From: Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:11:29 -0500

It's not correct  to imply, as Sandy does, that there is any evidence
that Aaron Swartz planned to post copyrighted JSTOR articles to the
open internet.

Really? Aaron's bold strike against supposedly evil publishers was to
go after JSTOR???

A hypothesis more consistent with the facts and the history is that
Swartz was focused on the public domain articles in JSTOR. I discuss
this further Here:

http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-four-crimes-of-aaron-swartz.html

Eric

On Feb 27, 2013, at 5:32 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

11) Although Mr. Swartz was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, he could have been prosecuted under the No Electronic Theft
Act if he had carried through with his evident plan of posting the
JSTOR articles to the open Internet. Congress passed this act in 1997
in the wake of the act of an MIT student named David LaMacchia, who
had posted copyrighted software to his bulletin board for everyone to
download, without any aim of personally profiting from this activity.
Does Mr. Ludlow consider this to be an unjust law, and if so, perhaps
he could tell us why?