Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephth | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

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

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com