|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 03:26 PM EST |
| It is alleged, from a reading of Swartz' own online writings, that he intended
to
distribute the materials. That he did not get round to distributing thru
intervention of law enforcement apparently doesn't mitigate. Distribution by
independent agents is discussed in
JSTOR's T&C
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: symbolset on Thursday, January 17 2013 @ 09:29 PM EST |
Good point. Also no proof he intended to. As part of his scholarly research in
the past he has done serious published work using dumps of archives such as
this, demonstrating a relationship between sponsorship and findings.
My
mistake.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 04:04 AM EST |
| Agreed, but he did give them a hand distributing this information to him. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 19 2013 @ 04:40 PM EST |
On at least one occasion, Swartz wrote that he intended to release the
materials.
You may well argue that his actions were "for the public good" and
numerous other things, however, the simple facts remain that it was not his
copyright to distribute.
I'm sure we would all be up in arms if someone decided to take the linux kernel
and ignore the copyright and licence and use it in a closed source product ...
this is no different the documents coprights are intact and enforceable, the
licence he obtained the documents under did not allow him to use them for the
purpose he intended to use them for.
Copyright theft is copyright theft, end of story.
Its a tragedy what happened, however, he took the decision to break the law and
knew the likely consequence. Its a terribly sad loss, but it was his decision to
break the law and he knew the potential charges all too well. I'm terribly sorry
to hear of the loss but, I am equally convinced the prosecutors did exactly the
right thing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
