On Swartz:

Throughout this entire saga there seems to be a theme of the “Nerd as Noble Savage”, which states that people with personal quirks, technical savvy and mental illnesses should be allowed privileges that normal Muggles do not have. Swartz may have been a nerd, but for all intents and purposes, and lets not mince words, he was a criminal. He took something that did not belong to him. You get caught doing that sort of thing, you face the consequences and accept responsibility like a grown man.

But at the same time, I find this whole saga rather amusing. It would seem that the Creative Commons Technorati has finally realized the existence of Prison-Industrial Complex that uses mistakes and misdemeanors that young people make as an excuse to use to destroy their future, after using them as cheaper-than-Chinese labour. This myopia should come as no surprise of course, seeing that the Creative Commons crowd seems to believe that the only rights worth fighting for are the type that allow one to download subbed anime and episodes of the Walking Dead from ISOHunt. One would have had thought that Lessig et al would have had seen that the very system that persecuted Swartz got its practice on young black men with misdemeanor drug possession charges

The failure of the Technorati (the Boing-Boing, CC , Reddit types ) to see their “issues” as a part of a greater stuggle stems from a fallacy that has 1s and 0s as things that deserve freedom in much the same way that certain people did 150 years ago. Adhering to this fallacious thinking has caused them to not realize that the flaws in a justice system that gives people exorbitant fines for gigs of stolen files, are the same ones that damn young people of colour to being social outcasts.

The real issue is not that Swartz decided to take the easy way out because he couldn’t face up to hat he did. The real issue is how to change a legal system that sacrifices its nation’s children like the Caanaites did theirs to Moloch. And the best way to do that, I feel, is to move to a judge based legislative systems for misdemeanors and minor felonies like what Swartz and hundreds of people of colour commit daily.

I agree that a lot of bad things have been done on both sides of the issue, and the line between copyright and fair use is currently one of the battle lines being fought in courtrooms and harassment from both sides. Until that line is more firmly drawn, bad things will continue to be done on both sides. That’s what happens in a war like this.

As to Google, anyone who believes Google’s mantra is what they do isn’t paying attention. For example, the only way authors kept Google from putting their books online as so many free webpages was to take them to court. Google is in it for Google.

I wasn’t talking about Swartz when I said that. I’d gone from the specifics of Swartz to the comments about the Jim Crow law comparison to copyright theft that David made.

The Greensboro 4 were just four kids in college, not representatives of some specific movement, so they are a perfectly adequate as an example of what I am talking about.

What I have been saying is perfectly summarized in my quote from BERETTA, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” You must make your decisions and accept the outcome. That’s what the real world is all about.

No one deliberately “drove” Swartz to suicide. He was perfectly competent to do that himself.

Do we stop persecuting crimes because some poor soul may kill himself rather than face punishment? Hell, no.

I’m not anti-copyright per se, I don’t want any of my novels, out of print or not, to be abused or “re-mixed”, but I can also see that content cartel corporations have way over stepped their usefulness as far the balance between profiting and impeding access to content.

And the comparison between Mr. Swartz’s actions and the actions of persons involved in the 1950s civil rights movement in the US is highly spurious. Those people who bravely faced segregationists and the glenn becks of their day were a part of a massive, well organized movement, and where they may well have confronted death and prison, they also had a well organized mass network backing them up. The open access activists do not. When Mr. Swartz was confronted by the rapacious prosecutor and the full weight of the federal government, Mr. Swartz did not have amass movement ready to step in to aid him. So he went to friends and family for help.

And finally, I just saw a series of articles reporting abt how MIT is starting an internal investigation into their role in the prosecution of Mr. Swartz and how this may have contributed to his death. Perhaps an internal audit would also serve you well?

Also: I personally appreciate you sticking up for your opinion and your point-of-view, even if they may be unpopular in this particular community. That’s the sort of constructive dialogue that has a way of leading to change, after all.

One question for you, though: At the end of your comment you alluded to the fact that Aaron was “whining like a shoplifting brat that it [wasn't his] fault.” Is that something you can elaborate on? I don’t remember reading or hearing anything along those lines, and out of pure curiosity, I guess, I’m curious to know a bit more about any public reaction he may have had after learning about the charges that were being brought against him. Thanks Marilynn.

David

It is a great pity that Swartz proved to be so emotionally fragile that he took his own life, but, if his family and friends didn’t see that coming and put him on a suicide watch or into care, then how could the prosecutor have known?

As to what I think should have happened, I would have been perfectly happy to have seen him with a minor fine and the exorbitant lawyer fees as punishment with some form of probation to prevent him from doing the same thing again.

And, no, of course, I wasn’t comparing copyright to Jim Crow laws. I was saying that, if you believe a law is unjust and you are willing to break it, then you should be willing to accept the punishment that comes with it as part of the fight. The black men who sat down at the counters at Woolworth’s in Greensboro to fight segregation did so with the knowledge they were breaking the law and would go to jail, and they did it anyway. With dignity.

Breaking copyright law in the belief you can get away with it, then whining like a shoplifting brat that it isn’t your fault is just pathetic.

Chris Meadows, by the way, linked to both of these posts in the item he filed late last night about Aaron Schwartz. But I’d like to point them out again:

ONE: http://tiny.cc/btxwqw
I think this post was written by a friend of Chris Meadows’. It explains why you should very seriously consider e-signing the petition calling to remove the D.A. for prosecutorial overreach, even if you would never normally sign petitions of that sort.

TWO: http://tiny.cc/zxxwqw
An absolute must-read. Lawrence Lessig, who knows more about this situation than probably anyone else (save Aaron himself) shares his POV. Like Aaron, Lessig is out-of-control smart.

However, Swartz in these comments has been turned into a poster boy for the evils of copyright, and I totally disagree with that.

He also proved to be a very poor champion for the causes he supposedly stood for.

D: Yes, compassion by the feds would have gone a long way. We’re not talking about a real-life Joe Soprano; rather, a disturbed and well-intentioned genius full of potential. Thanks for citing the Seaberg example. More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Seberg.

M: So you do think Aaron Swartz deserved 35 years and $1M in fines (the possible max) despite his pure motives? Should the feds–especially if aware of his history of depression–have tried so hard to make an example out of him? Even after JSTOR declined to file for civil damages? A young man is dead. Did the legal system kill him? Like Deran, I very much think it was at least a contributing cause.

Also, in citing the civil rights movement, are you at least unwittingly implying that current copyright laws are unfair just like the old Jim Crow abominations? If so, although fervently in favor of the basic idea of copyright, I’d agree we need lots of changes there. And new business models as well. Just as I wrote earlier in my call for a Library-Publisher Complex, I don’t think America is spending ENOUGH on intellectual property; and more reliance on the library model could help rectify that and reduce conflicts between copyright holders and others, including future Swartzes. If you want creators protected, think of new business models to create more revenue for them in ways friendlier to society at large. Use Americans’ love of “free” as a tailwind, not a headwind, and you’ll make creators richer along the way. And speaking of creators, what about those on the technical side; should we torment people like Aaron Swartz—proven creators of wealth and jobs?

G: Thanks for your thoughts. Although anti-DRM, I’m also anti-piracy (in fact, I believe that DRM might even encourage it by reducing the value of honestly purchased e-books). Now–about whether the library model would end piracy. Absolutely not. But it would reduce piracy, since it’s harder to steal what’s either free or at least more easily available than it is now. In terms of rewards, life can only get better for publishers and writer than under the current system where just .2 percent of household expenditures go for reading materials.

F: Totally agree, Frank! “Progress of science and the useful arts.” “Limited time…” I understand the need for reasonable financial incentives, but that’s different from government-promoted gouges and Bono-length terms.

Thanks,
David
http://librarycity.org/?p=6626

If you haven’t already, I would suggest reading Chris Meadows’ post about the Aaron Schwartz situation. It was posted on TeleRead last night, and you can access it here: http://tiny.cc/wqvwqw

Chris makes a few important points:

1. Yes, Schwartz did commit a crime…
2. And yet, “the entities that Swartz arguably stole from—JSTOR and MIT—didn’t want to prosecute.” “However” …
3. “a victim’s desire to press charges is not necessary for a [U.S.] prosecutor to prosecute a case, and prosecutor Carmen M. Ortiz decided to continue to press charges.”

I think it’s fairly clear to anyone who’s followed this story that Ortiz did not make the decision to press charges of her own accord because of the horrific and evil nature of Schwartz’s crimes. (Obviously.) I don’t happen to know why she did decide to prosecute, although as others have pointed out, I would imagine it to be a cross between “making an example” and having a metaphorical bone to pick with uber-genius whiz-kid types who’ve seemingly come into this world with more advantages than most.

But for the most part, that’s now beside the point. An important point is this: Thirty-five years in prison and a $1M fine? For a crime in which the purported victims had already declined to press charges? Please.

I think it’s also worth bearing in mind that *part* of the reason so many people are finding this situation to be such a shame has to do with the fact that Aaron was very clearly on his way to changing the world in very positive ways. This kid was very much a one-in-a-million type, and it’s simply sad (and even frustrating, perhaps) to see him gone, regardless of the circumstances.

Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting that super-intelligent types are in any way above the law. They’re not. Obviously. But sometimes, it’s exactly those types of people who display to the rest of us *which* laws deserve to be changed, and why, and in what ways. Aaron was one of those people. And now he’s not.

That is all. Carry on.