Aaron Swartz Case: Deja Vu All Over Again For MIT 175
theodp writes "On Saturday, questions for MIT's Aaron Swartz investigation were posted on Slashdot with the hope that MIT'ers might repost some to the MIT Swartz Review site. So it's good to see that MIT's Hal Abelson, who is leading the analysis of MIT's involvement in the matter, is apparently open to this workaround to the ban on questions from outsiders. In fact, on Sunday Abelson himself reposted an interesting question posed by Boston College Law School Prof. Sharon Beckman: 'What, if anything, did MIT learn from its involvement in the federal prosecution of its student David LaMacchia back in 1994?' Not much, it would appear. LaMacchia, an apparent student of Abelson's whose defense team included Beckman, was indicted in 1994 and charged with the 'piracy of an estimated million dollars' in business and entertainment computer software after MIT gave LaMacchia up to the FBI. LaMacchia eventually walked from the charges, thanks to what became known as the LaMacchia Loophole, which lawmakers took pains to close. 'MIT collaborated with the FBI to wreck LaMacchia's life,' defense attorney Harvey Silverglate charged in 1995 after a judge dismissed the case. 'I hope that this case causes a lot of introspection on the part of MIT's administration. Unfortunately, I doubt it will.'"
Re:LaMacchia Loophole (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks to them closing the "LaMacchia Loophole" you can now be charged with theft and wire fraud for downloading copyright material even if you never had any intention or likelihood of making money from it ...
So now doing something that could *potentially* make you large amounts of money from (but in reality could not) is prosecuted as if you were a crime boss with vast assets from your criminal activity even though you are in reality a poor student ....
Re:Outward Appearances (Score:5, Informative)
You're point is valid, but it's, at best,a Type D "crime" being punished as a type A "the most harsh society can inflict" and might not even be a good civil suit for mild contract violation.
Re:Legal and you know it, Ortiz doesn't (Score:4, Informative)
And if it was just the six months, that might have been OK. But the prosecutor was also insisting on a guilty plea to multiple felony counts. Once you are a convicted felon, many of your rights disappear forever. Do you vote? Convicted felons don't.
Re:Legal and you know it, Ortiz doesn't (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and let's not miss this gem:
Lucky thing that Aaron was just a young looking 26...