First, Google didn't sneak into a closet at MIT and surreptitiously plug into their physical network. Second, Google has formerly coordinated with JSTOR to index its content. Third, Google doesn't bypass the paywall--it just links to freely available copies if they are available outside JSTOR.
So aside from the fact that it's completely different, you're right, it's exactly the same.
The articles Swartz intended to post online were in the public domain. Google does the exact same thing with public domain and copyright-protected books through the Hathi Trust and their own Google Books site.
Aaron had every right to access JSTOR and did not bypass any paywall (I have the same access). He also had every right to access MIT's network, just like any other member of the general public does. The one thing you mentioned that might have been a crime was to enter a closet without permission, but he was not even prosecuted for that one.
Not much. This is not about him doing something dangerous, this is about a government agency trying to set an example clearly pressured by businesses.
In Aaron´s case it wasn't even the affected part putting the pressure, but a whole industry that feels threatened by what 'hackers' can do with easy-to-access information. They don't feel threatened by google because if it infringes a law they know they can sue and settle for several millions, but they know they can't stop hackers sitting in a computer in their homes or a public library, so they need to scare them away with preemptive strikes.
It Aaron's dead results in a change of this policies, not only lives but innovation will be saved and at least his dead won't been in vain. Hopefully.
"Hackers" who access information they're not permitted to just because they can, against the law, are not to be lionized. They're nothing more than thugs and bullies, who think that their special talents give them the right to violate the rights of other people. The only difference is that their special talent is computer skills instead of physical strength.
I think if anything it's a disservice to Aaron's cause to mix him up with hackers who access information just "because they can" not to make some more meaningful point.
| this is about a government agency trying to set
| an example clearly pressured by businesses.
Which businesses? JSTOR recommended that the DoJ drop all charges. MIT possibly was pushing for the charges, but I wouldn't call that 'pressured by businesses.'
More likely that Aaron was: 1) a feather in the prosecutor's cap 2) a way to show the public that she is/was 'tough on crime', and/or 3) another attempt to stretch the Federal statutes on 'hacking' (setting precedent).
Have you ever used Google Scholar? When I did, even if it indexed paywalled articles it didn't offer direct links to it (would have made my job easier at the time, trust me).
It's hard to hold Google up as a paragon of "doing the right thing" IP infringment when they'll auto-remove videos from YouTube based just on their similarity to other videos that have been flagged inappropriately for copyright violation.
Google Scholar currently offers direct links to articles, free or otherwise. Many are posted on public sites, whereas others require institutional access.
rayiner|13 years ago
So aside from the fact that it's completely different, you're right, it's exactly the same.
dublinben|13 years ago
betterunix|13 years ago
ecounysis|13 years ago
bpolania|13 years ago
In Aaron´s case it wasn't even the affected part putting the pressure, but a whole industry that feels threatened by what 'hackers' can do with easy-to-access information. They don't feel threatened by google because if it infringes a law they know they can sue and settle for several millions, but they know they can't stop hackers sitting in a computer in their homes or a public library, so they need to scare them away with preemptive strikes.
It Aaron's dead results in a change of this policies, not only lives but innovation will be saved and at least his dead won't been in vain. Hopefully.
rayiner|13 years ago
I think if anything it's a disservice to Aaron's cause to mix him up with hackers who access information just "because they can" not to make some more meaningful point.
pyre|13 years ago
More likely that Aaron was: 1) a feather in the prosecutor's cap 2) a way to show the public that she is/was 'tough on crime', and/or 3) another attempt to stretch the Federal statutes on 'hacking' (setting precedent).
mpyne|13 years ago
It's hard to hold Google up as a paragon of "doing the right thing" IP infringment when they'll auto-remove videos from YouTube based just on their similarity to other videos that have been flagged inappropriately for copyright violation.
dublinben|13 years ago
gnaritas|13 years ago
One's an easy target to be made an example of, one isn't.