ones he cared about. You don't win by destroying yourself and breaking the hearts of your family, your friends, and your allies
I don't mean this as a judgement against Aaron. I mean it as a hopeful call to others to resist the temptation to capitulate.
I'm getting rather tired of the apologists for the government, and even many if not most of the apologists for Aaron himself, just sort of ceding this point that he did anything wrong at all. All he did was automate a repetitive task - something JSTOR should do for the user anyway but had yet to implement.
He was not misguided. He was simply smart. Knowing how easy it would be to do things the right way, he went ahead and did it the right way.
I'm really sick and tired of hearing how doing things right is wrong.
That really is the crux of the matter. The problem is that our current financial system limits the total amount of currency there is, produces constant inflation, and has a central control over where the new money comes from. That source is the banking industry.
If you can get a bank to finance you, you get fresh new money - a chance to get ahead of the curve, to carve out market share in a way private investment simply cannot do for you. What do banks want? They want sure things.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of the money put up for any given movie is independent investment money, and how much of it is borrowed from a bank.
If by "any sort of profit" you mean get rich, then your comment holds some water.
Artists have always had to work under the patronage of others. Broadly speaking, you don't eat, wear, or live in art. The richer your patron, the more you can make. And guess what sort of art rich patrons are interested in.
All of this comes to light under the pall of the already well discussed issues with Aaron Swartz. This is further proof that the industries constantly supporting draconian copyright are themselves shot through with greed and corruption.
Whoever has to be made destitute, whoever's reputation has to be destroyed - nothing is too over-the-top for these filthy, greedy pigs. And the artists just keep swarming to them - supporting their causes and participating in their mammoth flesh-eathing machine.
No pity. I have no sympathy for artists so long as they continue to support this sort of filthiness.
I wonder how hard it would be for Masnick or some others to put up a page collecting instances of government bullying in defense of outdated IP laws and the industries who survive off of them?
Again I ask, what exactly is it you think no one is doing? I participated in campaigns set up by Demand Progress.... Does that count? Or is that just talking as well? Because he seemed to want people to "just talk" if that's what you mean.
Or are you just trying to stir up enough outrage to get someone to say something crazy so you can use it against the movement to destroy your self serving business model?
I thought the six months offer was on Lessick's blog, but I don't find it there now. I did read it somewhere else last night, but all I can find tonight is this.
This, not incidentally, is why the legacy business model is necessary to them. Their credit is based on guaranteed profits through the use of government power to squelch competition and ensure copyright holders (and patent holders, though patent is not involved in this case) make profits.
Banks love to lend money at interest to sure things. They are not quite as keen to lend to innovate.
This, in turn, is why innovation is far more expensive than it truly needs to be. Large corporations spend the money specifically for their own profit. Banks lend the bulk of this money. More and more dollars then chase after a very limited pool of innovators, thus swelling the cost, thus increasing the need for corporations to tighten IP further in order to ensure profits in order to pay off their loans.
It's similar in its own way to the housing bubble. We already had one tech related bubble. We could easily have more.
We do not have a free market. That, ultimately, is the problem. Those in control of it are not keen on letting it go.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Could Have Killed Someone, Robbed A Bank & Sold Child Porn & Faced Less Time In Prison
Re: Re: Re:
We can all be forgiven, I hope, for being more fond of lawyers who use their expertise for the good than those who make excuses for evil.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Could Have Killed Someone, Robbed A Bank & Sold Child Porn & Faced Less Time In Prison
Preaching to the Choir
A.k.a. overpriced hosting because peer to peer file sharing works too well and they can't make a metric tone of cash off of it.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Could Have Killed Someone, Robbed A Bank & Sold Child Porn & Faced Less Time In Prison
Terms of Service
Part of the "unauthorized access" discussion seems to be that the gentleman writing the article doesn't seem to know the difference between stealing someone's password and changing your own IP address in terms of whether you gained "unauthorized access". Passwords designate authority. IP addresses do not.
All of this to say, Aaron had authorized access by dint of being on the MIT network. He attempted to violate the terms of service. This is not a crime. Period. End of story. Stop lying.
The guy has been dealing with this law for years. I get that he seems to you to gain some credibility because of that, but any lawyer has a vested interest in making the law and its mechanisms seem reasonable. The man is attempting to blur the line between malignant attempts at theft or damage and violating a terms of service agreement.
The typical punishment for violating a terms of service agreement is to not be allowed to use the service, and neither MIT nor JSTOR seemed interested in bothering with it.
Your government, on the other hand, wanted blood. This, in no small part, is the fault of you and people like you who stubbornly defend the indefensible. They get away with murder because no one stands up to them like men and says, "no farther."
On the post: Aaron Swartz Could Have Killed Someone, Robbed A Bank & Sold Child Porn & Faced Less Time In Prison
Re: cruel and unusual punishment
I want to reiterate for those of you who are young and idealistic - find a way to live on and fight another day. It is very clear that our current regime is evil. It does not necessarily follow that there is no hope. Please hang in there.
The only real harm Aaron ever did was to himself and the ones he cared about. You don't win by destroying yourself and breaking the hearts of your family, your friends, and your allies
I don't mean this as a judgement against Aaron. I mean it as a hopeful call to others to resist the temptation to capitulate.
On the post: 'Under American Law, Anyone Interesting Is A Felon' - Tim Wu On The Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: F.T.S.
"No man ever won a war by dying for his country. Wars were won by making the other poor bastard die for his."
Fight. But fight smart. The one aspect of this that bothers me is that many of our most energetic young minds and hearts burn out far, far too soon.
On the post: 'Under American Law, Anyone Interesting Is A Felon' - Tim Wu On The Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: F.T.S.
"No man ever won a war by dying for his country. Wars were won by making the other poor bastard die for his."
Fight. But fight smart. The one aspect of this that bothers me is that many of our most energetic young minds and hearts burn out far, far too soon.
On the post: 'Under American Law, Anyone Interesting Is A Felon' - Tim Wu On The Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: F.T.S.
On the post: 'Under American Law, Anyone Interesting Is A Felon' - Tim Wu On The Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz
"Misguided"?
He was not misguided. He was simply smart. Knowing how easy it would be to do things the right way, he went ahead and did it the right way.
I'm really sick and tired of hearing how doing things right is wrong.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Investors In 29 Paramount Films That Earned $7 Billion Dollars Get No Return
Re: Re: Re: Re: Under the Pall
If you can get a bank to finance you, you get fresh new money - a chance to get ahead of the curve, to carve out market share in a way private investment simply cannot do for you. What do banks want? They want sure things.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/wall-street-love-affair-movies-375945
How do you get sure things? It's not technically possible, but it is very helpful if you make competition illegal.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Investors In 29 Paramount Films That Earned $7 Billion Dollars Get No Return
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Under the Pall
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Investors In 29 Paramount Films That Earned $7 Billion Dollars Get No Return
Re: Re: Under the Pall
Artists have always had to work under the patronage of others. Broadly speaking, you don't eat, wear, or live in art. The richer your patron, the more you can make. And guess what sort of art rich patrons are interested in.
Ever heard of a Triumphal Arch?
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Investors In 29 Paramount Films That Earned $7 Billion Dollars Get No Return
Re: Why isn't this fraud?
On the post: How The FBI's Desire To Wiretap Every New Technology Makes Us Less Safe
I like Jeremy Lyman
On the post: How The FBI's Desire To Wiretap Every New Technology Makes Us Less Safe
Hehe
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Investors In 29 Paramount Films That Earned $7 Billion Dollars Get No Return
Under the Pall
Whoever has to be made destitute, whoever's reputation has to be destroyed - nothing is too over-the-top for these filthy, greedy pigs. And the artists just keep swarming to them - supporting their causes and participating in their mammoth flesh-eathing machine.
No pity. I have no sympathy for artists so long as they continue to support this sort of filthiness.
On the post: DOJ Responds To Megaupload's Accusations Of Misleading The Court... By Misleading The Court
Organize the Data
The US DOJ is on a roll this week for sure.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Re: Re: Remember Customer Service
"And" rather than "or".
It's not a difficult concept.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rage
Or are you just trying to stir up enough outrage to get someone to say something crazy so you can use it against the movement to destroy your self serving business model?
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Six Months
http://betabeat.com/2013/01/tom-dolan-defends-carmen-ortiz-aaron-swartz-twitter/
Neverth eless, it apparently was on the table at some point. Not that it much lessens the wrongdoing to me.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Re: Why a felon
Banks love to lend money at interest to sure things. They are not quite as keen to lend to innovate.
This, in turn, is why innovation is far more expensive than it truly needs to be. Large corporations spend the money specifically for their own profit. Banks lend the bulk of this money. More and more dollars then chase after a very limited pool of innovators, thus swelling the cost, thus increasing the need for corporations to tighten IP further in order to ensure profits in order to pay off their loans.
It's similar in its own way to the housing bubble. We already had one tech related bubble. We could easily have more.
We do not have a free market. That, ultimately, is the problem. Those in control of it are not keen on letting it go.
Next >>