- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/55039106
You must log in or register to comment.
We should never forget this guy, a true hero.
While I honestly agree with the theme, the difference is that Meta wasn’t looking to share them with others, at least not in their original form.
I can download terabytes of content to train my AI (hypothetically) and I don’t think anyone but my ISP (and not because of IP issues, more for being a disproportionate consumer of their resources) would notice me, including and whatever industry I was using content from. It’s the sharing that incurs the real damages.
Admittedly, Generative AIs are basically going to “share” the content (with someone, likely for a fee) as well but not in its original form.
This comparison is flawed. Training AI on freely available data isn’t the same as pirating copyrighted material. Piracy means unauthorized access for personal use or distribution, while AI training processes text as input without reproducing or selling it directly.
You can’t have a system where individuals expect free access to information but demand that corporations pay for the same data. If something is truly free, it should be free for everyone.
No one expects an artist inspired by Michelangelo or Raphael to pay their estates for using their techniques or styles. Once knowledge and creativity enter the public domain, they become part of collective human progress.
That said, I fully support what Aaron Swartz did—hell, I would’ve done it myself. But on the flip side, let’s not ignore that JSTOR was a subscription-based service, meaning he was literally stealing paywalled content. It’s not the same as AI training on publicly available data.
And let’s be real—the three platforms mentioned exist in a legal gray area. It’s hypocritical to say individuals can use them freely, but corporations can’t. These sites exist solely to make information accessible to everyone, and you can’t pick and choose who gets to benefit.
The Internet was never the same after his death…it was the start of the downfall of the Internet as we knew it, but society too
but we shouldn’t want anyone prosecuted at all
Agreed. Prosecution is mostly revenge at this point
The documentary about him is heart-breaking. I highly recommend it.
The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
Aaron Schwartz and Ian Murdock are the two people I have never met I truly mourn to this day. So much good that was just not compatible with this shitty world.
The good die young, dude was a big open source contributor and could have been a good Sam Altman.
even if they do get punished it will just be a fine which is like a pocket change for them
The difference is Aaron Schwartz was going to use it for good, while Meta is almost certainly only going to be using it for evil.
llama being free “open source” model is kinda good though?
I don’t trust the motives of people like Zuckerberg and the meta team who have historically used their technology to knowingly enable genocide.
removed by mod
ed?
Snowden, of course.
Oh god… I was at a small party this weekend and my wife mentioned Snowden only for the entire group of people to have no idea who he was. We had to explain how he was the NSA whistleblower who let us all know about the global surveillance that’s actively happening. They didn’t believe us… It made us extremely sad =(
Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. That was Snowden’s secret.
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, 1961
Might not be your cup of tea, but Dual Core has a song called For Aaron that’s a dedication to him.
What about the other Aaron, Bushnell?
Yeah but he was a lefty libertarian who believed publicly funded research should be publicly available. If he were doing it for profit he wouldn’t have had any problems.
It doesn’t matter what he believed. They wanted to make an example of him and build their carriers thanks to that example. The only people they went after this hard were Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
Didn’t they want to make an example of him because of what he believed in?
Nope! They made an example of because they didn’t know how to deal with internet crimes so they decided he will be the scapegoat for their failures even though they knew his so called crimes didn’t require such harsh punishment. They went after him so hard to make an example out of him to warn others. If you think they did it because of his beliefs you’re doing injustice to what he went through.
I would rather firmly disagree with you, youre doing a greater injustice to him by ignoring how the articles alleged to be distributed were part of his long held beliefs and civic activism. Attributing this solely to “not knowing how to deal with internet crimes” doesn’t really fit either - the Paypal 14, a cyber bullying case, the Morris worm, etc were all prior cases using the same act as a basis to charge him.
Let’s be clear - he was a staunch and long term supporter of open access to information long before the incident at MIT. PACER is a good example of that, which had no charges brought against him.
In terms of the prosecution, yes, that was a decision by the Mass AG. That decision would not appear to have anything to do with “not knowing”, and more to do with seeking to continue an overly broad interpretation of the computer fraud and abuse act. An interpretation that had been challenged by legal experts for years.
Now into the specifics here - the Mass AG based the prosecution around Swartz having an intent to distribute the materials. This is the part that has to do with his beliefs. His previous public statements regarding open access to information were part of this intent to distribute alleged by the Mass AG. So yes, his beliefs absolutely played a role in his prosecution (see the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto by Swartz)
Why it was such a harsh approach was based around, as mentioned above, the Mass AG looking to use this as an example of how others could be prosecuted, to push the limits of how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could be applied, opening up more options for the AG to be “tough on crime” (Carmen Ortiz, an Obama appointee who resigned when Trump was coming in).
To note, Carmen Ortiz has been accused by judges of stretching evidence, providing gross exaggerations of events, having “unusual” prosecutions. She oversaw the arrest of someone who kinda sorta looked like a wanted suspect, she agreed in pleas to lesser sentences and leniency but would then seek harsh penalties, tried to take motel via civil forfeiture despite the owner not having been involved/identified as part of/charged with any crimes.
TL;DR:
His beliefs absolutely played a role, and the US AG in Mass, Carmen Ortiz, often went waaayyyy beyond to get the harshest punishments possible.
So, I firmly disagree with your statement.
Edit: Cleaned up a sentence up top to be more clear. The Mass AG would allege intent to distribute due to his beliefs, though he had not actually distributed them.
I respect your opinion and let me say that I agree that his beliefs played a role but he wasn’t punished harshly because of his beliefs. He was made an example not because of his beliefs but because the people in charge at the time wanted to show that they are in control. You feeling strongly about how the prosecution put together their remarks and how they used his own remarks against him I understand. (I’ll tell you that I’m a lawyer with over 20 years of experience you want to believe me or not is up to you.) But I can tell you if they were doing it just because of his beliefs they could’ve charged him for each and every copyrighted material he downloaded from the servers. Considering he downloaded gigabytes of material in mostly text format they could’ve went an charge him for each and everyone of those. Just by doing that they could have easily finish his life with thousands of years of prison sentence and charge him hundreds of millions in monetary damages. Instead they turned it into one big case. You can check the law and see if it’s possible or not. In the end let’s agree to disagree. I wish you well and I hope that he is in peace.
Ya, I have to agree with you. Don’t wanna be at the fore front of and war.
but because the people in charge at the time wanted to show that they are in control.
That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
I would say his beliefs played a role in how prosecution handled it. I would say the AG was making a political play, she was on the lookout for something in the technology realm already.
But I can tell you if they were doing it just because of his beliefs they could’ve charged him for each and every copyrighted material he downloaded from the servers.
Regarding this bit, he had not distributed anything and was permitted access to JSTOR and those materials. They pushed intent and his own words. There would be no basis for a copyright claim without distribution as he had access to those materials.
What they were hinging this on was his use of scripts making the access “unauthorized” by not using their interface directly. I don’t see any way a copyright claim would be possible.
I’d say the only way he got such a harsh result was through the AGs abuse of the definitions of the computer fraud and abuse act, and the ignorance of the judiciary regarding most things technology.
In the end let’s agree to disagree. I wish you well and I hope that he is in peace.
Agreed, and I hope so as well.
I would like to clarify something so that there won’t be any misunderstandings. Law doesn’t require distribution or intent to distribute. Copying a copyrighted material without proper approval or license is enough. Which is what he did.
Below is the related section from the US Copyright Law, under section 506 Titled “Criminal Offences”:
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
As you can see they didn’t need his intentions to distribute it was a factor used not required. I hope I made it clear about why I don’t think it was because if his beliefs.
I wish you well.
I knew both of these happened, but I didn’t compare them in my brain until now. But that’s crazy.
Going to get a stern letter from their ISP
He was using them for academic purposes, which should have been covered under fair use too, makes the whole thing extra fucked up.
He had legal access to JSTOR through MIT so I don’t even think any crime was actually committed apart from maybe connecting a PC in their network closet without authorization and they never had any actual evidence that he was going to redistribute the material. He likely was planning on it, but never got that far.
According to the college it was, according to the FBI they were going to prosecute him federally anyway.
