|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 03:46 PM EST |
50 years in prison according to an article on TechDirt. Not 35
years.
The one thing that Dolan got right is that "35 years"
probably wasn't accurate. But he had it in the wrong direction. The original
four charges had a maximum possibility of 35 years. After Dolan's wife upped the
charge count to 13, it was looking like the total could possibly be upwards of
50 years
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 06:43 AM EST |
Parent post: " First, it is not clear that Mr. Swartz ever agreed to
bandwith or other access limits."
I've been wondering about this as well. I've read (and agreed to) various EULAs
regarding bandwidth usage (sometimes referred to as a "Fair Use
Policy").
After being kicked off of several networks for doing simple things like doing
updates on my laptop, I've learned to call and ask exactly what that that
bandwidth limit is.
While I've only been in this situation about 5-10 times over the last 7 years,
the response to my inquiries is always the same... They either say that they
don't know or they say that they won't tell me.
To me, these terms are unreasonable because it wouldn't make sense for a judge
to hold someone to an open-ended agreement like that. If I upgrade to the next
version of Linux, have I now broken the law when the agreement is vague and open
to all kinds of interpretation? Should I also face 30 years of prison time for
exceeding bandwidth limits and downloading something that I have every legal
license to download? Nonsense!
So I wonder, beyond whether or not he actually agreed to something like a
"Fair Use Policy..." Are those bandwidth limits actually specified in
the supposed agreement?
Of course, I am not a lawyer but I AM American, and I'd like to think that I
wield common sense every now and then. :)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
