"Aaron's Law" Might Be Good | Hacker News Reader

"Aaron's Law" Might Be Good

reason.com

74 pointsTDL30 comments

I think the musings of Philip Greenspun at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/16/aaron-swartz-f... that we need to make copyright violation a purely civil matter would be a proper step.

That would be a great step. It wouldn't have completely helped Aaron (who was also saddled with wire fraud and computer fraud charges), except that it may have reduced the "loss" calculation enough to not trigger the CFAA provisions.

Wouldn't that mean people without assets could do whatever they liked with copyrighted materials?

One thing they couldn't do is profit from the materials -- as they'd then have seizable assets.

But, yeah, a bunch of broke-ass teenagers sharing music amonst themselves? I'm down with that.

What about profiting at a lower price?

Playing devil's advocate here: I agree with "teens sharing music", but what if I sold them for, say, half iTunes price, and made $500. I would deprive an artist while profiting for enough money, and if I spend it, the money is gone. Seems broken.

Why would someone buy them from you at half price, when they can illegally download them for free?

As long as they spent, gave away or hid their ill gotten gains, it would still be out of reach of law suits.

That produces a money trail which, at least in theory, could be tracked and recovered.

If it's an economic crime, chase the money. If it's a cultural crime[1], to quote some Liverpudlian, let it be.

1. In the sense of: propagating the popular culture.

what produces a money trail? If its all cash, its elusive as drug money. All kinds of things are sold for cash and never reported. You've probably left tips that weren't unreported.

People without assets: that is, precisely those people for whom "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so the rights-owners have lost anything" is demonstrably correct.

Seems OK to me.

People without assets buy things all the time.

"Wouldn't that mean people without assets could do whatever they liked with copyrighted materials?"

Would that be a bad thing? I can see it now: poor people would be allowed to sing "Happy Birthday to You" without becoming criminals!

Really though, why should we be afraid that poor people will violate copyrights with impunity? Copyright is far too complex and has far too many subtleties for anyone lacking a team of lawyers to work with. Would a judge consider this rendition of "Happy Birthday" to be fair use? If there are 6 people watching the Super Bowl, is that a public performance? Is it OK to let my neighbor listen to music I downloaded onto my computer if they are accessing my wireless network with my permission?

Large companies have the resources needed to reason about copyrights. For the rest of us, it is either "just play along like everyone else" or "you're a criminal and you'll need a team of lawyers to prove otherwise!"

People can sing happy birthday to you without being arrested. I've done it many times, even when I was poor.

I'd rather see the copyright period shortened so that there is adequate incentive to produce without us having to pay forever. We should pay as much as we need to pay. And not pay more just because the industry has better representation in Washington than the people do.

We could, for example, make a song public domain after 5 years, unless it has not yet produced 10 million in revenue. That is more than enough incentive to write a song.

"Happy Birthday to You" is copyrighted, and public performances of the song likely count as copyright infringement. That is the reason that most major chains have their own version of the birthday song. I am not claiming that Warner is going to send a paramilitary team into your home the moment you sing the song; it is, however, a commonly given example of how out-of-control the copyright system has become.

People singing a song is not necessarily a public performance.

The eminently qualified Jennifer Granick calls it "a great first step" https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/thoughts-zoe-lofg...

See also her writings over the last few days https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/jennifer-granick

Lawrence Lessig calls it "a critically important change that would do incredible good": http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zo...

A better AArons law would be to force publicly funded research be released freely and under a Creative Commons license. They did this in EU, why not the US?

Weakening the Computer Fraud laws, and naming it after Aaron trivializes his quest for free flow of information.

Of course this wont happen -- too much money tied up in selling research.

I have the same idea about open source software in governments. If it uses taxpayers money, then it should be open source, wherever possible (so in most cases). Taxpayers' money shouldn't be used to fatten corporations, if it can be avoided. And by that I don't necessarily mean that government software should be written by volunteers, but if they're paying them to write software, then that software should be made open source later. And they can keep paying companies for maintenance and upgrading it if they want. But at least the software would be available to anyone to use and tinker with it.

If you are forced to pay for it, you should be allowed to read it. Better not to be forced in the first place, of course.

The problem is that every project claims to be buying off the shelf software with some 'minor tweaks'. If it truly is off the shelf, and you're guaranteed that it will be your last sale because after that your work will be in the public domain, then you'd have to send the government one hell of a bill. Things like windows, office, ERP systems, BI and reporting systems, accounting and HR, logistics.. it's more tax effective to buy them as a normal customer.

I asked before and was told that code written by the government is available by request due to the FOIA, no state secrets mind you, but it might be true of (a significant portion of) code written by contractors as well.

Does that really matter? The NSA faced scrutiny for writing its own software when commercial solutions were on the market. The US government contracts out almost all its software needs below the state secrets level anyway.

Yes, we must keep fighting for open access.

law professor orin kerr on aaron's law:

> A lot of people have wondered how to amend the computer crime laws in response to the Swartz tragedy. So far I have seen a lot of interest in this, but not a lot of sensible proposals. Already, Rep. Lofgren stepped forward with “Aaron’s Law,” , text here, which would amend the statutory definition of “exceeds authorized access.” This isn’t new text: It’s just the definition of “exceeds authorized access” that was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year to try to stop Lori Drew-like prosecutions. This amendment is well meaning, no doubt, but I think it is a bad idea for two reasons. First, it is weirdly disconnected from the Swartz case. Swartz would still have faced exactly the same criminal liability under “Aaron’s Law” that he did without it.

the rest here (in section IV): http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...

As an attorney I would like to give a quick two cents about the idea it is illegal, or volatile of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, to simply violate the terms of a websites terms and conditions or privacy policy. For example, if anyone remembers the Mom who created a fake MySpace profile spoofing her daughters friend, who ultimately committed suicide. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier . If this women was acquitted who clearly violated MySpaces terms and conditions which possibly contributed to the suicide of a minor, then this charge does not have much bite to it.

Nevertheless a law such as this would prevent prosecutors with ice in their veins from charging who ever the hell they want, because lets face it we all somehow or someway are violating a terms of service. As a lawyer I can say with comfort that the law is catching up to technology, but generally an existing law is expanded into technology, what is crazy here is that there is no equivalent pre-existing law to support this kind of criminal charge. In other words, imagine you violating any non-tech terms of service and it being a federal crime, for example it would be crazy to imagine paying your credit card late or returning a movie late (as if Blockbuster still exists) puts you in violation of criminal law. The closest example I can think of is lying on a mortgage application which constitutes fraud under federal law but that is obviously distinguishable, and at least a mortgage application will tell you lying is fraud I have never seen such a disclaimer on any websites terms of service (but who reads those anyway?).

Misdemeanor rather than felony would be a good direction.

Also, "Aarons law" was raised 1 year ago by the same Congressperson under a different name.

This is nothing but personal political quests using our martyr for justification. I'm insulted.

If she hadn't, would the complaint be, "why didn't anyone propose this change early enough to actually help?"

I suppose one could focus on retribution for this particular event, or recognize that the CFAA allows for many other unknown people to spend lengthy jail sentences with few people caring about them.

If the legislation is flawed, it should be changed, so that even people without celebrity are protected. Prosecutorial discretion has its place, but the idea of prosecutors selectively applying laws that are on the books with considerations about how popular suspects are in a poor model for a legal system.

It usually takes a tragedy to actually accomplish anything in government (occasionally just a wildly outlandish remark, but I digress).

Progress is still progress, even if the event that got the ball rolling should have never happened.

Also, "our martyr"? Now I'm insulted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com