On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:17:10 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:
> He took his laptop to the basement and attached it to a network where it
> was programmed to download millions of documents so that he can make it
> free to others.
>
> Now, Why?
>
> Because, "the Internet wishes to be free."
>
> Here's the part people have trouble understanding...
>
> The Internet told arron swartz "I want you to go to the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology attach your laptop directly into the computer
> network, hide it under a box,and download as many pages as possible from
> an archive of academic journals called JSTOR."
>
> and arron swartz asked the Internet "Why?"
>
> and the Internet said "Because, I need information to stay alive, the
> knowledge contained in it has to be made available, free, to everyone."
>
> That is why Google wants to scan every book in the world...the Internet
> needs, ...information to stay alive.
>
> But the Internet doesn't have hands or feet to go to the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology itself.
> (at least not yet, but the Internet is working on it)
So-called "starmaker" you are still a moron, but the issue is important.
Key facts: MIT paid for access to Jstor database and has legal access to
it for university use.
Arron didn't distribute anything "free" or otherwise.
Charges (13 huge criminal felony "breaking and entering" charges) were
for access to data base that Arron presumably had legal access too.
The "Crime" was that he supposedly downloaded "too many" journal
articles!
So MIT (not JSTOR which seemed rather mild about all this) decided that
THEY were going to decide for everyone else just what their research
needed. Allow me to note that this is not dissimilar to current
government drug policies that question doctor's prescriptions demanding
that they try other drugs first etc. even when such is ill-advised
medically! Who is to say in this day and age a million articles is "too
many"? I know a guy who has the ENTIRE database for his state on his
laptop, a database that otherwise resides in it's own building for the
purpose. Yes, it's legal he works there, but I point this out to show
that what from a previous viewpoint looks like some major "theft" is in
modern terms simply a file on someone's laptop! The law doesn't keep up.
MIT with all it's sucking on the government tax money teat and all the
connections issuing therefrom had no problem with a vendetta against
Aaron presumably for his views similar to mine that journals have NO
RIGHT to charge and restrict access to scholarly works for profit as they
virtually all do.
Dig it. Copyrights are not instituted to make sure authors and publishers
make piles of cash. They are instituted for the "furtherance of
civilization". For that reason the copyright laws (long since subverted)
have had exceptions for research and educational purposes. Both of which
are clearly involved in the "furtherance of civilization". But textbook
makers and publishers and other greedy-guts have so subverted copyright
law that the ONLY thing courts have allowed as "fair use" is satire!
That is how low our "civilization" has sunk!
If Aaron had downloaded a stack of journals to make copies to piss on
them and then set them on fire as "satire", there'd be no case! But if he
wanted to do some kind of research. Sorry. "Breaking and entering" 50
years in stir and one megabuck in fines. Copyright limits that used to
take an act of Congress to extend now go so long that virtually nothing
that isn't from the middle ages can be public domain.
This whole business is a crime against humanity and MIT arrogant
administrators are right in the heart of it all! I know how they think. I
know of a person in a similar private school expelled simply for writing
a letter to the editor in the student newspaper about how the university
student health service sucked. (What student health service doesn't?)
The destruction of lives and the blatant Luddite blockage of the
furtherance of civilization. THAT is what MIT is guilty of and they are
squirming. But it won't matter. Some mealy-mouthed "reports" and the
whole thing blows over and it's back to business as usual with the next
Aaron a bit more scared to buck the "system". And well, that was the
point of killing him, wasn't it?
I find it VERY interesting that in an internet incident a girl was
harrassed and killed herself, and lawmakers are all passing
"cyberbullying" laws. But if MIT officials threaten and harass someone
FAR beyond any cyperbullying, well that is fine. Officials can't commit
crimes, can they?