Comment on Laws only matter if you're not rich.
BurnedDonutHole@ani.social 1 week agoI 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.
curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
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.
BurnedDonutHole@ani.social 1 week ago
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.
curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
What was not authorized and was a terms of use violation was scripting the download. Namely the python script, keepgrabbing.py.
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.