>> That is the charges against Aaron Swartz.
>> http://docs.jstor.org/summary.html
>
>
> That's a link to jstor. Irrelevant.
Well thanks James. Of course you didn't read your own source.
"Meanwhile, on October 14, we asked MIT if they could identify the
person
responsible because we wanted to understand the downloader's motivation, to
ensure the articles already downloaded would not be distributed,"
>ensure the articles already downloaded would not be distributed,
>ensure the articles already downloaded would not be distributed,
>ensure the articles already downloaded would not be distributed,
See? That's called 'intelectual property'.
