Laws only matter if you're not rich.
Laws only matter if you're not rich.
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/55039106
68 comments
-
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.
-
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.
-
Copying a copyrighted material without proper approval or license is enough.
And he had legitimate access to the materials on JSTOR which was never in question. Copyright would not come into play without distribution as he had every right to download the materials.
-
I'm sorry for the late reply. Life happens.
Having access to network or a material doesn't give you unlimited rights. As for the JSTOR he didn't have the right nor a permission to access for establishing a separate machine on the network to download everything. In simplest terms he abused his right in the wider term they charged him like a drug dealer because he didn't have any reasonable excuse to do so because his access was limited by fair use. So trying to say he was free to use JSTOR is not a blanket excuse for anyone. By your definition any government employee has full rights to anything and everything they are given access to... Does that sound alright? No because it's bullshit to claim you have unlimited rights to do anything and everything once you have access. JSTOR established to be an academic tool and source and it's clearly stated that you can do so in a reasonable frame. To add to this subject US Copyright Law also doesn't grant unlimited rights. That's why academical establishments such as JSTOR can use copyrighted material under fair use clause. Now all this in mind downloading gigabytes of data which you can never be able read in your lifetime or study or research humanly possible is an abuse of that access right and fair use under the copyright law. Not to mention his laptop in the closet was sending thousand of request per second while being connected to an access point he was not allowed or approved to use.
I'm sorry to say this but they had him death to rights as they say. He was doing something he shouldn't be doing and he was abusing his right to access. All those things you're talking about his beliefs are just the butter on the bread or excuse my language but a nail on the coffin.
You want to believe he done nothing wrong and they did him dirty for his beliefs be my guest... But please don't try to lecture me about legal framework about his prosecution.
Have a nice weekend.
-
What was not authorized and was a terms of use violation was scripting the download. Namely the python script, keepgrabbing.py.
he didn't have the right nor a permission to access for establishing a separate machine on the network to download everything.
This is TOS, not copyright.
He had the ability to download. That is provided through the JSTOR site, which he had credentials for. There is a button that you click to download. Which gives him the right to access, download, and transfer those materials per the terms.
The issue JSTOR took was the means of access. The issue JSTOR had with him was the sheer magnitude because he scripted the download.
Everything else you typed out is based on your misunderstanding of what transpired.
I also never said "he did nothing wrong". I said that the AG abused the definition of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act (which legal scholars agree, which you can find as published materials with a name attached, where they got their degree, which bar they passed, and their specialty, so have at it), and that the AG was doing this for politics. Which she was gunning for governor at the time, and others in the office publicly noted.
So no, without distribution there would be no copyright violation. Only a terms of use violation, which is why the AG abused the CF&A, stretching it to the limits of its definition.
So, my statement remains the same. Ive already said everything that addresses things, now I'm just repeating myself.
Enjoy your weekend.
-
-
-
-
-
Ya, I have to agree with you. Don't wanna be at the fore front of and war.
-
68 comments