bascha

I understand. The severity of the crime (and the danger John Q Public will be in if the accused is indeed guilty and allowed to remain free) is reflected--though not a single determinant--in the amount of bail. The chart is indeed a guide, not an absolute and certainly there are many factors that go into it.

But it is a starting point, and since we have no final ruling in this case (as yet), I can't compare the actual amount of fines/'punishment' levied, I can only look at the factors that exist today. And IANAL, but it seems a little strange. Was he that much of a flight risk? Was the risk to others (and other library collections) that great? Or was it a calculation of value of the property stolen, like with theft/fraud?

All questions, and somewhat unsolved ones!

Fraud, much like theft, carries a bond of around $25K, or the value of the information, whichever is greater. So, regardless of which crime I chose to compare it to, his bond is quite a bit higher than what might be expected, unless the value of JSTOR's material is much more than I (personally) would have expected.

The question, really, is not so much if what he did was illegal--breaking and entering and computer fraud are, for sure, illegal acts. Creating a fake account--also bad. He does deserve whatever punishment is fit for those transgressions he is accused of (if he is found guilty of them). Agreed on that point.

My question revolves around the value of what JSTOR is doing--and whether the extreme value being applied to JSTOR materials (which will in some ways determine the severity of his crime) is accurate. Like with music filesharing, where a single song could cost you between $20,000 and $80,000, depending on the whim of the court's ruling (and the RIAA's claims). It's at that point that I start to wonder if this is less about actual value and more about either (a) making money off litigation or (b) setting an example /so high/ as to discourage any future challenges.

And I do see this as an area to challenge--or at least to question and look thoughtfully at. Should people be able to bundle up a bunch of data (journals, magazines--things that could be considered by some to be public resources, intended for the public library), drop a pay wall around them, and charge for access? Well, ok, there's some questionable intent there (if the materials are truly public) but let's say for the sake of argument that there's clear copyright, clear rarity--the work has never been released before to the public, only to subscribers.

Is rarity worth $100,000?

Moreover, what happens to libraries and public resources when every niche journal and publisher walls off their content for a stiff fee? When reproducing something you used in your study (for yourself or for other students to follow) could carry a massive fine?

I understand that what Swartz did was criminal. I also loathe the phrase "information wants to be free"--it doesn't, it's information. It's not got wants. But I think /we/ want a great amount of critical information to be free. Free as in freedom. Not as in beer.

I'm just not sure it was $100,000 worth of criminal beer, if you get my drift.

(Edited to add: On the question of public disclosure of salary? I'm one of those weirdos who thinks that everyone's salary should be public. Keeping salaries private isn't of benefit to workers at all!)