Don't even get me started on what the RIAA did, suing citizens (including little girls and grandmothers) for huge amounts for alleged file-sharing. But that wasn't in criminal court, those were civil matters. I personally think the RIAA was coming on way too strong by demanding huge amounts (IIRC, settlements usually were far less) in order to over-dramatize their case. I'd like to think that it backfired on them, illustrating instead just how greedy and antagonistic the music publishers (RIAA being their industry representation) were towards consumers.
I agree with you that otherwise freely available publications should not be sequestered behind a paywall just because the publishers can do so. I wonder how many, if any, of the JSTOR documents were published under public domain copyrights that were bent or violated by charging for access. Still ... content owners, publishers, and their appropriately licensed distributors are entitled to charge fees that cover their expenses, aren't they? Isn't LEXUS/NEXUS all about a subscription-based search engine and database made up of public records of a legal nature, that would otherwise (through great effort and expenditure of time) be available for free? LEXUS provides a system to access the information quickly, easily. Their system includes the storage and distribution facilities that couldn't be supported without subscriber revenue. I doubt that the clients that pay those fees are irate, because the service saves them time and money. (Granted, if subscription fees balloon out of proportion of the value returned, subscribers would revolt, and the service could be in danger of collapsing in on itself.)
Likewise, back in the day, CompuServe charged significant hourly fees for accessing their network which contained, in part, news and other information that were available elsewhere (e.g. AP news reports, NOAA information), but the convenience of accessing the information all in one channel was a value-add that customers demonstrated was worth the money.
Since Melanie's clarified that the bail isn't directly tied to the "value" of JSTOR's sequestered content, I wonder what the true value of that content is. How much does JSTOR charge? Is it a seat license, or a blanket site license? From what I read, MIT pays a fee, and all MIT students and professors have access to JSTOR's library -- sounds like a good deal to me. Those fees help pay for development and maintenance of the software used to store and distribute the articles, so it seems like a fair tradeoff. Perhaps Swartz knows something I don't....
This isn't the only business model out there. Those publications could all sell their material to readers through a distributor whose operating expenses are subsidized by per-transaction fees (say for argument 5%) when any subscriber "buys" a document from the service.
I realize I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm disappointed anytime a smart cookie like Swartz resorts to alleged illegal acts to prove a point or publicize an inequity. Why? Because unless we pervert our legal system, the case will be about the computer crimes he is charged with (which, I checked, are indeed derived from Ye Olde Computer Fraud and Abuse act), not the greater sociopolitical issues he'd like his actions to be about.
Hang on to your cuppa Earl Grey, Steve, <a href=http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/27/ten_budget_android_tablets/>The Register has some bargain tablets for you to consider</a>.
Authored Comments
Don't even get me started on what the RIAA did, suing citizens (including little girls and grandmothers) for huge amounts for alleged file-sharing. But that wasn't in criminal court, those were civil matters. I personally think the RIAA was coming on way too strong by demanding huge amounts (IIRC, settlements usually were far less) in order to over-dramatize their case. I'd like to think that it backfired on them, illustrating instead just how greedy and antagonistic the music publishers (RIAA being their industry representation) were towards consumers.
I agree with you that otherwise freely available publications should not be sequestered behind a paywall just because the publishers can do so. I wonder how many, if any, of the JSTOR documents were published under public domain copyrights that were bent or violated by charging for access. Still ... content owners, publishers, and their appropriately licensed distributors are entitled to charge fees that cover their expenses, aren't they? Isn't LEXUS/NEXUS all about a subscription-based search engine and database made up of public records of a legal nature, that would otherwise (through great effort and expenditure of time) be available for free? LEXUS provides a system to access the information quickly, easily. Their system includes the storage and distribution facilities that couldn't be supported without subscriber revenue. I doubt that the clients that pay those fees are irate, because the service saves them time and money. (Granted, if subscription fees balloon out of proportion of the value returned, subscribers would revolt, and the service could be in danger of collapsing in on itself.)
Likewise, back in the day, CompuServe charged significant hourly fees for accessing their network which contained, in part, news and other information that were available elsewhere (e.g. AP news reports, NOAA information), but the convenience of accessing the information all in one channel was a value-add that customers demonstrated was worth the money.
Since Melanie's clarified that the bail isn't directly tied to the "value" of JSTOR's sequestered content, I wonder what the true value of that content is. How much does JSTOR charge? Is it a seat license, or a blanket site license? From what I read, MIT pays a fee, and all MIT students and professors have access to JSTOR's library -- sounds like a good deal to me. Those fees help pay for development and maintenance of the software used to store and distribute the articles, so it seems like a fair tradeoff. Perhaps Swartz knows something I don't....
This isn't the only business model out there. Those publications could all sell their material to readers through a distributor whose operating expenses are subsidized by per-transaction fees (say for argument 5%) when any subscriber "buys" a document from the service.
I realize I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm disappointed anytime a smart cookie like Swartz resorts to alleged illegal acts to prove a point or publicize an inequity. Why? Because unless we pervert our legal system, the case will be about the computer crimes he is charged with (which, I checked, are indeed derived from Ye Olde Computer Fraud and Abuse act), not the greater sociopolitical issues he'd like his actions to be about.
Hang on to your cuppa Earl Grey, Steve, <a href=http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/27/ten_budget_android_tablets/>The Register has some bargain tablets for you to consider</a>.