doctorow — 2014-05-01T15:00:19-04:00 — #1
ct7ncla — 2014-05-01T15:34:07-04:00 — #2
"Intellectual heft?" Ah, it seems like a hyped up drama designed to manipulate our emotions. The music keeps building and I'm kind of surprised there wasn't a car chase in the trailer.
It's pretty obvious that the movie will be filled with plenty of rationalizations designed to make it seem like he did nothing really bad. But any one worthy of the term "intellectual heft" would have to admit that the downloading was quite illegal and that Aaron was well-aware that he was up to something very wrong. Otherwise, why would he wear a mask? And it's pretty clear that he was simply going to distribute these files on something like PirateBay and chuckle about liberating them.
The sad fact is that there are many better ways to "liberate" the information. He could volunteer to edit and layout the papers for the professors. After all, that's where all of the subscription fees go. That's why there's a copyright barrier. He could have created a simpler system so professors could have posted the papers themselves.
Many talented people worked very hard on cleaning up the papers and editing them. Why shouldn't they be entitled to earn a living from their work? Why shouldn't the world reward the editors and layout artists?
captfuzzbucket — 2014-05-01T16:54:59-04:00 — #5
He could have volunteered at a soup kitchen. But he didn't. Aaron chose to be an agitator. And he was impatient with the political process. And he drastically underestimated the entrenched powers. You see, the currently powerful are very much under threat. Have you been paying attention lately? And when the powerful are threatened they don't simply go to court. They use their power to destroy you. Aaron was not prepared for this. Compare him to Ed Snowden. Ed knew what kind of fight he was getting into. Aaron had no idea. And it crushed him. One aspect that most people don't understand about being indicted by the Federal Government is that you are advised TO SPEAK TO NO ONE about your case. Aaron wasn't married. He couldn't speak to his girlfriend about it. She had no protection. No immunity. For those that wish to undermine and dismiss Aaron, I would ask if you have ever been subject to criminal investigation? Have you ever seen a document with the header: "YOUR NAME vs THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" ? It is a profound moment, my friends. Trust me.
tachin1 — 2014-05-01T18:20:44-04:00 — #7
By nothing really bad, what do you mean? (I'm sorry, I won't do the work for you and create associations based on ambiguous claims creating FUD)
But you also said:
So do you have a problem with "liberating" the documents or not? Or if you (and only you) believe that the ultimate goal was "Teh lulz", and as you seem to suggest, this was a bad thing for society as you clearly suggest, then why suggest alternatives?
(Bad for society in that it you paint it as part of an illegal act with no social redeeming aspects to it)
This argument goes a long way to ignore the core of the case. By suggesting that there were alternatives to breaking the law you are trying to force us to accept the form of your argument.
That is, if I engage your alternative scenario I'm tacitly acknowledging that Swartz broke the law and that he deserved punishment for it (Two very different things I may add)
Look,this is not meant as offense, rather as a description, but this comes off as astroturfing.
ct7ncla — 2014-05-01T18:35:46-04:00 — #8
Actually, you come off as astroturfing for PirateBay and the multi-billion dollar pro-piracy industry.
But let's step beyond that. I do have a problem with liberating those documents. He didn't work to create them and he didn't edit them and he didn't put in the work to make them easier for other scientists to use. It wasn't his decision to make. The scientists who did the work made the decision long ago that they would go with a traditional publisher and that was the end of it.
And who cares if you imagine that there are socially redeeming aspects to the crime. There are socially redeeming aspects to most crimes. Drug dealers, after all, bring home an income to feed their family even while leaving their customers addicted.
The important thing to remember is that the documents weren't being liberated. Everyone on earth already had access to them. Everyone on earth could read them. Oh wait. That's not what the rhetoric says. We're supposed to believe that they were held secret this was a liberation. Balderdash. They weren't secret. Anyone could read them-- if they paid the subscription fees or joined an institution that did. While many people balk at paying the fees after comparing them to the price of a mass-market paperback, the fees are quite reasonable. This is how we pay for the extra preparation costs of our scientific material. If the reader doesn't pay, the writer will need to and that has other hassles.
The entire movie comes off as an elaborate astro-turfing game by the companies that have a political interest in keeping the five-finger discount operating on the Internet. You can see their fingerprints on the donors' lists of the major anti-fair-use organizations, the ones that want total information anarchy.
imaguid — 2014-05-01T21:07:24-04:00 — #9
not it wasn't. his relationship with MIT gave him legitimate access to those journals. the volume of data he downloaded violated JSTOR's terms of service. violating terms of service is not a criminal offense. at worst it's a civil offense, and one that JSTOR chose not to pursue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz
when exactly did he do that? not while he was entering the wiring closet doing what you think was "quite illegal". check the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSC0iC3cj2U
and how exactly is that clear? is that what he did with the trove of PACER documents he liberated previously? no, they were given to carl malamud to publish, not dumped on the pirate bay while he chuckled and twirled his mustache. http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2011/02/03/pacer-recap-and-the-movement-to-free-american-case-law/
"copyright" is a red herring in this context, JSTOR doesn't hold the copyright for any of the material they make available http://about.jstor.org/10things
not to put too fine a point on it, but you seem to be rather misinformed.
jardine — 2014-05-02T00:30:30-04:00 — #10
Ah yes, The Pirate Bay. Well known for paying a vast army of people to advocate for them while those poor, defenseless copyright maximalists only have a proper grassroots movement made up of citizens who demand that research paid for by taxpayer money be locked up so no one can get at it without paying JSTOR.
Do you come from the Mirror Universe?
ct7ncla — 2014-05-02T07:25:53-04:00 — #11
You're one twisted fool. JSTOR may not have technically owned the copyright for the papers, but it had the right to distribute them and the obligation to protect the copyright. Furthermore it owned any copyright on the design work and layout. Don't fool yourself. The professors traded control for the services of the journals. If the journals didn't make money by charging the readers, then the professors would have to do plenty of extra work themselves.
And what's your point about Malamud again? This kind of behavior is proof that he's a serial criminal, taking work that doesn't belong to him because he's hopped up on some weirdo belief that he knows what's right for the world and he alone can ignore any laws.
As for the mask, you can read the indictment or maybe just the press coverage.
And you're a fool if you believe that violating the terms of service can't be a criminal offense. Once you violate them, you're on your own. Copyright infringement is both a criminal and civil matter. Just because blowhard dreamers like you keep repeating foolish ideas on the intertube echo chambers doesn't make it so. If the cops treated infringement the way they treat the theft of non-artists, there would be plenty of criminal prosecution. It's all part of the anti-artist attitude that dominates America because it serves the corporate interests of the Internet billionaires who can't make their billions if they have to share them with the artists.
ct7ncla — 2014-05-02T07:30:51-04:00 — #12
Hey bud. The professors are the ones to give control to the publishers. The professors could have edited the papers themselves. They could have hired artists and layout professionals. But they chose to work with traditional publishers instead. The professors are the ones who chose a "reader pays" model.
If the granting agencies wanted to insist on free publication, they could have done that. But they didn't, no doubt because the "reader pays" model has many advantages. Relatively poorer scientists who write great papers, for instance, can publish them in good journals and reach an audience without paying for all of the editing and layout themselves. So you can continue to hate on the reader-pays model, but you should realize that you're hurting many relatively poor scientists and condemning them to being ignored.
tachin1 — 2014-05-02T11:31:37-04:00 — #13
Now you're just trolling.
Yes, I get it, you believe Swartz was in the wrong, you're entitled to that opinion, but the reasons you give are counter to the facts that are publicly known about the case and whats more you are presenting your opinion as fact, nobody can reason with you that way, you've shielded yourself from discourse.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
So I'll go ahead and dismiss your unproven arguments as untrue, do you a kindness, and take them instead as your opinion.
Be relieved, your original point, that the trailer looks dishonest and manipulative came across just fine, (a perfectly defensible statement), you just went too far in trying to prove Swartz was a criminal when the federal government hadn't yet done so (Instead of saying that that was your opinion, which would be valid) and also attempted some character assassination with some pretty imaginative opinions about his motivations and goals (which makes me think you don't have good reasons to believe as you say you do and at the very least, that you don't have good reason to believe what you say).
imaguid — 2014-05-02T12:09:54-04:00 — #14
starting with an ad hominem? nice
are you trying to build a strawman out of copyright? copyright infringement was not part of the charges brought against aaron swartz.
JSTOR isn't the publisher. JSTOR negotiated licenses with publishers in order to make academic materials available to people in academia (including aaron swartz). JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization who are only looking to cover their own costs, and their agreements with academic institutions are what covers that. aaron swartz' relationship with MIT (one of the academic institutions JSTOR has an arrangement with) gave him authorized access to JSTOR's materials. he was allowed to download copies. it was downloading them in bulk that JSTOR considered a problem.
taking work that doesn't belong to him? no charges were brought against him for the PACER document liberation precisely because the PACER documents belonged to the public, of which he was a member. the FBI investigated and no charges were laid because no laws were broken.
that "alleges" that he used his bicycle helmet as a mask as he entered and stepped out of the wiring closet. since he was traveling to and from the location on bicycle, it's not unreasonable to suggest that rather than using it as a mask he may have been in the process of removing it on his way in and putting it back on his head on the way out in anticipation of riding away on his bicycle.
walking around with a bicycle mask over one's face is going to draw a lot more attention than one would want if one were up to no good. are you suggesting that he wouldn't realize this and belongs in the same camp as those idiotic criminals who obscure their faces with buckets or duct tape?
frankly, if he really knew, as you suggest, that what he was doing was "quite illegal", he could have protected his identity much better by simply paying someone else to do it for him. he certainly could have afforded it.
jule — 2014-05-04T18:29:00-04:00 — #15
Does anyone know if this documentary will also be shown in Europe? There isn't much information on http://aaronswartzthedocumentary.com/
doctorow — 2014-05-06T15:00:25-04:00 — #16
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.