Go Down

Topic: Aaron Swartz sucide (Read 5 times) previous topic - next topic

robtillaart

@vasco
You have an important point. As the writer/composer of the music YOU should be compensated. Agree completely but...

I know that most of the money I pay - price in NL is €10~30 for a CD (bought hundreds of them) is max 20 cents for the cd + box + booklet production price, and about 1 Euro per CD for recording (estimation). From the 10 Euro I think the artist gets 1 Euro and the rest (80%) goes to the music industry. Is that fair compensation?

When artist make CD's themselves and sell them at a performance they get "100%" of the money, I think that is a fair deal.

another view on this I heard is that musicians have the option to sell their music digitally or by CD or .... There is no-one that says they have to.
So if they do, they know what 'system' they choose. And I think most musician make more money with live acts than with CD/downloaded(payed) music.

That said, it is not an argument for illegal downloading.
Rob Tillaart

Nederlandse sectie - http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php/board,77.0.html -
(Please do not PM for private consultancy)

Udo Klein

You might want to read this http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/ and then consider again the "theft" theory.
Check out my experiments http://blog.blinkenlight.net

draythomp

I agree with you vasquo, but that's not what happened with Swartz.  He grabbed documents that were part of a repository that was totally open within the campus.  Most of the documents were funded by public money for research and had been published and sold already.  They were taken from an archive.  The value of the archive is not so much in its documents; the value is in the search capabilities that JSTOR provided in addition to the documents.  It's of great value to do a text search among tons of documents to find what you need, but that isn't what Swartz downloaded.

He took what was freely available on the network to anyone at MIT.

It was highly notable that JSTOR made a deal with him and agreed to drop it, then after (I think it was a month later) it should have been settled, the 'authorities' came in and started inventing charges.

It's sort of like someone taking the CD you describe, you notice it and tell them to give it back, they do, then the cops come, lock them up, and throw away the key.  The original argument was settled, but the government has to get into it and escalate it beyond reason.
Trying to keep my house under control http://www.desert-home.com/

vasquo

I see... I've read a few articles these past few days that says he took from a subscription service ($50K a year?) or something... there seems be a lot of news article out there that are misleading.

but it looks like he just used "curl" to download free files.

There's a petition going on to oust the government prosecutor in this case... he took it too far. He wasn't trying to seek justice, he's probably trying to make a name for himself... add a notch to his political belt, bragging rights.  I've seen murderers/rapists get away with lighter punishment than what he's trying to throw on Aaron.

Osgeld

#14
Jan 16, 2013, 05:43 am Last Edit: Jan 16, 2013, 03:22 pm by Osgeld Reason: 1
Quote
If however, I were to somehow make a copy of all your cattle, sheep or other property - while you still retained your original - what have you lost?


easy, the value of cattle goes down and you share in my profit while contributing none of the work

I, out of all people am grey when it comes to this stuff, but I never will buy into this copy is not theft idea.

You take something of commercial value, the product is not the box or the 5 cent CD or the shrinkwrap it all comes in.


Go Up