Here's what's supposed to happen: A student on campus wants to do a research project analyzing a large number of journal articles, or even just the metadata around a large number of journal articles. They approach their librarian, the librarian approaches the journal vendor (JSTOR or someone else), and everyone works together to find a way to get the student their data. Maybe the vendor hands over a special dataset. Maybe they give them back-end access to their database. Maybe they allow the student to run a Python script against their website, but only in the middle of the night so as not to slow down service for other users.

Here's what sometimes happens instead: The student writes and runs a clever script, the vendor notices that their servers have slowed due to automated script activity on their webpages, shuts down access from that IP address, and lets the school know. University IT staff and librarians drop what they're doing and try to track down the party responsible. Once they've been identified, the nice librarian has to have a talk with the student about what's permitted under the university's license agreement with the publisher, and together they go to the data vendor to ask forgiveness and permission. They usually get it.

Here's what Aaron did: He walked onto the MIT campus, set up a script not to analyze metadata but to actually download large numbers of documents, and when his IP was blocked, he used traditional hacking as well as Johnny Long-style "no-tech hacking" to get around it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2160824376898701015

Publishers, rightly or wrongly, assume that someone systematically downloading entire journal runs is intending to set up a shadow database to give away their content for free. The feds seem to agree, in this case.

The thing that gets me is that JSTOR was more than reasonable in this case. They didn't immediately shut down the whole campus (like some overly-aggressive publishers do), but started with the IP addresses involved. When it didn't stop, they had to cut off access completely. Aaron, who isn't even a student at MIT, managed to kick the whole campus off JSTOR for weeks, and as soon as they restored access, he went at it again. If I were a librarian at MIT, I'd want the book thrown at him.

It's outright sociopathic to suggest that justice for a few weeks inconvenience is 35 years in prison and a million dollar fine.

It's excessive, and I don't think that's what he'll serve. But he was warned multiple times that MIT and JSTOR didn't want him doing what he was doing, and he continued doing it, so as far as I can tell he's getting exactly what he asked for. He probably thinks he's the Rosa Parks of scholarly communication. I think he's reckless and grandiose.

They aren't suing him... this is a criminal case:

The criminal investigation and today’s indictment of Mr. Swartz has been directed by the United States Attorney’s Office

You're right, thanks. Replace suing by charging and strike make them a little richer and. The rest of the point still stands.

Swartz's organization seems to pretty clearly claim that both MIT and JSTOR asked the feds not to charge him. While JSTOR's statement doesn't actually say thatº, it certainly seems plausible to me since they very clearly say that they privately engaged and dealt with the matter with Swartz. You simply don't do that if you're pursuing criminal charges.

º I would probably be hesitant to say that publicly as well, considering the feds came down with a monster 35-year indictment against a juicy target. The "victim" announcing on Day 1 that they don't support the charges would not be accepted very charitably by federal prosecutors.

Unless JSTOR is itself at risk of prosecution for something, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that they'd care how Federal prosecutors felt about their public statements.

Everybody is at risk for federal prosecution. Everybody.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/... http://www.threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

I immediately thought of that book as well. As Silverglate frequently points out, the federal attorney is using extreme penalties to force a plea deal in this case. It's de facto denial of a fair trial when the Sword of Damocles (i.e. 35 years in prison) is hanging over your head.

Oh well we can't be upsetting the government. Carry on.

That does shed a new light to their statement. Seems like both parties made some lousy calls which led to a very ugly situation.

I don't understand the legal mechanisms that could lead to JSTOR not showing any public support for Aaron, and if those exist, but I hope they will show some support during the process (as well as the MIT). Gov shouldn't put digital theft in the same basket as physical theft.

There are no legal mechanisms, but showing support for someone that intended to destroy the value of their publisher's copyright would probably displease their partners...

Err, I should have said "someone who is accused of intending..."

I don't think it's "them" at all. They sound as if they'd be happier if the incident was already closed, as they thought it was.

Victims don't charge.

Why did Aaron hack their system instead of working with them to further understand what were his needs that their system was lacking and how they could reduce that gap?