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?