Anger grows over the death of Aaron Swartz Aaron Swartz's death has sent shockwaves through the internet community, but among the mourning and tributes there's a growing undercurrent of anger that an enormously gifted young man may have been hounded to his death. Aaron Swartz Swartz speaking against SOPA/PIPA last year Swartz, who helped write the RSS standard at …
Those who knew him say the JSTOR case wasn't about theft but about fair use of information. The academics who wrote the papers on JSTOR weren't paid, nor were the editors and peer-reviewers. Yet researchers trying to use this data had to pay a publisher for the rights to it, and none of the funds made it to the information's creators.
Both the article and the comments show a profound ignorance about JSTOR. It is not a publisher; it is a non-profit group run by a consortium of universities to make research papers available at minimal cost to the academic community - which effectively means to anyone with a university affiliation. That's not a cheap thing to do. As well as the storage and bandwidth costs, there is subscribing to current journals and negotiating access agreements with the publishers (who often are rapacious, I agree), and also the costs of scanning in older printed papers which would otherwise be extremely difficult to access for anyone not at an institution which subscribed at the time.
To access JSTOR, institutions pay a significant but relatively small annual fee. In return there are terms and conditions of service, one of which says, in effect "though shalt not download the entire archive and then make it available for free". Had Swartz succeeded he would have undermined the basis for JSTOR and made access to research papers, both now and in the future, considerably more difficult and more expensive. His beliefs may have been passionate and sincere, but they were also misdirected and stupid.
"Data should be free" is a lovely idea, but "People who create data should be able to eat" is a lovely idea as well. Authors are not paid for papers, but papers published in proper, reputable peer reviewed journals is now researchers get grants and other funding.
Ian, right on. There are new models in the making around Open Access Publishing which in combination with falling prices of storage and bandwidth, less classical "journal" structures and lack of print costs might be the next generation thing. If only Swartz had any idea of all the experiments going on and debates around the future of academic publishing to achieve exactly what he desired: open and easy access to anyone desiring to read these things. One important thing here and you already mentioned the link between publishing and grants, is the reach of a publication. How easy is some needed information being found, how many references and quotes are made, how to track these and so on. Just putting things "out there" on the web does nothing for the process and nobody is really served by it. And this doesn't mean major improvements are needed just that Swartz his actions wouldn't have helped the community as much as he might have thought. And that's perhaps the saddest part of the story.
JSTOR is a sop to the universities by the publishers to keep the status-quo
Academics argue that since the tax payer funds the research and their salaries, the journals charge them for publishing (hey Springer why am I paying for color plates in an online journal? Are colored pixels more expensive?) and they edit and peer-review the papers for free - then access to the papers should be free.
JSTOR is a consortium of publishers saying to universities - OK we will let you have access for free as long as you all pay to join the club.
I suggest you read this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/13/aaron-swartz-family-mit-government?INTCMP=SRCH
"The organisation Demand Progress, which Swartz helped to found, had compared the activities of which he was accused to "trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library"
And organisation he founded is perhaps not in the best position to act as critical friend. What he did at MIT was more like hiding in the library overnight, scanning books in wholesale and then putting them on the net for download. Or setting up an automatic scraper to make the entire Guardian website available sans advertising.
".....Identify a first-time offence suspect or someone who is otherwise impressionable...." Which is where your great theory on victimhood falls over - even "impressionable" first-timers have legal advice from their lawyers, it's what they are there for. What you failed to include was it is usually impressionable sheeple that get talked into stupid acts like LOIC attacks without considering the consequesnces, and then crap themselves when they lawyer says "well, you're fucked, best take the plea bargain and pray the judge takes it into account".
"Still, suicide is an incredibly selfish act that leaves a lot of family and friends utterly bereft."
Well, maybe. For some it's a form of defiance. For others, release; you really haven't experienced pain until you've tried severe chronic depression. I strongly suggest NOT trying it , by the way. It's amusing to have preachers try to scare you with stories of hell - physical pain? That'd be a relief, at least you can point to where it hurts.
As for bringing on many changes - maybe this suicide will. It would be nice if it did.
I fear things will get a lot, LOT worse before it gets better. Big Gov views the Internet as Pandora's Box, and most probably wish DARPA had kept it top top secret.
I'd like an icon with a seedling on it, but will resort to that other symbol of life finding a way - beer.
>"Still, suicide is an incredibly selfish act that leaves a lot of family and friends utterly bereft."
The thing about depression is that alters the way the world appears to you (such as not realising the esteem and affection people hold you in), preventing you from fully appreciating the consequences of your actions. That said, if believing what you have written will cause someone to hesitate before any drastic action, so be it.
That's the great thing about death, you don't know what you've got, you're not able to know what you had, or could have had, or any of those things.
After death, anything you ever did doesn't matter. Jimmy Savile is at peace just as much as the nun who runs an orphanage.
It may seem like an idea of fiction and a movie plot, but how do we really know this man committed suicide?
With the US's current government and multiple examples of cover up. Example: The public are still waiting on the Benghazi report, but then we already know the reality of what the powers that be wanted it to appear as. The current US president first ran on being the most transparent administration, but has been the complete opposite and he was even so arrogant to publicly threaten the counties Supreme Court regarding the unconstitutional forcing all to purchase insurance coverage. I'd be willing to bet someone gets a handsome commission check from the US insurance industry for this new law. There were better solutions that would not have required 1,000 pages that include hidden taxes, but that would have been too easy. Why does the US always have to make things more difficult then it needs to be? Probably because most of their citizens choose not to face reality/challenges of being self-responsible/self-reliant. If you every want to better understand the American president, watch the movie Obamas America: 2016. It's very helpful in better understanding this president's upbringing and who were major influences in his young life.
Anyway, It's a huge loss we all have experienced with this young mans death.
Best wishes to his family and freinds,
"....but how do we really know this man committed suicide?...." If you're going to start a conspiracy and don't want it to be shot down at first pass, I would suggest you pick a theorem where you can at least show motive.
"....With the US's current government and multiple examples of cover up....." Que? The Obambi administration doesn't seem to have a motive to "fake-suicide" Swartz. After all, the authorities wanted to hammer him both as an example to others and probably so he'd grass up a lot of his alleged Anon-linked buddies. By that argument, you could say the only ones with a motive to bump him off are the Anons, and I can't see them leaving their keyboards and actually completing such a physical task, to be honest. It's not like they could just go and download a script to make Swartz hang himself. I suggest you change your tinfoil supplier.
Because if it wasn't - somebody would have left a CIA branded jacket at the scene, they would have parked half-a-dozen Ford Escalades with backed out windows and flashing lights outside while they did it.
And the agents would now all be on Oprah plugging their book of the operation and signing-up the movie rights
Sometimes I try to do things but it just doesn't work out the way I want it to, and I get real frustrated and then like I try hard to do it, and I like, take my time but it just doesn't work out the way I want it to. It's like, I concentrate on it real hard, but it just doesn't work out. And everything I do and everything I try, it never turns out. It's like, I need time to figure these things out, but there's always someone there going “hey mike, you know we've been noticing you've been having a lot of problems lately, you know? You need to maybe get away. And like, maybe you should talk about it, you'll feel a lot better.” And I'm all like “oh, nah, it's ok, you know. I'll figure it out. Just leave me alone, I'll figure it out, you know? I'm just working on it by myself.” And they go “well, you know, if you wanna talk about it, I'll be here, you know? And you'll probably feel a lot better if you talk about it. So why don't you talk about it?” I go “no, I don't want to! I'm ok. I'll figure it out myself!” But they just keep bugging me, they just keep bugging me, and it builds up inside.
I was in my room and I was just like staring at the wall thinking about everything, but then again I was thinking about nothing. And then my mom came in, and I didn't even know she was there. She called my name and I didn't hear her and then she started screaming “Mike, Mike!” And I go “what? What's the matter?” She goes “what's the matter with you?” I go “there's nothing wrong, mom.” Shes all “don't tell me that! You're on drugs!” I go “no mom, I'm not on drugs. I'm ok, I'm just thinking, you know? Why don't you get me a Pepsi?” She goes “No! You're on drugs!” I go “mom, I'm ok. I'm just thinking.” She goes “No! You're not thinking, you're on drugs! Normal people don't be acting that way!” I go “mom, just get me a Pepsi! Please, all I want is a Pepsi!” And she wouldn't give it to me! All I wanted was a Pepsi, just one Pepsi, and she wouldn't give it to me! Just a Pepsi!
Aaron Swartz's death, whether prompted by the prospect of a lengthy prison term and subsequent poverty, or by his own private demons, is a loss for us all.
A great deal of the research done in the U. S. is funded either partly or fully by the U. S. Government. It very probably would be a major contribution to "Progress of Science and useful Arts" if:
1) all research publication and other copyright eligible material paid for in part or whole by the government were required to be made freely available to all of the taxpayers who contributed;
2) all patents issued based on such research funded in part or whole by the government were required to be assigned to the government and licensed at no charge to any citizen;
I propose that the above be enacted as the Aaron Swartz Patent and Copyright Act. The U. S. Constitution allows the Congress to provide for patents and copyrights It does not say how it must do so, or even that it must do so at all.
"..... all research publication and other copyright eligible material paid for in part or whole by the government were required to be made freely available to all of the taxpayers who contributed...." Part of the reason it is restricted is to stop research paid for by US taxpayers being sent abroad without the US taxpayers receiving any benefit.
".....all patents issued based on such research funded in part or whole by the government were required to be assigned to the government and licensed at no charge to any citizen...." This would massively disincentivise private industry from forming co-operative projects with the government. It's also more likely to drive those individual inventors to work with private companies so that they can patent their work and receive a return.
Compromise certainly would be possible.
1. As far as I know, the articles cited inf Mr. Swartz's indictment were unrestricted as to where they could be sent or downloaded from. The only requirement was that someone pay (again) for the access. That said, the major part of the intent could be met while allowing classified research to remain unpublished or restricted, as it largely is at present.
2. It is doubtful that inventive people would stop inventing. At present, those working in the private sector are mostly, I believe, under contractual requirement to assign their patents to their employer; this does not stop them from inventing. If the taxpayers provide a share of the money that pays an inventor's salary or wage, they should be as entitled to share in any resulting patents or copyrights as the employer of record. As things now stand, the result is private gain from public expenditures - but not necessarily to the inventor, who may receive only a lump sum bonus.
There is at-least-somewhat-respectable economic research suggesting that patents may not be of great benefit to society as a whole.
In this article there was a statement made about Turing that I believe is incomplete, incorrect, or both. If you have any interest in Turing i suggest you read his bio or Wikipedia or some other more factual source.
Other than that, I thought the article was good, and I agree with the other principles it discussed.
Further clarification of point 2: A good deal of the joint public/private collaboration is either pure contract work or government efforts to spur development in a certain direction (Solyndra, for example) and would not be undertaken at all but for government participation, often solicited by the promoters. In such cases I see no harm in requiring that all resulting IP be assigned to the government, as agent for the citizens. To use Solyndra as an example, the projected net cost to the government is a $500 million. It seems unlikely that the activity that bought in a field of relatively rapidly growing technology did not result in some patents. Those who buy the carcass at the end of the bankruptcy have less right to them, in my view, than those whose money was spent to get them issued.
...that people with potential seem to think they can do whatever suits them without any consequences. It should be noted that Swartz was known to suffer from depression and he chose to take his own life. Blaming other people for Swartz's death and numerous inappropriate decisions is foolish and ignorant. He like everyone eles is responsible for their own actions. His death was of his own doing and that is unfortunate but not unusual for those who suffer from depression.
Aaron Swartz interview from 2001
'In a 2001 interview with public radio station WBEZ .. Aaron Swartz .. told the host, Lew Koch, what he imagined the future of the internet would look like. "It's harder to predict the short-term future than the long-term future", he warned, but he suggested that the "semantic web" was just over the horizon. It was to be a "two-way web", he said, "where users of the web can really write their own webpages".'
"Try breaking into a UK university, hacking into their network with a concealed computer and then downloading stuff to which they subscribe and see what happens when you're caught."
That would be the sort of UK universities that get whopping loads of taxpayers money, where in Scotland all tuition fees are paid for by the public?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
