Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we're talking about JSTOR's behavior and reputation here, not the legalities, which have been discussed many times (although not tested in courts). In particular after state and federal prosecutors went berserk and MIT admin didn't push back in the name of these same freedoms that JSTOR is telling us were so beloved and apple-pie back in WWII. It's not like JSTOR publicly said "This federal criminal indictment is…
I don't disagree with you overall; I was just trying to seek out the point where it jumped the gap between civil and criminal processes. I suppose that the NET Act sticks in my mind because it was probably the first legislation I read that shocked me with how blatant the disconnect was between legal and practical definitions of terms.
Oh, and there are some killer ironies in Bob Goodlatte's trajectory (I never thought I'd see a revolving door made out of paper, but now we have):
Goodlatte stepped down from Congress (and House Judiciary Chair) in 2018. In February 2020, he registered as a lobbyist [0] representing (media rights holders and) and the Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability, a nonprofit that describes itself on its website as “a nonpartisan group of U.S. citizens who advocate for greater protection of our privacy and civil liberties in government surveillance programs.”(!) In an interview, Goodlatte said he is lobbying Congress and the administration on behalf of the nonprofit on three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizing government surveillance programs set to expire in March 2020. [1]
> Goodlatte invoked surveillance abuse against Martin Luther King Jr. in the context of [alleged surveillance abuses in 2016] [2]
[0]: Lobbying Firm Profile: Goodlatte, Robert https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/firms/summary?c...
[1]: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2020...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodlatte#Russia_probe