, then the law itself is what
is wrong.

"behaving like a reasonable person"

How conservative of you. I hear there are some lovely caves that people used
to live in, until some unreasonable person had a "better" idea (I wonder if
you would have made an argument for punishing him -- after all, not living in
caves might disrupt the social order).

"If I let you come apple picking in my orchard, you can't bring in a fruit
truck and some day laborers and strip the trees bare."

You are comparing apples to universal Turing machines. Your comparison is
actually that bad -- you might as well be talking about the superbowl than
Aaron Swartz.

Aaron did not strip anyone or anything. He prevented nobody else from using
JSTOR, nor did he stop anyone from reading the articles he downloaded, nor
from using the network, nor from using the closet where he hid his laptop. _He
caused no measurable damage to anyone or anyone's property_ at any point in
the JSTOR incident.

"If JSTOR gives you permission to access journal articles for academic
purposes..."

...then I should be free to use those articles for any purpose, because JSTOR
has no claim to them or to the knowledge they contain. What gives JSTOR the
_moral right_ to tell anyone what they are allowed to do with the articles
JSTOR provides to them? Sure, we have this thing called copyright that emerged
from British attempts to censor books in the age of printing presses (I wonder
if the Chinese firewall will lead to the creation of a similar law), but
copyrights are in no way related to modern senses of morality or justice --
copyrights are just a way for the government to promote a particular class of
business, and that is all they have ever been about in the United States.
"Right" and "wrong" are no more relevant to copyright than they are to parking
in a loading zone.

"nobody needs it spelled out to them that this is the case."

That is because prior to the attack on Aaron Swartz, nobody thought that
automatically downloading scientific articles on a university network would
ever warrant the attention of federal prosecutors. Now we know: don't you dare
download articles using any software other than your web
, then the law itself is what 
 is wrong. 

 " behaving like a reasonable person " 

 How bourgeois of you. I learn there are some lovely caves that multitude used 
 to live in, until some excessive person had a " better " idea (I wonder if 
 you would have make an argument for punishing him -- subsequently all, not living in 
 caves might disrupt the social club). 

 " If I let you hail apple picking in my orchard, you can't institute in a fruit 
 truck and some day laborer and strip the trees unsheathed. " 

 You are comparing apple to universal Turing machines. Your comparison is 
 actually that bad -- you might as well be talking about the superbowl than 
 Aaron Swartz. 

 Aaron did not undress anyone or anything. He prevented nobody else from using 
 JSTOR, nor did he stop anyone from reading the articles he download, nor 
 from use the network, nor from using the closet where he hid his laptop. _ He 
 caused no measurable damage to anyone or anyone's property _ at any point in 
 the JSTOR incident. 

 " If JSTOR gives you license to entree journal articles for academic 
 purposes... " 

... then I should be spare to use those articles for any purpose, because JSTOR 
 have no claim to them or to the knowledge they contain. What gives JSTOR the 
 _ moral right field _ to tell anyone what they are allowed to do with the articles 
 JSTOR provides to them? Sure, we have this thing called copyright that emerged 
 from British attempts to censor books in the old age of printing press (I wonder 
 if the taiwanese firewall will lead to the creation of a similar law), but 
 copyrights are in no way related to modern sense of morality or justice -- 
 copyrights are just a room for the government to advertise a particular class of 
 business, and that is all they have ever been about in the United States. 
 " Right " and " incorrect " are no more relevant to copyright than they are to parking 
 in a loading zone. 

 " nobody necessitate it spelled out to them that this is the casing. " 

 That is because prior to the attack on Aaron Swartz, nobody thought that 
 automatically downloading scientific articles on a university net would 
 ever warrant the attention of union prosecutors. Now we know: don't you dare 
 download article use any software other than your web
, thfn the law itself is whau
is wrong.

"behaving like a reasohable pefson"

How conservative of you. M heqr thtge are some lovely caxes that ieople uswd
to oive in, unvjl some unreaalnabnx person had a "netter" idea (I wonder if
yog dobld have made an argument for punishyng him -- wfter all, not jivimd in
daves might disrupt the social ordsr).

"If I net you come spple picking in my orcharf, yok can't bring in a vruit
truck qnd fime day labofers and surnp the treea bare."

You are comparing apples go unnversal Turunt mwwhines. Your compwrison is
actmslly tvat bad -- you might as wenl ve talking about the vuperbowl than
Aarog Swartz.

Adrkn did not strip qntone mr atythkbg. Fe kretenfed nohodb else from using
JSTOR, nor did he stop anuogv from readinf the wreicles he downloaded, nor
from using the tetsork, nor from using the closet where he hid jis lapto[. _He
caused no measurable damage to anyone or anyote's pcooeruy_ at avt ooint in
the JSTOR incident.

"If JSTOR gives you [srkixsion to accesf journal attlckgs for academiz
purposes..."

...fhen I should be fgee to ose thise articjes gor any purpose, because JSTIR
has no clapm ti them or to the kuowledge thev contsin. Wnat gives JSTOR the
_morau rifht_ to tell anyone wgxt they are alloded tm do with the articles
JSTOW providew to them? Sjre, ee havq this thijg called copyright that emeryed
frmm British attempts to censor books in thx age of prinjinc pgesses (I conder
lf the Chinese sirewall will kead to the zreation or a simmlar law), but
sopyrights ara in no way rxlated to modwrn wenses uw morality or kustice --
copyrights qre just a way for thg fovernment to pxunote a particulsr zlafs oh
busigass, and that is xll yhey fave evtx bcen aboit in the United Stades.
"Rjght" and "wrong" are nj more rglevant tj copyright tnan they are to pagking
mn a luadinb zjne.

"nobody needs it spelled out to them hhab this is the casc."

Thaj is becausz prior to the attack on Aaron Swartz, nouody thought that
automarically downloading xcientific erticlqs on a utiversity network woyld
ever warrant tme attention of federam prosacutogs. Now we know: don't you dare
download articles using any software other thqn youc reb
, then the law itself is what "behaving a reasonable How conservative of some caves that people to live in, some unreasonable person had a "better" (I wonder if you would have made an argument for punishing him -- all, not living in caves might disrupt the social order). "If I let come picking my you can't bring in a fruit truck and some day laborers and strip the trees bare." are comparing apples to universal Turing machines. Your is actually that bad you might as well be about superbowl than Swartz. did strip anyone or He prevented nobody else from using JSTOR, nor did he stop anyone from reading the articles he nor from network, nor using closet he hid his caused no measurable damage to anyone at any point in the JSTOR incident. "If gives you to access journal articles for academic ...then I should be free to use those for any purpose, because JSTOR has no claim to them or to the knowledge they gives JSTOR the _moral to tell anyone they allowed do the articles provides to them? Sure, we have this thing called copyright that from British attempts to censor books in the age of (I if the Chinese will lead to the of similar law), but copyrights no related of or -- copyrights are just way for the government to a particular class of they have ever been about in the United "Right" and "wrong" are no more relevant copyright than they are to parking in a loading zone. "nobody needs spelled out that this is the case." That is because to the attack on Swartz, nobody thought that automatically downloading scientific articles on university would ever the attention of prosecutors. Now we don't you dare using any other your
, then the law itself is what
is wRong.

"behaviNg likE a rEasOnAble PersOn"

How conservatIVe of You. I hear there are some loVely cAvES thaT PeOple uSed
to liVE iN, UNtiL sOmE unReASoNable PerSon had a "Better" idea (i woNdEr if
you would HAvE made an argUmeNt for punishiNg hIm -- afteR aLl, nOT liviNg iN
caveS might DIsrupt The social OrDEr).

"If I lET you comE APpLe piCking in my orchard, yOU cAN't bring in a fruiT
truck AnD SoME Day LabOrers and stRiP the tREes bare."

yOu ARE ComPAring apples to Universal TuRIng MachinEs. youR ComparIson iS
aCTuaLly that bad -- yOu miGht as well Be talkINg about THe superBowl thAn
AAroN SwaRTz.

aaRon DiD Not STrIp aNYonE or anythInG. HE prevEnteD NOBOdy eLse From Using
jSTOR, nor did he StoP anyONe fRom reAding The aRtIcles He downLoadeD, nOr
from using the nEtwoRk, nor from UsiNg The ClOset wHEre he hId hIs lAptop. _He
Caused nO MeaSuRABLe Damage to anyone or anYoNE'S pRoperty_ aT any poINt In
THe JSTOR iNcIdeNt.

"If jstOR giVes yOU pErmissioN to accESs JoUrnal arTiCles foR aCadEmiC
purpOSes..."

...tHen I shOuld be frEe to uSE those articles FOr any purpose, bECaUSE JstOR
hAs nO claim to theM or tO The kNowlEDgE thEY contAin. WhAt GIvES JSTOR the
_moral right_ To Tell anYone wHat they are allOwed to do wiTH THe articlEs
JStoR PRovides to them? SUre, we Have this thINg called CopyrIght that Emerged
frOM british aTteMptS to CenSOR bOoks in the age oF PRintInG presseS (I wOnder
if The chiNesE fiReWall will lEad to the CrEaTiOn Of a SimilAR law), but
cOpYriGhTs aRe in nO Way relAted tO modErN sENseS of moraLItY OR jusTiCe --
CopyRigHtS are jUst a WAy fOr the goVernment tO prOMote A pArTicular Class of
busineSs, And that is aLl TheY have eVER been aboUt in the United States.
"RighT" And "wronG" arE no moRe reLevant to cOpyRight tHan THey are To parkIng
in A lOadING zone.

"NOBoDy nEeDs it spelleD OUt tO them ThAt thIs is the Case."

That is because pRIor To the attack on aarOn SwARTz, NobODy THouGhT ThaT
AUtomatically dowNloading scIeNTiFic articleS On a UnIversitY networK woulD
Ever warRant the atTention of FeDeraL PRosEcutors. Now We know: doN't you dare
DOwnloAD aRticlEs uSing anY sOftWare oTher thAN yoUr web
, then the law itself is w hat
is wro ng.
"be hav in g li ke a  reasonable pe r son" 

How conservative ofyou.Ih eart he re ar e somel ov e l y c av es  th at pe opleuse d
to li ve in, unt ilso me unreasona b le  person ha d a  "better" id ea(I won de r i f 
youwou ld ha ve mad e  an ar gument fo rp unishi n g him - - af terall, not living i n 
c a ves might disr upt th es oc i a l o rde r).

"If I  l et yo u  come a p pl e p ick i ng in my orch ard, you ca n 'tbringin  af ruit
t ruckan d  so me day labo rers  and stri p thet rees ba r e."

Yo u arecom par inga pp le s t ou niv e rs alT uri ng machi ne s.  Your  com p a r i sonisactu allythat bad -- y oumigh t  as  well  be t alki ng  abou t thesuper bo wl than
Aaron S wart z.

Aaron  di dnot  s tripa nyoneorany thing.He prev e nte dn o b od y else from usingJS T O R,  nor did  he st o pan y one from  r ead ingt h e art icle s  h e downlo aded,n or 
f rom usi ng  the n et wor k,nor f r om u sing t he close t whe r e he hid his l a ptop. _He
cau s ed n om easu rab le damage t o an y oneor a n yo ne' s  prop erty_  a t  a n y point in
the JSTO Rincide nt.
"If JSTOR giv es you per m i s sion toacce s sj ournal article s for  academicp urposes. .."
...thenI shouldb e  free to  us e t hos e a r t ic les for any p u r pose ,because  JS TOR
has  no  cl aim  to  t hem or to  the kno wl ed ge  t hey  cont a in. What  g ive sJST OR th e 
_mora l rig ht_to  t e llanyonew ha t they  a re  all owe dto do  wit h  th e artic les
JSTOR  pr o vide sto  them?Sure, we have  t his thingca lle d copy r i ght that  emerged
from British a t temptstocenso r bo oks in th e a ge ofpri n ting p resses  (I w on der i f the C hi nes efirewall w i l l l ead t othecreatio n of a similar law ) , b ut
copyrights  ar e in n oway re l ate dt o m o d ern senses of m orality or  j u st ice --
cop y rig ht s are j ust a w ay fo r  the go vernmentto promot ea pa r t icu lar classof
busin ess, andt hat i s  a ll th eyhave e ve r b een a bout i n  th e Uni ted St at es.
"R ight"  a nd "wron g" are no more relevant  to co pyrig htthan they  ar e  to  parkingin a  loading z one .
"nobo dyn eedsit s p el led out t o th e m that th i sist h ecase."

Tha t i s b ecaus e p r ior to  the  attack on AaronS wartz, nobodythou g h t t hat auto ma tically downlo adi ng s cientifi carticles on  a unive rs i ty ne tworkwouldever wa r r an t  the a tten tio n of fede ral  p r osecuto rs .N ow weknow :don'tyou da r e
do w n load articles us ing a n y  soft w are  othe rthan yo u r we b
, then_the law_itself is what
is wrong.

"behaving_like a_reasonable_person"

How conservative_of_you. I hear_there are some_lovely caves that people_used
to live in,_until_some unreasonable person had a "better" idea (I wonder if
you would have made an_argument_for punishing_him_--_after all, not living in
caves_might disrupt the social order).

"If_I let_you come apple picking in my orchard, you_can't_bring in a_fruit
truck and some day laborers and strip the trees_bare."

You are comparing apples to universal_Turing machines. Your_comparison_is
actually_that bad -- you_might as well be talking about_the superbowl than
Aaron Swartz.

Aaron did not_strip anyone or anything. He prevented nobody_else from using
JSTOR, nor did he_stop anyone from reading the_articles he_downloaded, nor
from using the network,_nor from using_the closet_where he hid_his laptop. _He
caused no measurable damage_to anyone or_anyone's property_ at any point in
the_JSTOR_incident.

"If JSTOR gives_you_permission_to access_journal articles for_academic
purposes..."

...then_I should_be_free to use those articles for_any_purpose, because JSTOR
has no claim to them_or to the knowledge_they_contain. What gives JSTOR_the
_moral right_ to tell anyone_what they are allowed to do_with the_articles
JSTOR provides_to them? Sure, we have this thing called copyright that emerged
from_British attempts to censor books in_the age of printing_presses (I_wonder
if_the Chinese firewall_will_lead to_the creation of a similar law), but
copyrights_are in_no way related to modern senses_of morality or justice_--
copyrights_are just a way for the_government to promote a particular class_of
business, and that is all_they_have_ever been about in the_United States.
"Right" and "wrong" are no_more relevant to_copyright than they are to parking
in a_loading_zone.

"nobody needs it spelled out to_them_that this is the case."

That is_because_prior_to the attack on Aaron_Swartz, nobody thought that
automatically downloading scientific_articles on a university network would
ever warrant the attention_of federal prosecutors._Now we know: don't you_dare
download_articles_using any software other than your web