Stealing is stealing

I’m not familiar with this specific case, but I think we have to be careful with thinking of “intellectual property” as necessarily the same as “physical property”. Consider patents. If somebody has an idea, and let’s for the sake of argument say it’s a novel idea, they can get a patent on it. They now “own” that thought; even if anyone else comes up with the same idea, the first person “owns” it in the sense that they have a patent and can prevent others from acting on their same idea, or they can demand money.

That’s different from the shoe example in that yes, you can’t take somebody else’s shoes — but you’re allowed to get your own shoes!

Again, I’m not trying to generalize to the journal issue here, only that we be very careful in assuming “intellectual property”, at least as enforced in the software industry, is “just” like traditional property.

Tor Norbye agreed, especially as some forms of patent that exist in the USA don’t (currently) exist in the EU.

He acted in the honorable tradition of civil disobedience. 

checked out too many books ?

Whether you agree with what Aaron did or not, whether you consider him wrong, criminal, misguided, or naive, what I took away from all the comments and tributes was that this was an incredibly gifted individual with a great deal of talent who had used his talents for the benefit of himself and others. The criminal case against him (theft is theft) and the zeal of prosecuting the case against an individual when compared to the lack of prosecution of those responsible for the economic meltdown (companies and individuals) who stole homes, jobs, pensions and destroyed the lives of others is what bothers many. Fairness and equal treatment is something we should be able to expect and have a right to demand from our justice system – and right now it seems sadly lacking. I am NOT weighing in on what Aaron did or did not do, but I am concerned that we are not using our resources to go after wrongdoers in an even-handed manner.

It is often said that “absolute freedom is anarchy” and that the “freedom” we enjoy is a limited one. Without getting into the barbed wire of all the details here, probably the most significant aspect of our freedom is that “my freedom ends where someone else’s nose begins.” Because some humans have profound difficulty adhering to this rule, we have deterrents – laws and regulations – and enforcement (police, courts and prisons). Viewing our country in this respect, in a sense “freedom” means “freedom to be unmolested” by others. This in turn means the freedom to own that which is ours. That which we buy or build, that which we create.  As Giselle Minoli has pointed out, she has to pay for a pair of shoes in a shop, or a meal in a restaurant. In this way, they become hers. Trying to take them without paying is, then, in a certain sense violating the freedom of another to own that which is theirs, and to remain in possession of it, unmolested, until such time as they choose to exchange for another thing they equate with “value.”

So, how does “intellectual property” differ from this? This is the same thing as asking, “is something we created by making use of our minds something we can in some sense own, that we may remain in possession of, unmolested, until we choose to exchange (in this case ‘pass on’) it for something of value?

Some say, “knowledge should be free.” In a sense, it is. It’s called “a library. Even in this case we can only borrow someone else’s intellectual property, and if we fail to adhere to the terms of said borrowing, we must pay fines, or if we lose the book, we must pay for it, thus making it our property, whether we are actually in possession of it or not. In short, reimbursement is in order.  All who carry library cards agree to this, implicitly.

Similarly, if I go into a bookshop, I must buy the book. Once again, reimbursement is in order. It is the accepted and agreed upon norm. It would be both immoral and a crime to take a book without paying for it.

Now, as to the matter of intellectual property on the Internet. What makes it different from what I have discussed here? Does the matter of transference to a digital medium invalidate the arguments?

There’s another, practical side to this, as well. People who create things – be they books, handbags, bead work, paintings, sculptures, knick-knacks, machines, toys – have to eat. Everyone agrees that the person who fashion handbags for sale in shops must receive recompense for making the handbags, else how shall materials for more handbags be purchased, how will they live, how will they eat, and thus sustain their trade of making handbags? What about writers?How shall they support themselves and their craft if they receive no recompense? They will be forced to cease writing and go to work doing something for which they get paid. Musicians? If all their music is free for the taking, how will they sustain their craft? Painters? Sculptors? Inventors? Scientists?

In conclusion, I repeat the question posed in the introduction to this post: Is it a philosophy born of I Can Make Everything Free, Therefore I Will?

I suppose if those that create are recompensed for their work fairly through some means/agency, this would be okay. But recompensed they should be. We pay the plumber, we pay the barber, we pay the doctor, the therapist, the teachers, the movie stars, the maid, the lawyer, the bank, the government, the ship’s captain, the chef, we even pay the sport heroes multi-million dollar salaries for knocking a piece of pigskin around with an 80% failure rate. Why should the painters and poets and novelists and scientists and artists of all kinds NOT be paid for their work?

I believe that MIT wobbled on whether to go forward and the federal government proceeded to press charges. In taking on the case, I think the feds could proceed with or without MIT and the Journal group.

As to the person who commented that Aaron’s actions were “selfish,” a large measure of compassion and a lot less judgment is in order.  None of us can understand or know the sense of depression that proceeds taking your own life – the sense that you cannot hold on until the moment passes and things get better or the sense that that moment might only be a short break in a continuing sense of hopelessness. In those terribly sad moments the person wants/needs to end their pain. It is sad for all involved and no one is helped by anyone throwing out a judgment of selfishness – that seems a bit thoughtless and cruel towards the grieving family and friends.

I agree Lil Peck that it certainly did not warrant 35 years in prison and he likely would not have done any time at all.  However, I think his intent was clear – he had an agenda and he took advantage of MIT ridiculously lax security to carry it out.  If I leave my front door open and somebody walks in but steals nothing, he can still be arrested for trespassing.

Lil Peck I respectfully disagree.  The rationale the author of the article you link uses is essentially, “if it wasn’t secured, or locked up, then taking it and sharing it around wasn’t stealing.” I knew a reprobate once who reasoned this way, “Hey man, if they didn’t want me to steal it, they shouldn’t have left it just sitting on the kitchen table….”

MIT is a private university, not a public one.

Gregory P. Smith Taking the lesson of Le Miserables stealing a loaf of bread* is not the equivalent of robbing a bank, and should not be punished by years and years of imprisonment. And so it is not, today in our system. However, whether his actions were “measly” or not, is a matter for the courts to determine, although you are entitled to think and say anything you want about it, as you have.

Daniel Bobke You are correct – MIT is a private university. I guess my argument should be modified, then, to “even if MIT were a public institution…”

 Lil Peck  wrote   “There has been a lot of discussion over the past few years about scholarly journals and whether they are overcharging for the information they publish…”

Oh, I think many of these “clearing houses” charge absolutely obscene prices for even short papers (I can provide examples upon request), and I think that’s a matter that ought to be addressed. But because they do this does not mean that the converse – that all the material should be free – becomes true thereby.

This guy was given less time

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) – An Indianapolis man was sentenced to 25 years in prison for the 2011 murder of Sparkle Majors.

Steven Heisler Your example is a guy who was convicted and sentenced – Aaron Swartz had not been convicted or sentenced, only accused.  There is no way he would have been sentenced to 35 years and everyone knows that.

Rod Brock I appreciate your comment as those who you refer to have been there and back. But the vast majority of us will never be able to totally understand that sense of depression and certainly nothing is gained in any discussion by judging the person who committed suicide as selfish. 

While it sounds like the prosecution were bullying him in a way that wasn’t justified, there is also the fact that there was stealing.  My view is that even stealing something electronically is stealing.  But the reaction and punishment should be reasonable, not extra-punitive and the accused should still be treated respectfully if possible.

paul beard wrote

I’m disappointed to see +Giselle Minoli parroting the ideas that Aaron Swartz was no better than a Nigerian 419 scammer or identity thief.

She didn’t say that he was no better than a Nigerian 419 scammer or identity thief. You are choosing to interpret and qualify what she said as the above.

What I get from Giselle Minoli remarks, and from the rest of the discussion, is not what order of criminal Aaron Schwartz was, or what we think the punishment should have been. We have been discussing the question of whether or not “…the insistence of payment stop(s) utterly when it comes to intellectual property…” and whether or not one is justified in taking intellectual property based on their belief that it should be free.

The comparison with Socrates and Jesus are not analogous to this situation. This seems to be an appeal to emotion.

The final characterization (whistleblower) paints him as a liberator, a freedom fighter, rather than someone who decided on their own what the law should be and to act in accordance with that. Again, borderline appeal to emotion, here.

Civil disobedience is sometimes warranted. But not in this case, I think. The bottom line is that he believed he had the right to take something that belonged to someone else without recompensing them.

Maybe if you were a writer or playwright or a scientist and someone stole your work and claimed it as their own, while you stood in line at the food bank, you might feel differently about this.

The point is Paula Schell – Salk got to make the choice.  It was no one else’s choice to make.

To dumb it down a bit. If you go to a website, right click and download the files, this is pretty much the equivalent of what he did. The only thing he did differently was wrote a script to find them all and download them rather than browsing the website to each page and downloading them all.

Pretty much the same thing as all those people who go on youtube and download and repost videos of funny shit.

The problem here is that all these armchair experts don’t understand technical terminology or how the internet and things work, and thus get confused by a lot of the technical speak people are throwing into it about networking and similar security, and therefore not understanding what was done.

And the point of me referencing Salk is that if someone else had made the discovery of the vaccine that cured polio, they might have felt the need to “patent” it and charge companies for the use and development of the discovery. Fortunately for humanity, Salk didn’t see fit to choose profit over people.  “The buck stops here.”  That sentiment is what was needed in that instance and is sorely missing today in too many instances to name.  Too many people are lemmings following the group-think over the cliff and don’t have an inkling of what a clue is or what they would do if it smacked them broadside. Ethics. Money is not equivalent. Transparency.  Some things shouldn’t be hidden…  Value(s) should not be determined by the monetary equivalence — especially in cases such as this.

J.C. Kendall If you put it on a website to be viewed, then you should expect it to be viewed. you can’t go ‘here is my website, check it out’ and then take them to court for viewing it.

Liz Quilty There is a huge difference between downloading or viewing and assembling as much info as you can from the source and then putting it on a file-sharing site

For the record I cannot see all of the comments here but for the record I think what happened to this young man is horrible AND I think intellectual copyright law is complicated, and changing constantly. I also don’t agree that just because something is publicly funded it should necessarily be free. Arghh I need to get back to my computer.

From what Giselle Minoli points out, yes, it’s a tragedy that a young man died.  It’s not excusable for him to be bullied and not treated properly by the prosecution.  It doesn’t mean that he didn’t steal, and that he should have expected to have no consequences for doing something illegal. 

I’m a poet as well Rod, I have a degree in Dance and went to a very prestigious high school and graduated among some truly amazing artists. Nevertheless, I know that the best dance in the world doesn’t hold to candle to a polio vaccine.  Perspective. I’m a poet as well,  but no matter how good I think my poetry is, I don’t delude myself that it holds anywhere near the value of say, an HIV vaccine or even academic articles that are already deemed “public domain”, which would seem to indicate that they are “public property”, which, correct me if I’m wrong, means the public would be able to access them, FOR FREE.  If someone wanted to pay me for my talents, BONUS!!  Starving artists all know this.  Most of us have 9-5 jobs and still practice our crafts because WE LOVE what we do.  And after having read a little more about this extraordinary young man, I’m quite sure he didn’t deserve the overzealous prosecutorial treatment he received for what he did.  I hope the DA feels like shit. If it were up to me, I would recuse them from practicing law. He was an idealist. We can’t afford to lose any of them in this day and age. 

Please, Read this then come back and argue guilt and righteousness:

unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/

And in the case clicking a link is a little too strenuous, here it is:

The Truth about Aaron Swartz’s “Crime”

January 12, 2013 By Alex Stamos in Cybercrime, Rights and Legality, Security Tags: Aaron Swartz, Cybersecurity,

I did not know Aaron Swartz, unless you count having copies of a person’s entire digital life on your forensics server as knowing him. I did once meet his father, an intelligent and dedicated man who was clearly pouring his life into defending his son. My deepest condolences go out to him and the rest of Aaron’s family during what must be the hardest time of their lives.

If the good that men do is oft interred with their bones, so be it, but in the meantime I feel a responsibility to correct some of the erroneous information being posted as comments to otherwise informative discussions at Reddit, Hacker News and Boing Boing. Apparently some people feel the need to self-aggrandize by opining on the guilt of the recently departed, and I wanted to take this chance to speak on behalf of a man who can no longer defend himself. I had hoped to ask Aaron to discuss these issues on the Defcon stage once he was acquitted, but now that he has passed it is important that his memory not be besmirched by the ignorant and uninformed. I have confirmed with Aaron’s attorneys that I am free to discuss these issues now that the criminal case is moot.

I was the expert witness on Aaron’s side of US vs Swartz, engaged by his attorneys last year to help prepare a defense for his April trial. Until Keker Van Nest called iSEC Partners I had very little knowledge of Aaron’s plight, and although we have spoken at or attended many of the same events we had never once met.

Should you doubt my neutrality, let me establish my bona fides. I have led the investigation of dozens of computer crimes, from Latvian hackers blackmailing a stock brokerage to Chinese government-backed attacks against dozens of American enterprises. I have investigated small insider violations of corporate policy to the theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and have responded to break-ins at social networks, e-tailers and large banks. While we are no stranger to pro bono work, having served as experts on EFF vs Sony BMG and Sony vs Hotz, our reports have also been used in the prosecution of at least a half dozen attackers.  In short, I am no long-haired-hippy-anarchist who believes that anything goes on the Internet. I am much closer to the stereotypical capitalist-white-hat sellout that the antisec people like to rant about (and steal mail spools from) in the weeks before BlackHat.

I know a criminal hack when I see it, and Aaron’s downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail.

The facts:

MIT operates an extraordinarily open network. Very few campus networks offer you a routable public IP address via unauthenticated DHCP and then lack even basic controls to prevent abuse. Very few captured portals on wired networks allow registration by any vistor, nor can they be easily bypassed by just assigning yourself an IP address. In fact, in my 12 years of professional security work I have never seen a network this open.

In the spirit of the MIT ethos, the Institute runs this open, unmonitored and unrestricted network on purpose. Their head of network security admitted as much in an interview Aaron’s attorneys and I conducted in December. MIT is aware of the controls they could put in place to prevent what they consider abuse, such as downloading too many PDFs from one website or utilizing too much bandwidth, but they choose not to.  

MIT also chooses not to prompt users of their wireless network with terms of use or a definition of abusive practices.

At the time of Aaron’s actions, the JSTOR website allowed an unlimited number of downloads by anybody on MIT’s 18.x Class-A network. The JSTOR application lacked even the most basic controls to prevent what they might consider abusive behavior, such as CAPTCHAs triggered on multiple downloads, requiring accounts for bulk downloads, or even the ability to pop a box and warn a repeat downloader.

Aaron did not “hack” the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of “hack”. Aaron wrote a handful of basic python scripts that first discovered the URLs of journal articles and then used curl to request them. Aaron did not use parameter tampering, break a CAPTCHA, or do anything more complicated than call a basic command line tool that downloads a file in the same manner as right-clicking and choosing “Save As” from your favorite browser.

Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks or hide his activity, as evidenced by his very verbose .bash_history, his uncleared browser history and lack of any encryption of the laptop he used to download these files. Changing one’s MAC address (which the government inaccurately identified as equivalent to a car’s VIN number) or putting a mailinator email address into a captured portal are not crimes. If they were, you could arrest half of the people who have ever used airport wifi.

The government provided no evidence that these downloads caused a negative effect on JSTOR or MIT, except due to silly overreactions such as turning off all of MIT’s JSTOR access due to downloads from a pretty easily identified user agent.

I cannot speak as to the criminal implications of accessing an unlocked closet on an open campus, one which was also used to store personal effects by a homeless man. I would note that trespassing charges were dropped against Aaron and were not part of the Federal case.

In short, Aaron Swartz was not the super hacker breathlessly described in the Government’s indictment and forensic reports, and his actions did not pose a real danger to JSTOR, MIT or the public. He was an intelligent young man who found a loophole that would allow him to download a lot of documents quickly. This loophole was created intentionally by MIT and JSTOR, and was codified contractually in the piles of paperwork turned over during discovery.

If I had taken the stand as planned and had been asked by the prosecutor whether Aaron’s actions were “wrong”, I would probably have replied that what Aaron did would better be described as “inconsiderate”. In the same way it is inconsiderate to write a check at the supermarket while a dozen people queue up behind you or to check out every book at the library needed for a History 101 paper. It is inconsiderate to download lots of files on shared wifi or to spider Wikipedia too quickly, but none of these actions should lead to a young person being hounded for years and haunted by the possibility of a 35 year sentence.

Professor Lessig will always write more eloquently than I can on prosecutorial discretion and responsibility, but I certainly agree that Aaron’s death demands a great deal of soul searching by the US Attorney who decided to massively overcharge this young man and the MIT administrators who decided to involve Federal law enforcement.

I cannot speak as to all of the problems that contributed to Aaron’s death, but I do strongly believe that he did not deserve the treatment he received while he was alive. It is incumbent on all of us to figure out how to create some positive change out of this unnecessary tragedy. I’ll write more on that later. First I need to spend some time hugging my kids.

Edit 1: Fixed typo. Thank you @ramenlabs.

Posted from San Carlos, CA.

Anarchist behavior? LMAO!!! I can think of many names who were labelled anarchists in their time….the most famous being JESUS CHRIST.  I’ll take the anarchists over the governors any/every time. 

That article has been linked in this thread at least twice before – I think it has been vetted as not really a defense.

Liz Quilty Just because someone else gets away with stealing doesn’t mean he should. That is like complaining to the highway patrol because you got pulled over and not all the other speeders. It is not a defense.

Two words Rod. Expert. Testimony. Nothing to do with “feelings” or “magic”. Just the facts man.

Did anyone actually read what I posted???? It was written by a man who investigates computer, hacking, theft crimes for a living- this is not a true case of theft…it is not an emotional manipulation…

It wasn’t about knowing him it was about whether he committed a criminal act.

deborah rabbit white We will probably never have an answer to that question. My post isn’t about sentencing Swartz. It is about questioning access to information, freedom of information, what designates “free” information (or in this case “considerate or inconsiderate” use or overuse of information), intellectual copyright infringement and all of the other sticky issues brought up in the article I attached. My post began with two quotes, one by a prosecutor out to get him, the other by a person who admired and respected him. Even Carl Malamud, the founder of public.resource.org, said that he did not approve of Mr. Swartz’s actions at M.I.T. Clearly there are two issues here: Mr. Swartz’s actions, and the “reaction” to those actions by prosecutors.

Giselle Minoli https://aaronsw.jottit.com/howtoget describes his life in his own words. My understanding is that he made a moderate fortune by selling Reddit.

http://news.ycombinator.com/ has a lot of different posts both by him and others. He even seem to have had: http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/continuity

Also his awesome weblog: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ which i have always found very insightful.

Giselle Minoli Mr. Swartz, like many coders frequently participated in open source. Considering RSS specification, like many technical standards for the internet is completely open. http://www.rssboard.org/

So yeah, he ate his own dog food. Last time I checked, software engineering was a thriving profession, part of the reason why it thrives is because of the open communication between engineers, and openly available code for standards. Engineers have greatly benefited from building around the standard Mr. Swartz had a hand in creating. I should mention, he did not make a dime on RSS. 

 I know for traditional artists this is hard to wrap your heads around, but technical disciplines are really different. A significant amount is shared openly, and it is a big reason why it has thrived is shared and open standards. Most of the internet is based around open source software and standards, including Mr. Swartz’s own code. This is a big reason why many software engineers are not a fan of closed systems. They have directly benefited from open communication on technical matters. This is a big reason why engineers, and people like myself who work in technology, have a different attitude on this issue than artists, because it really is quite different. Part of the reason I didn’t see what he did involving JSTOR as wrong either, is because I used to be dependent on academic research as well. and understand the issues and systems involved in the case.

With that being said, Mr. Swartz was not opposed to artists benefiting for getting paid for their work. He understood that traditional methods of licensing were outdated for the internet, and that there would need to be more flexible licensing standards.  He saw a need and was a major force behind creative commons, which is now widespread. He thought artists should get paid for their work, just that the system of licensing was outdated. Please do not confuse the two issues, scientific publishing, and the publication of creative work. 

In terms of scientific publications, most scientists are not paid for publication like traditional writers. They are paid through government or foundation grants to do their research, and are generally not compensated a great deal for publication of the material itself (or at all). The nature of scientific publication is different, and generally the pay is not in the publication, but through research grants and salaries.  Nor are they compensated to review work, which is critical. This happens while publishers often collect exorbitant fees from university libraries at which they work. This has become so bad that many university libraries have been pushing back against publishers, and scientists have considered moving to open journals such as PLOSone which anybody can access information from. Science itself is increasingly moving to emulate the open system that software engineers like Mr. Swartz believed in. The thing is it took the action of Mr. Swartz in some ways to highlight some of the issues involved in academic publishing, including the availability of scientific information to the public. Again, please do not equate your experiences or beliefs as an artist to the actions Mr. Swartz took to highlight the problems regarding academic journals.

I highly suggest you read the cost of knowledge if you think they are anything alike ( http://gowers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/elsevierstatementfinal.pdf ).

Especially this line:

_Authors are not paid by the publishers for their

published papers, although they are usually asked to sign over the copyright to the publisher._

Essentially, the only benefit to a scientist or academic for publication in journals is distribution. In fact peer review and distribution are the purposes for publication, not pay for the work itself. This was not “stealing” from the scientists who wrote this information, as they are not financially compensated through royalties, they have already been paid to conduct the research through grants. The intent to publish is to distribute their research for people to read it, evaluate it, and validate it. Not to gain royalties from it. Again, I have kept up with this closely, since I have had to depend on this type of writing myself throughout my career. There is a clear reason why scientists are moving towards open systems for scientific publishing.

(Again I will defer to John Baez on issues pertaining to scientific publication. He has written about it extensively.)

Please do not mistaken or confuse your artistic endeavors and the need to feel to get compensated for the sale of publication, with the issues that Mr. Swartz was dealing with regarding academic publishing. They really are two very different issues. A big reason why MIT and JSTOR dropped the case is because Mr. Swartz may have done something questionable, he did so to raise a very important and critical issue that did play a part of a shift. (The cost of knowledge campaign was another part of this shift though.)

While you may have hurt financially and personally when somebody copied your designs or artistic work without compensation, this is quite literally a different case. Scientists are not harmed through somebody copying a publication to read it, since that is part of the point.  You are equating your experiences as an artist, with scientific publishing, I suggest it is not a good idea because the system is actually quite different.  

Also, doing the right thing should be expected, and not a choice.  I do not believe Salk thought long and hard about whether or not to patent the polio vaccine, or the “choice” he made to make it “free”. His ethics are apparent in his his actions, his words, and his practice.  Perhaps one day, we will have to pay to see the sun.  To me, that is as ridiculous as besmirching Mr. Swartz for his “crimes”. For shitsakes, he was a brilliant young man.  He is dead.  Can you fathom that???  What might he have gone on to do if he hadn’t been bullied by the US justice system into his death at

26.  

Funny the lengths people will go to to procure, hoard and deny others in the name of some paper with ink on it. As for having no sympathy???  Please.  Go live on an island somewhere. He contributed more to this world in his short 26 years than probably all of us on this thread will in our entire lives.  If you don’t find that a palpable loss….then you do not deserve sympathy your damn self.

Good morning, Christine Paluch. As I mentioned, I live in a family of scientists, who, like yourself, need and want access to information for a variety of purposes. I do not, however, agree with your premise that because scientists who publish do not expect to be paid as they are getting something else out of the deal entirely, then there is a logical leap to making the case that all information should be free. This isn’t a logical leap.

For instance, my husband is an orthopedic surgeon. Hordes of paid for journals appear in our mailbox every monthly and some quarterly. He pays for these journals (hundreds of dollars a year) so that he can have access to their online data bases. This is the same as my paid subscription for home delivery of the NY Times, which allows me unlimited access to their digital online databases.

Neither of these things are free. My husband, a medical/scientific professional, would never make the argument that these journals and the information contained within them should be free, anymore than he would make the claim that he shouldn’t have to pay for CME courses to keep up with current methodologies and knowledge.  He pays. I pay.

Where the ‘all information should be free to everyone because it is that way in the technology world and part of the scientific world’ argument falls apart is that the need/wish/desire for that information to be free has given birth to an argument in support of that, an argument that runs contrary to long held rules of ownership. No, it isn’t actually hard for me to get my mind around any of this, and the analogies absolutely hold.

In my view there is no difference between my choosing to “give” a story I write to a particular magazine without recompense, and that magazine turning around and disseminating it elsewhere without my consent (or someone who is angry that they might have to pay the magazine to read my story, figuring out a way to get it for free) and Jstor having a policy of paying a free for certain access to their information and someone else being angry about that policy and figuring out a way around it.

There have been many, many, many discussions on this very platform about the dangers of information being so easily accessible and available, which is that the “author” “publisher” or “creator” of the information can very easily be divorced or severed from the article/publication, or not credited at all down the domino line.

The Times policy is generous: I pay and I can share. But I’m paying and I am happy to. Vanity Fair’s policy is less open. I pay but I cannot share so easily. I respect that. It is the magazine’s policy. Now could I, theoretically get angry about it and “photocopy” scan a document as a jpeg and post it? Sure, why not? But I never would do that.

As for their being a difference between we “creative types” and scientists and doctors? I happen to think scientists are creative and quite artful types too. They are explorers and discoverers. While there are those who think these issues are cut and dry, I am not one of them. I think, as I stated before, that intellectual copyright law is among the most challenging and, in fact, is evolving and changing before our eyes. We are quickly approaching a world where no one is going to be able to make a living because everything will be free for the taking. This is scary because college/university life is changing and it is becoming very difficult to nab those tenured positions that pay a salary that allows one the luxury of not getting paid for publication.

I think the issue, for an artist or not, begs considerable thought and continued discussion, as on this thread. I am enormously grateful for everyone’s comments. And I promise…I will not copy and repeat elsewhere anyone’s words without asking their permission first!

Great article Christine Paluch — but I have my doubts about who will actually read it.  The summation pretty clearly defines it for me….

    “Whatever else is true, Swartz was destroyed by a “justice” system that fully protects the most egregious criminals as long as they are members of or useful to the nation’s most powerful factions, but punishes with incomparable mercilessness and harshness those who lack power and, most of all, those who challenge power.

Swartz knew all of this. But he forged ahead anyway. He could have easily opted for a life of great personal wealth, status, prestige and comfort. He chose instead to fight – selflessly, with conviction and purpose, and at great risk to himself – for noble causes to which he was passionately devoted. That, to me, isn’t an example of heroism; it’s the embodiment of it, its purest expression. It’s the attribute our country has been most lacking.

I always found it genuinely inspiring to watch Swartz exude this courage and commitment at such a young age. His death had better prompt some serious examination of the DOJ’s behavior – both in his case and its warped administration of justice generally. But his death will also hopefully strengthen the inspirational effects of thinking about and understanding the extraordinary acts he undertook in his short life.”

The system is broken. The entire system.  How many young idealists — suicidal or not — have to die? How many criminals continue to walk free because they are old rich men — and this disqualifies them as prosecutable???  Are we so complacent with our laptops, iphones and technology, and yes INFORMATION,  to devalue life itself?  I’m sure his parents think otherwise.  And so would all of the contributors here, if Swartz were any of ours.  

The thing is, HE IS. 

Paula Schell This entire thing was avoidable. I don’t know why Mr. Swartz chose to end his life. I rather doubt it was because of this one issue. It appears he had a history of depression. But, with regard to this one topic, which is the one discussed in the attached article, he made a decision to do something, to act in a particular way, which I can only assume is the result of a belief system that he arrived at on his own power. I balk at the suggestion that the prosecutors are responsible for his death. Was he a target? Was he high profile? Was an example being made? Quite possibly Yes to all of those, I don’t know. But, still, those are distinctly different issues than his decision about MIT/Jstor. That stands alone. I do hope there will be some eventual expose that we can all read. I, for one, would be most interested.

I don’t think that anybody is saying that bullying by the prosecution is okay, or that the proposed sentence was reasonable for the offense.

To me though, the bottom-line point is aside from and including this case, doing something wrong online is just as wrong as in physical space, and does (and should) have consequences.

Doesn’t sound to me like his family would agree with your conclusion, Ms. Minoli.  How that is not obvious eludes me.  Put yourself in Aaron Swartz’s 26 year old shoes and tell me facing 30-35 years in a cement box wouldn’t have any of us considering putting ourselves OUT.  Btw, he hung himself. His girlfriend found him. 

Knowledge is power.  

Aaron Swartz believed everyone should have equal access.  The internet greatly levels that playing field.  Some people don’t want everyone to have equal access to information/knowledge/power. Some people believe you should have to pay for each and every thing you have/do/read/ingest, and if you CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY,  you’re somehow not as deserving or not smart enough etc., etc., etc..

 God forbid we all become educated and equally knowledgeable.

shudder

 That would be a horrible tragedy. 

Paula Schell Many people who have this thing of so-called “power” have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. Still others, who have this thing of so-called knowledge have absolutely no power whatsoever. The two do not go hand-in-hand. Knowledge and information do not equal power, as much as many people would like to believe this is so.

However, knowledge of, awareness of and consciousness of one’s own behavior gives that individual person power over their own decisions and how they choose to act or not to act within the bounds of the community and social structure they have agreed to live in.

I think it’s fairly outrageous of anyone to accuse those who disagree with the personal decision that Mr. Swartz made with regard to MIT/Jstor of sanctioning the severity of the prosecutorial actions against him. I think it’s fairly outrageous of anyone to suggest that because someone disagrees with the decision that Mr. Swartz made with regard to MIT/Jstor that they are not deeply sorrowful about his death and the sad and tragic outcome here.

J.C. Kendall Thank you very much. You know me from the get-go. I do not shy away from posting difficult subject matter because an arrow or two might come my way. In fact, the more they come my way, the more committed I am to this open public forum in which to discuss things, hopefully respectfully. I do hope that on my threads people know that they can say what is on their minds and that, if they do so, people can disagree and form a counter-argument, which is what we would do IRL at any respectable round table. It makes me sad that there might be plussers with valuable and articulate opinions who might be afraid to comment here for fear that they would be demonized for questioning Mr. Swartz.

How many times do I have to write that his brilliance and talent and ability and contributions do not make him immune from the questioning of his actions. The same can be said for any of us.

Paul C Elmore there’s an interesting article in The Stone this morning about the language that’s used to describe people/activities and the weight those words carry, which Peter Ludlow refers to as “lexical warfare.” Overreach and unfair prosecutorial power are indeed things to be feared, questioned, pointed out, guarded against and red-flagged. And so must incidences like that which Sheri ONeill just described.

Personally I don’t know how we red-flag and guard against any of it, no matter which side, unless we are willing to fully debate and deconstruct it. I write this with a great deal of personal interest. My father was an accused Communist and I have spent years researching to determine whether that was true. I neither assumed the accusation was true was simply because of the power of the organization and person behind it (J. Edgar Hoover), nor did I assume it wasn’t true, simply because he was my father and my natural and understandable preference would be that he hadn’t been a Communist. It isn’t so easy to determine “the truth,” and no matter how difficult and uncomfortable it is we are still honor bound to ask questions.

Money quote from the above post: “Many people want the heads of the key administrators who helped create the context in which Aaron took his life. I completely understand where they’re coming from. But I also fear the likelihood that Aaron will be turned into a martyr, an abstraction of a geek activist destroyed by the State. Because he was a lot more than that – lovable and flawed, passionate and strong-willed, brilliant and infuriatingly stupid. It’ll be easy for folks to rally cry for revenge in his name. But not much is gained from reifying the us vs. them game that got us here. There has to be another way.”

Thank you so much Denis Wallez. I have been thinking about this constantly these last few days and I keep asking myself, ‘Why didn’t Aaron write an open letter to MIT/Jstor’ about this instead of make the choice he made? Like those good old-fashioned Op-Eds or Letters to the Editor in the NY Times? Not only would it have given everyone the opportunity to Sign the Petition, as they say, but it certainly would not have ended this way.

I question two things, among others, the implication that Aaron died because of the investigation, and the implication as well that anyone in the information business will be working without pay. We are approaching a world where there may be no ‘paying’ jobs for creators on any kind of content. I’m getting ready to make another post, hopefully tonight, about how this specifically affects writers.

Giselle Minoli I think the fact that he had been dealing with depression for some time is more of a contributing factor than anything else.  Certainly, the challenge of being accused and possibly prosecuted for a crime could not have helped, but that goes back to my statement about civil disobedience.  Don’t engage in it if you cannot accept or handle the consequences for it.  He obviously could not, but he did it anyway.  That certainly supports J.C. Kendall’s argument about arrogance.

J.C. Kendall you are immersed in the technological world, a world that, in spite of whatever criticisms people may have about it, fills me with awe. I would say the same thing about myself being immersed in the arts world – it fills me with awe – which has its very own special arrogance(s). As they say, even a Rolls Royce has a blind spot and that one spot can kill you.

That is just a pre-amble to my asking you what the point of this high-mindedness is. We feel it from IT departments and it certainly exists in the medical profession (doctors who get angry with patients who question them) and law (lawyers who don’t even want to talk to their clients unless they have to). My own theory is that it is myopic thinking. Swartz was brilliant at one thing. But he might not have been very good at communicating, thus his choices. 

Wasn’t S. Jobs accused of the same thing? And B. Gates? Power, money, influence, fame, notoriety – they can all pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.

P.S. May I just add that the Elliott Spitzer vs. Martha Stewart “war” was one of the ugliest when it came to power wanting to take down power.

Leo Campos I have read this. Difficult though it might be the issues must be separated out: The MIT/Jstor issue, the accusation/prosecution/threat issue and the suicide issue. They can’t all be lumped together. To do that would mean that everyone who did something contrary would be persecuted and they would therefore kill themselves. It’s very troubling.

I’ll tell you a story J.C. Kendall that will either make you laugh or cry (or both). I had an appointment with my attorney in NYC and when I arrived at her office the door was open and I heard her crying at her desk. I’d known that her husband had had a biopsy for some kind of cancer and I assumed this is what she was crying about. I peaked in the door and she was on the phone and waved me in. I was uncomfortable but she motioned for me to sit and all I heard was, “Okay, okay, right, right, okay, okay,” until eventually she hung up. I immediately asked her what the diagnosis had been and she looked at me, puzzled, and then said, “No, no, no. It’s not that. It’s my son (who was 4 years old). He didn’t get into the prestigious school we wanted him to go to.”

She was inconsolable. Her world had ended, and so too, presumably, her son’s. And this is where the Game On, Numbers Counting, University, Title, Salary, Position, My Widget is Better than Your Widget competition begins.  

I cannot tell you all how grateful I am for your comments. I have been called a “creative mofo” my entire life because of my essential occupations, but my reach goes way beyond that. While there are many people who are isolated within a complex domain, most of the people with whom I personally associate have considerable respect for professionals from other disciplines. But somewhere, Yes, within the hunger games (borrowed) there is considerable vying for power.

You are spot on Daniel Bobke about The Big Bang theory, which we love, too, and never miss. Yet, I cannot help but think of what is known to be true in the theatre world. Hyperbole allows us to laugh or cry at that which in reality might piss us off mightily.

I have heard many, many people echo your words, Daniel, where doctors and lawyers used to be at the top of the food chain in terms of respect, now the technological world has come into its own. I do hope that knowledge and position will be used to good, not harmful, effect.

You said: “Software engineering thrived LONG before open source and open communication existed”. Software engineering didn’t even exist prior to open source and open communication, unless you’re referring to military projects during WW2, which had more to do with hardware and mathematics than software per-se.

Aaron had his faults, and wasn’t a saint, but it is really no particular exaggeration to say that he was turning into a modern-day Ben Franklin. His talents and accomplishments, both technical and political, really were becoming that significant.

As for whether I am exaggerating his personal effect on the SOPA/PIPA campaign, watch this:

F2C2012: Aaron Swartz keynote – “How we stopped SOPA”

He’s actually not taking anywhere near enough credit in that video, because the demandprogress.org nonprofit he started was largely funded by him out of the money he got when reddit.com was sold to Conde Nast. He didn’t do it alone, but he was, indeed, instrumental.

It wasn’t just that he was smart and talented (lots of people are smart and talented). It was what he did with it. I suggest you take a closer look at what he did, and the causes he dedicated his talents toward, often without compensation.

Also note that I did say ‘becoming’. Compare Franklin’s accomplishments up to around 1732 (ie. at age 26): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Early_life to Aaron’s contributions to RSS, Creative Commons, Reddit, openlibrary.org, Demand Progress, and many other projects. And that comparison is actually somewhat unfair, since the last two years of Aaron’s life were dominated by this completely senseless prosecution.

I’m even more bothered by this than I was two weeks ago, and that was pretty damn bothered. The sentiment behind this quote in the linked article by Noam Cohen in the Times, entitled How M.I.T. Ensnared a Hacker, Buckling a Free-Wheeling Culture, is what is so tragic, “When I was at M.I.T., if someone went to hack the system, say by downloading databases to play with them, might be called a hero, get a degree, and start a company. But they called the cops on him. Cops.” Change will come as a result of this, there is no doubt about it. But Aaron Swartz will not be around to start that company, nor will he be around to change policy regarding accessibility of information because the conversation, unfortunately, has switched from that important topic to the deed done at M.I.T. The link is here in case anyone missed it or is still interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/technology/how-mit-ensnared-a-hacker-bucking-a-freewheeling-culture.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&src=recg

There are many, many people who defended the actions of Aaron Swartz and I’ve continued to read whatever I can about it. There is yet another article I wanted to share with you all, this one written by a male journalist who came to grips with his own brand of disobedience over time and had this to say about Mr. Swartz:  

“To many, particularly his generation, he is regarded as a Robin Hood, although not to me. I am the establishment now. I’ve seen far too many talented journalists, authors, musicians, artists, editors, agents and publishers lose their livelihoods in the name of free information.

“Most people are lucky — they learn the lesson of the shield without grave consequence.

Mr. Swartz paid a terrible price for his idealism, whether wrongheaded or not. My heart goes out to him, and because I am a father with sons his age, it goes out to his parents. The pain of losing such a brilliant, precious child acting on his principles is unfathomable.” 

The Death of a Prodigy and the Limitations of Talent, by Michael Winerip of the NY Times can be read here in case you are interested. It’s one of the more circumspect essays I’ve read about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/booming/the-death-of-a-prodigy-and-the-limitations-of-talent.html

P.S.  There’s a Michael Winerip on G+, but he seems to have no presence.