Oliver Stone is doing a series of shows about the "untold history" of the USA. He's done show on everything from the WWI, Great Depression, and other eras to the current regi-, uh, I mean, administration! Man, last night's show really exposed Obaba; I'm truly surprised they let it air! He (Stone) narrates the series and he drew quite a few parallels from FDR, WWII, and the JFK eras to make his points. Fascinating stuff!

(It airs on Showtime.)

Gregg watched one of these and said it was quite good (despite who made them).

The guy makes me hurl, but I respect him for not giving the Obama admin a pass.

I'm afraid I've got more than a little contempt for Swartz. One of the admirable things about people who "speak the truth to power" is that they accept the consequences of whistle-blowing.

Swartz couldn't face the fact that he WASN'T immune to the consequences of what he had done, and killed himself, leaving the rest of us to deal with what he left behind.

Swartz couldn't face the fact that he WASN'T immune to the consequences of what he had done

WHat exactly did he do? He put his laptop in an unlocked server room, so he didnt tresspass

He downloaded articles from a site he had legal access to as a member of the school, so he didnt steal them

Tell us Lamont what did he do that garnered 40 years in prison?

You ever order pizza online Lamont? ever put in a fake email address in the 'required' box? Know that technically that is illegal and if the government really wanted to they could arrest you for it?

Ever create a fake facebook account to play those stupid zenga games? If not ever know someone who did? Did you know failing to report them for that 'crime' can get you jail time?

I have a pacer account, but I've never needed to download the number of pages that would trigger billing. I think it was $10/quarter, but that was when it was 8¢/page.

I am not exactly sure Professor Turley is accurate here. When I read his post yesterday, I believe it claimed that MIT had asked for charges to not be pressed, but it was JSTOR that had done that. MIT's role is much murkier.

There are statements out there from Swartz's three lawyers during the case regarding exactly what the various offers were at various times -- it does not look good for MIT, given their usual policies and handling of such matters.

Lamont, first the guy was known depressive, so yes, his reaction is not necessarily going to conform to how non-depressives might see it. Then too, there is the anticipated punishment for his transgression versus what was actually claimed.

Have you seen this video of a case of road rage in Australia? http://www.fark.com/vidplayer/7534544

It's sort of like that. If we're driving on the road and we collide, or I cut you off, I'm willing to take responsibility for my actions. Up until the point you go berserker on me. Then, up yours!

Read Three Felonies A Day and other posts from Harvey Silverglate to find out more about how the Federal Government charges and over charges people, and variously mistreats them during prosecution in order to force a terrible plea bargain because the alternative was either prohibitively expensive or the prison time horrendously and inappropriately long.

Having been just barely brushed by the effects of clinical depression, I have a lot of sympathy for those who commit suicide in a depressed state, especially if they have tried in the past to get relief and couldn't find it. I've heard people call Schwartz a coward who couldn't take the consequences of his actions, but I think that's from people who don't understand the difference between feeling blue and having major depression.

I think Turley is one of the best law professor bloggers and civil libertarians out there. In his blog, he describes legal situations in a down to earth manner that makes it understandable to the layman. (And though I also like the Volokh Conspiracy, they are frequently speaking about issues I can't understand as a layman.)

But yes, he does make mistakes that reveals (I think) a bit too much time spent at Reddit.

He does have a corrections page though. (On the other hand, wow, his commenters are completely off the rails.)11

But for the most part, Turley is great stuff. I'd let him speak for me or defend me a zillion percent of the time.

There's a rash the past few years of non-reviewed "journals" that do little other than harvest theses and dissertations, put them online, and then charge outrageous amounts of money for them. Some of these are government-funded, directly or indirectly via university funds. And often the original authors are not compensated, although sometimes they pay schools kickbacks in exchange for access. And most of the time, the schools claim copyright to the works.

It's not like the old days, when journals had to pay costs of typesetting, printing, and distribution, plus most of them were peer-reviewed and performed editorial services. There's really not much justification for academic journals to charge for access anymore.

Kerr

Lamont Cranston: "Swartz couldn't face the fact that he WASN'T immune to the consequences of what he had done, and killed himself, leaving the rest of us to deal with what he left behind."

What hardship have you been burdened with as a consequence of Swartz's suicide?

another.

I say Ortiz should lose her job. And her license. And be shunned.

(I might take the last or the two last items back after lunch.)

What hardship have you been burdened with as a consequence of Swartz's suicide?

Indeed. I thought the same thing when I read that comment. The rest of his life was going to be wasted in jail, anyway. I'd probably save myself a lot of misery - and the taxpayers a lot of money - and do the same thing.

Then again, I have an unusual view about suicide. I don't see it as selfish. I don't think it's selfish to take what already belongs to you. Your life is yours and yours alone, and you are the one who gets to decide if it's worth living. Your life doesn't belong to others, and you are not required to live for their sake if you don't want to. I could be talked into an exception to this rule if you have minor children, but that's about it.

Here is the way I see it. The government thinks is perfectly legal for companies to sell access to free stuff at prices far beyond server mainteneice and royalties

They feel justified in fast tracking a trail and attempting to jail a major architect of the information super highway for decades for something had he done it without using a computer wouldnt even count as a Class D felony

Meanwhile if your black and threatening voters on election day with threats of asualt, technically construable as treason, and at the very least voter intimidation, the government wont even bother to investigate.

So yeah, as far as I'm concerned the DOJ did overreach

I've been a member of Experts Exchange (EE) for years. The premise is that volunteer experts get paid in points, t-shirts and ranks for answering questions. The users pay an access fee to the PAQ (Previously Asked Question/knowledge base) and have the ability to ask a new question. The whole idea behind EE is that it is knowledge sharing and creation. EE has been criticized many times over the years for charging for access to the PAQ. The experts cede their copyright of code to EE. But there are ways for an expert to connect with the asker, if really needed, to achieve a direct development system.

But the the experts and the askers generally realize the cost is worth the money. The EE model is generally software and system neutral. The EE idea is that they sell original information to the customers.

Then you have JSTOR. None of their content is originally created or owned by them. They are generally doing nothing but taking copyright from the publisher and selling it forward.

The whole copyright issue was made bogus by the Disney Corporation buying off Congress. (That's a google for you interested.)

That a federal prosecutor targeted an individual -- that is unacceptable.