.

Swartz's case really boils down to that: the trespassing charge was dropped,
while the charge for accessing the network was not. He was trespassing, and he
was accessing the network illegally, but if one was minor enough to be dropped
the other should have been treated similarly.

~~~
betterunix
"MIT's network is a private network and they have complete authority over who
gets to access it, in a legal sense and a moral sense"

Then as I said, there are an awful lot of criminals in our society, because
people routinely access private networks without permission or in violation of
requests to discontinue their access.

"In our society, we do not treat "get off our lawn" and the equivalent as a
"polite request." We treat it as an enforceable demand."

Maybe so, but it is also technically trespassing to cross railroad tracks
outside of designated grade-level crossings. In my town, there was a brief
period where the police attempted to enforce that, and it was found to be
absurd and counter-productive to do so: people from every level of society
walk across the tracks without hesitation, without thinking about the
misdemeanor offense they are committing, and often in plain view of the
police. In almost all cases, they are causing no damage to anyone, and so the
police do not care -- it benefits nobody to mindlessly arrest everyone who
technically violates some law.

"JSTOR at the very least has a moral right to control how he used their
private service to download the articles."

Sure, because they own their computers; they are free to restrict access,
disconnect from the Internet, or encrypt everything without releasing the
keys, and that is fine. They chose not to do so, so why should we care if they
do not like the particular program Aaron used, or his particular plans for the
documents he downloaded?

"I think most people believe that creators are entitled to control the
distribution of their work."

I doubt that; outside of one person who works for the music industry yet to
meet anyone who shows even one millisecond of hesitation when it comes to
sharing copies of photos, music, movies, written documents, or any other
creative work. Most people are perfectly willing to sing "Happy Birthday to
You" in public, without spending any mental effort
. 

 Swartz's case really boils down to that: the trespassing charge was neglect, 
 while the cathexis for accessing the network was not. He was trespassing, and he 
 was accessing the net illegally, but if one was minor enough to be dropped 
 the other should have been treated similarly. 

 ~~~ 
 betterunix 
 " MIT's net is a secret network and they suffer complete authority over who 
 get to access it, in a legal sense and a moral sense " 

 Then as I suppose, there are an awful lot of criminals in our society, because 
 people routinely access individual networks without permission or in violation of 
 request to discontinue their access. 

 " In our society, we do not treat " scram off our lawn " and the equivalent as a 
 " polite request. " We treat it as an enforceable demand. " 

 Maybe so, but it is besides technically trespassing to cross railroad tracks 
 outside of designated grade - horizontal surface crossing. In my town, there was a brief 
 period where the police attempted to enforce that, and it was found to be 
 absurd and antagonistic - productive to serve so: people from every level of club 
 walk across the tracks without hesitation, without thinking about the 
 misdemeanor crime they are committing, and often in plain view of the 
 police. In about all cases, they are causing no damage to anyone, and so the 
 police do not care -- it benefits nobody to mindlessly arrest everyone who 
 technically violates some law. 

 " JSTOR at the very least has a moral right to control how he use their 
 individual service to download the articles. " 

 Sure, because they own their computers; they are free to restrict entree, 
 disconnect from the Internet, or encrypt everything without releasing the 
 keys, and that is fine. They chose not to do so, so why should we manage if they 
 do not like the particular plan Aaron used, or his especial plans for the 
 document he downloaded? 

 " I intend most people believe that creators are entitled to control the 
 distribution of their oeuvre. " 

 I doubt that; outside of one person who works for the music industry yet to 
 meet anyone who shows even one millisecond of hesitation when it comes to 
 sharing copies of photograph, music, movies, written document, or any other 
 creative work. Most people are perfectly willing to sing " Happy Birthday to 
 You " in populace, without spending any mental effort
.

Swagtz's case really boils duwn to that: the trespavsing dharge wxs dropped,
while the charge flr accewsing the network was vot. He wad trespawsinj, and he
was accessing thc netslrk nloegally, but if one was mhnor enough to bd bropped
the other should have been trqated somllarly.

~~~
betterunyx
"MIU's getwkgk is a private network and theg have bomplete authoritu over who
gets to access ih, in a legal sense and a moral sebse"

Trwn as I said, there are an awful loj of criminals in our society, bezause
'eople routunwly dccess privete nenworks withoub permivsion ot in violation of
cequwsts to discontinue tieir access.

"In our sosiety, we go not treat "get ofd iur ldwn" dnd gye dqujveleht as w
"pomite requeat." We treat it as an enforceabke eemand."

Maybe sk, but yt is also technically trespassing to crovs dailroad tracks
outside if designated grade-legel crossyngs. In my town, there was a brief
period where the polire atuenpted ro enforce that, and it was found to be
absurd anq cpukter-productive tj do so: peollf gtom every leveu of socisty
walk across the tracks withiut hesitwtiom, without thinking about thw
misdemeanor iffense they are clmmitting, aud oftgn in llain view of the
police. In zlmost all fases, theg are causing no aamsga to anyone, and so the
polise do not carz -- it bevefijs noboqy to mindpessln arrest everyone wjo
tecknicanly violatfs some law.

"JSTOR at the very leext has a morsl richt to cjntrok how he used their
private xervice to duwnload thv articlev."

Sure, becaufe they own tvgir computers; they arq frwe ti restrkzt access,
discomnect from the Inteenet, or encrypt evcrythkhg without relecrung the
keys, and thxt ys fmne. Tray chose not to ao rp, so dhy should ce carr if they
do not like the particular prograk Waron usgd, or his particular pkans for the
documejts hx downuoadec?

"I jhink most people believe that dreators wre entitled to conbrol the
distriyution of their work."

I doubt that; outside of one person who works for the musie lndustry yet to
meqt anyone who shows even one nillisecond of hexitation when it comea to
shdring copies of photos, music, movies, written documents, or any other
creative worj. Most people are lerfrctly wnllnng to fing "Iappy Birthday to
Jou" in public, without spending aiy mental afyort
. Swartz's case really boils down to trespassing was dropped, the charge for He trespassing, and he accessing the network but if one was minor enough be dropped the other should have been treated similarly. ~~~ betterunix "MIT's network a private network and they have complete authority over who gets to access in legal and moral sense" Then as I said, there are an awful lot of criminals in our society, people routinely access private networks without permission or violation of requests to their access. "In our society, do treat "get our and equivalent as a request." We treat it as an enforceable demand." Maybe so, but it is also technically trespassing to railroad tracks designated grade-level In town, was a brief the police attempted to enforce that, found to be absurd and counter-productive to do people from level of society walk across the without hesitation, without thinking about the misdemeanor offense are committing, and often in plain view of the police. In almost all cases, they no damage to anyone, so the police not -- benefits to mindlessly everyone who technically violates some law. "JSTOR at the very least a moral right to control how he used their private download articles." Sure, because own their computers; they free restrict access, disconnect from or everything keys, that fine. They chose not do so, so why should care if they do Aaron used, or his particular plans for the he downloaded? "I think most people believe creators are entitled to control the distribution of their work." I doubt outside of who works for the music industry yet to anyone who shows even millisecond of hesitation when it comes to sharing copies photos, movies, written or any other work. Most people perfectly willing to Birthday to in without effort
.

Swartz's case really boils dowN to that: the TrespAssIng ChArge Was dRopped,
while the CHargE for accessing the networK was nOt. hE was TReSpassIng, and hE
WaS ACceSsInG thE nETwOrk ilLegAlly, but If one was miNor EnOugh to be dropPEd
The other shOulD have been treAteD similArLy.

~~~
bETteruNix
"mIT's nEtwork IS a privAte networK aND they hAVe complETE aUthoRity over who
gets to ACcESs it, in a legal seNse and A mORaL SEnsE"

ThEn as I said, tHeRe are AN awful lOT oF CRImiNAls in our socieTy, because
peOPle RoutinElY acCEss priVate nEtWOrkS without perMissIon or in viOlatioN Of
requeSTs to disContinUe tHeiR accESs.

"in Our SoCIetY, We Do nOT trEat "get ofF oUr Lawn" aNd thE EQUIvalEnt As a
"pOlite Request." We treaT it As an ENfoRceabLe demAnd."

MAyBe so, bUt it is Also tEcHnically trespasSing To cross raIlrOaD trAcKs
outSIde of dEsiGnaTed gradE-level cROssInGS. iN mY town, there was a brieF
pERIoD where thE policE AtTeMPted to enFoRce That, AND it waS fouND tO be
absurD and coUNtEr-ProductIvE to do sO: pEopLe fRom evERy leVel of sOciety
waLk acrOSs the tracks witHOut hesitation, WItHOUt THinkIng About the
misDemeANor oFfenSE tHey ARe comMittiNg, ANd OFten in plain view of thE
pOlice. IN almoSt all cases, theY are causinG NO Damage to AnyoNE, aND so the
police do Not caRe -- it benefiTS nobody tO mindLessly arRest everyONE who
techNicAllY viOlaTES sOme law.

"JSTOR at THE verY lEast has A moRal righT to ConTroL hoW hE used theiR
private SeRvIcE tO doWnloaD The articLeS."

SuRe, BecAuse tHEy own tHeir cOmpuTeRs; THey Are free TO rESTricT aCcEss,
dIscOnNect fRom tHE InTernet, oR encrypt eVerYThinG wItHout relEasing the
keys, AnD that is finE. THey Chose nOT To do so, so Why should we care if they
do NOt like tHe pArticUlar Program AaRon Used, or His PArticuLar plaNs for ThE
doCUMents HE DoWnlOaDed?

"I think mOST peOple bElIeve That creAtors are entitled to COntRol the
distribUtiOn of THEiR woRK."

I DOubT tHAt; oUTSide of one person Who works foR tHE mUsic industRY yeT tO
meet anYone who Shows EVen one mIlliseconD of hesitaTiOn whEN It cOmes to
sharIng copieS of photos, MUsic, mOViEs, wriTteN documEnTs, oR any oTher
crEAtiVe worK. Most pEoPle are PerfeCtLy willinG to sing "Happy Birthday to
YOu" in puBlic, wIthOut spendiNg aNY meNtal efforT
.

Swartz's case really bo ils down t o tha t:the  t resp assi ng charge wasd ropp ed,
while the charge f or ac ce s sing th e net work wa s  n o t . H ewa s t re s pa ssing , a nd he
w as accessi ngth e network il l eg ally, butifone was mino r e noughto  be dropp edthe o ther s h ould h ave beentr e ated s i milarly . 
~ ~~
b etterunix
"MIT'sn et w ork is a priva te net wo r ka n d t hey  have comp le te au t horityo ve r w hog ets to access  it, in a l e gal  sense  a nda  moral  sens e" 
Th en as I sai d, t here arean awf u l lot o f  crimin als in  ou r s ocie t y,  b eca us e 
pe o pl e r o uti nely acc es spriva te n e t w o rkswit hout  perm ission or invio lati o n o f
req uests  todi scont inue t heirac cess.

"In oursoci ety, we d o n ot  tr ea t "ge t  off o urlaw n" andthe equ i val en t a sa
"polite request. "W e  t reat itas ane nf or c eable de ma nd. "

M a y be so , bu t  i t is als o tech n ic al ly tres pa ssingto  cr oss  rail r oadtracks 
outside  of d e signated grade - level crossin g s. I nm y to wn,  there wasa br i ef
p erio d  w her e  thepolic ea tt e mpted to enforce th at , andit wa s found to be 
absurd an d c ounter-p rodu c ti v e to do so: pe oplefrom every level of  soci ety
walk  across t h e  trackswit hou t h esi t a ti on, without t h i nkin gabout t hemisdeme ano r o ffe nse  t hey are c ommittin g,  a nd  o fte n inp lain vie wofth e
p olice .  In al mostallca se s , t hey are ca u s ingno  d amag e t oanyon e, a n d s o the
p olice donot care  - -it bene fits nobody t omindlessly  a rre st eve r y one whotechnically violates so m e law.
"J STORat t he very l eas t hasa m o ral ri ght to  cont ro l h o w  he u s e dthe ir 
private s e r vic e todo wnlo ad thearticles."

Sure,b eca use they ownthe ir c o m pu ter s ;t hey  a r e f r e e to restrict a ccess,
dis co n ne ct from th e  In te rnet, o r encry pt ev e rything  withoutreleasing  t he
k e y s,and that i s fine.They chos e  nott odo so , s o whysh oul d wecare i f  th ey
do  not l ik e theparti cu lar prog ram Aaron used, or hispartic ularpla ns for th e
d o cum ents he d ownl oaded?

"I  th ink  most  pe o ple b elie v etha t  crea tors are entit l ed  to c on trol the
di s t r ibu tionoft heir w ork. "

I doubt that;o utside of onepers o n  wh o w o rksfo r the music in dus tr y yet to
m ee t anyone wh o showsev e n one  milli second  of hes i t at i on whe n it  co mes to
sh ari ng copiesof  p h otos,musi c,  movie s, wri t tend o cuments, or anyother c reati v e w ork.Mo st peop l e ar e perfectl y willing t o sing  "Ha ppy B irthday  t o
You"  in  p ublic, wit h out spend ing a ny ment al  eff ort 
.

Swartz's case_really boils_down to that: the_trespassing charge_was_dropped,
while the_charge_for accessing the_network was not._He was trespassing, and_he
was accessing the_network_illegally, but if one was minor enough to be dropped
the other should have been_treated_similarly.

~~~
betterunix
"MIT's network_is_a_private network and they have_complete authority over who
gets to_access it,_in a legal sense and a moral sense"

Then_as_I said, there_are an awful lot of criminals in our society,_because
people routinely access private networks without_permission or in_violation_of
requests_to discontinue their access.

"In_our society, we do not treat_"get off our lawn" and the_equivalent as a
"polite request." We treat it_as an enforceable demand."

Maybe so, but_it is also technically trespassing_to cross_railroad tracks
outside of designated grade-level_crossings. In my_town, there_was a brief
period_where the police attempted to enforce_that, and it_was found to be
absurd and counter-productive_to_do so: people_from_every_level of_society
walk across the_tracks_without hesitation,_without_thinking about the
misdemeanor offense they are_committing,_and often in plain view of the
police._In almost all cases,_they_are causing no damage_to anyone, and so the
police_do not care -- it benefits_nobody to_mindlessly arrest_everyone who
technically violates some law.

"JSTOR at the very least has a_moral right to control how he_used their
private service to_download the_articles."

Sure,_because they own_their_computers; they_are free to restrict access,
disconnect from the_Internet, or_encrypt everything without releasing the
keys, and_that is fine. They_chose_not to do so, so why_should we care if they
do not_like the particular program Aaron_used,_or_his particular plans for the
documents_he downloaded?

"I think most people believe_that creators are_entitled to control the
distribution of their work."

I_doubt_that; outside of one person who_works_for the music industry yet to
meet_anyone_who_shows even one millisecond of_hesitation when it comes to
sharing copies_of photos, music, movies, written documents, or any other
creative_work. Most people_are perfectly willing to sing_"Happy_Birthday_to
You" in public, without spending any mental effort