101–110 of 324 posts
So he allegedly goes out and buys a laptop just to do this heist...and then he blows his cover by doing a scrape fast enough to apparently bring down some of the MIT servers? Why was he in such a rush?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are talking about theft of services, not copyright infringement. In any event these charges are going to be very difficult to beat since they're federal, even though there are some obvious holes in the indictment. It will be almost impossible to get any of the evidence thrown out even if there was an illegal search and seizure. His best bet is probably to get the Harvard legal team to go to bat for him, although…
I wasn't really commenting on the legal sufficiency of the indictment, just the rhetorical dishonesty of accusing someone of "steal[ing] well over 4,000,000 articles from JSTOR" (quote from the indictment) when JSTOR didn't own those articles. They could've just alleged violation of JSTOR's TOS and thereby theft of network services. I suspect JSTOR or people sympathetic to them had a hand in writing the indictment, t…
(from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9k5ryiX... )
Cambridge, MA– Moments ago, Aaron Swartz, former executive director and founder of Demand Progress, was indicted by the US government. As best as we can tell, he is being charged with allegedly downloading too many scholarly journal articles from the Web. The government contends that downloading said articles is actually felony computer hacking and should be punished with time in prison.
“This makes no sense,” said Demand Progress Executive Director David Segal; “it’s like trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library.”
“It’s even more strange because the alleged victim has settled any claims against Aaron, explained they’ve suffered no loss or damage, and asked the government not to prosecute,” Segal added.
James Jacobs, the Government Documents Librarian at Stanford University, also denounced the arrest: “Aaron’s prosecution undermines academic inquiry and democratic principles,” Jacobs said. “It’s incredible that the government would try to lock someone up for allegedly looking up articles at a library.”
Demand Progress is collecting statements of support for Aaron on its website at …URL…
“Aaron’s career has focused on serving the public interest by promoting ethics, open government, and democratic politics,” Segal said. “We hope to soon see him cleared of these bizarre charges.”
Demand Progress is a 500,000-member online activism group that advocates for civil liberties, civil rights, and other progressive causes.
About Aaron
Aaron Swartz is a former executive director and founder of Demand Progress, a nonprofit political action group with more than 500,000 members.
He is the author of numerous articles on a variety of topics, especially the corrupting influence of big money on institutions including nonprofits, the media, politics, and public opinion. In conjunction with Shireen Barday, he downloaded and analyzed 441,170 law review articles to determine the source of their funding; the results were published in the Stanford Law Review. From 2010-11, he researched these topics as a Fellow at the Harvard Ethics Center Lab on Institutional Corruption.
He has also assisted many other researchers in collecting and analyzing large data sets with theinfo.org. His landmark analysis of Wikipedia, Who Writes Wikipedia?, has been widely cited. He helped develop standards and tutorials for Linked Open Data while serving on the W3C’s RDF Core Working Group and helped popularize them as Metadata Advisor to the nonprofit Creative Commons and coauthor of the RSS 1.0 specification.
In 2008, he created the nonprofit site watchdog.net, making it easier for people to find and access government data. He also served on the board of Change Congress, a good government nonprofit.
In 2007, he led the development of the nonprofit Open Library, an ambitious project to collect information about every book ever published. He also cofounded the online news site Reddit, where he released as free software the web framework he developed, web.py.
Press inquiries can be directed to demandprogressinfo@gmail.com or 571- 336- 2637
From the JSTOR website ( http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/worldwide-access ) "Our ultimate long-term objective is to make JSTOR available to everyone who wants access to it, while doing so in a way that ensures sustainability of the service." Cynically, it seems like the bit about "ensures sustainability" can be translated as "we will aggressively prosecute in order to protect our bloated salaries."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> somehow "owns" its archive It does own its archive. They just may not own the exclusive copyright to the contents of the archive... there is a subtle distinction.
There is no non-exclusive copyright. J-STOR is not the copyright owner, period. They do own the right to the composition of their collection, so someone who got the whole collection would be liable to infringing their right on the composition of the collection; in contrast, a random sample of articles would infringe on the publishers' IP rights rather than J-STOR's. The subtle point is that J-STOR is absolutely not i…
This was the point I was trying to make.
They own their database, even if they don't own the articles in it. The GP poster was trying to claim that they didn't "own their archive".
So he allegedly goes out and buys a laptop just to do this heist...and then he blows his cover by doing a scrape fast enough to apparently bring down some of the MIT servers? Why was he in such a rush?
This is almost too good: "As Swartz entered the wiring closet, he held his bicycle helmet like a mask to shield his face, looking through ventilation holes in the helmet."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there is an element of permission inherent in DHCP. Your device is actively configuring my device specifically to allow network access . It's not an open door; it's a sign saying "This way please". That said, its obvious this was an attempt to circumvent access controls.
I'm unfamiliar with MIT's guest setup, but I assume they let you get an IP address, but before you can access anything, you have to acknowledge their terms of service / acceptable use policy. If you fail to abide by this, you'd be accessing the network without permission. You're right that (as alleged), this would be an obvious attempt to circumvent access controls. Given the way things are worded, I'm guessing that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't really commenting on the legal sufficiency of the indictment, just the rhetorical dishonesty of accusing someone of "steal[ing] well over 4,000,000 articles from JSTOR" (quote from the indictment) when JSTOR didn't own those articles. They could've just alleged violation of JSTOR's TOS and thereby theft of network services. I suspect JSTOR or people sympathetic to them had a hand in writing the indictment, t…
Well, if someone stole $100,000 of property from a storage facility, that wouldn't mean the storage facility claimed ownership of the property, just that it was the location of the theft. Maybe you're overthinking this a bit.
JSTOR Statement: Misuse Incident and Criminal Case
The United States Department of Justice announced today the criminal indictment of an individual, Aaron Swartz, on charges related to computer fraud and abuse stemming from his misuse of the JSTOR database. We have been subpoenaed by the United States Attorney’s Office in this case and are fully cooperating. While we cannot comment on this case, we would like to share background information about the incident and about our mission and work with the academic community and the public.
What Happened
Last fall and winter, JSTOR experienced a significant misuse of our database. A substantial portion of our publisher partners’ content was downloaded in an unauthorized fashion using the network at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of our participating institutions. The content taken was systematically downloaded using an approach designed to avoid detection by our monitoring systems.
The downloaded content included over 4 million articles, book reviews, and other content from our publisher partner’s academic journals and other publications; it did not include any personally identifying information about JSTOR users.
We stopped this downloading activity, and the individual responsible, Mr. Swartz, was identified. We secured from Mr. Swartz the content that was taken, and received confirmation that the content was not and would not be used, copied, transferred, or distributed.
The criminal investigation and today’s indictment of Mr. Swartz has been directed by the United States Attorney’s Office.
Our Mission and Work
Our mission at JSTOR is supporting scholarly work and access to knowledge around the world. Faculty, teachers, and students at more than 7,000 institutions in 153 countries rely upon us for affordable and in some cases free access to content on JSTOR. Since our founding in 1995, we have digitized the complete back runs of nearly 1,400 academic journals from over 800 publishers. Our ultimate objective is to provide affordable access to scholarly content to anyone who needs it.
It is important to note that we support and encourage the legitimate use of large sets of content from JSTOR for research purposes. We regularly provide scholars with access to content for this purpose. Our Data for Research site (http://dfr.jstor.org) was established expressly to support text mining and other projects, and our Advanced Technologies Group is an eager collaborator with researchers in the academic community.
Even as we work to increase access, usage, and the impact of scholarship, we must also be responsible stewards of this content. We monitor usage to guard against unauthorized use of the material in JSTOR, which is how we became aware of this particular incident.