Anonymous need to get active on her. No one will make her life hell like anonymous can. She will quit by her own will.
#oportiz
Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
51–60 of 270 posts
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#52Damage limitation action stations: 1) Protect and support Ortiz 2) If the going gets tough, throw Ortiz to the wolves 3) In either case, 'problem' solved, resume business as usual
4) Shred documents.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#53I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that! Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out o…
> Little to no commercial value? Have you ever tried to sell a diamon, err, scholarly article?
JSTOR sells access to its archive for $50K/year. That seems pretty damn valuable.
I think that if Swartz successfully released the JSTOR archive, their entire business would have withered and died. Once you can buy a DVD on the street for $3 that held the entire thing, it gets harder and harder for university libraries to justify paying $50K/year. Their customer base wouldn't dry up overnight but over a few years, you'd see library departments squeezed for cash (and they all are) killing their subscriptions. With JSTOR access drying up, grad students and professors would make do by torrenting or copying DVDs; it would be an open secret, a technically illegal but universally accepted practice.
I don't think Swartz could have profited from this scheme, but he could have destroyed a large amount of financial value; JSTOR's a $50million/year organization.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#54I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that! Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out o…
I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day.
So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable.
But on another level, it's frustrating that it's impossible to put the system on trial. It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the hands of those who appointed her (and will appoint her successor) by making this out to be the fault of an individual. It makes it easier for them to act shocked, replace her, and be done with it.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#55Why do they call it a prank? My impression is what was nothing of the sort.
No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or "federal crime" I'm going with prank. 'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.
I think it still has the wrong connotations. I think it's reasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the case to interpret "prank" to mean that there was no political motivation behind it. That it is better than "federal crime" is a false dichotomy.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#56I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that! Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out o…
I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day. So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable. But on another level, it's frustrating that it's imposs…
I think that making an example out of someone really can work to effect the actions of a larger group. Fight fire with fire.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#57I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that! Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out o…
As far as the prosecution goes, here's some interesting explorations:
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-...
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elsevier et al have done very well selling articles bundled as journal subscriptions. Claiming articles have no commercial value while at the same time railing against publishers is cognitive dissonance at its finest.
His point is that the scholarly articles (like diamonds) can be easily tracked, and therefore determined if illegally sold or not. Since legitimate buyers - University professors, etc - want to be sure they are on the up and up, the won't purchase illegally obtained goods. Therefore, there would have been no buyers for the articles "stolen".
That doesn't make sense.
Imagine a world where Swartz managed to destroy JSTOR. A professor asks his grad students to read an article. They can either dig it out of the archival stacks and read it there or wait for interlibrary loan or...use a torrented copy or illegal DVD they bought on the street at their last academic conference. There is no way to track which one they did. No one will ever know. And no one will care: all the prof cares about is whether his students read the damn article; he doesn't care how they got it. He's completely focused on getting his research done, writing grant proposals, etc.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#59I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that! Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out o…
I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day. So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable. But on another level, it's frustrating that it's imposs…
> I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge.
Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or "federal crime" I'm going with prank. 'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.
> No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that a crime, right? If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent damage done can still be crimes.
If they downloaded a copy of my car and didn't physically touch my car, then no. What were you thinking?