← Back to context Comment by piker 6 months ago I thought you'd go with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz 9 comments piker Reply dialup_sounds 6 months ago Swartz wasn't charged with copyright infringement. natch 6 months ago *technically kube-system 6 months ago If you're discussing law, an entirely different law in a different title of US code is more than a technicality. 1 reply → dialup_sounds 6 months ago Unlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true. arandomhuman 6 months ago No but he coincidentally passed away after he was accused of it. kube-system 6 months ago No, the CFAA was the law that had him facing 35 years in prison and $1m+ fines. It wasn't a copyright case. 2 replies →
dialup_sounds 6 months ago Swartz wasn't charged with copyright infringement. natch 6 months ago *technically kube-system 6 months ago If you're discussing law, an entirely different law in a different title of US code is more than a technicality. 1 reply → dialup_sounds 6 months ago Unlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true. arandomhuman 6 months ago No but he coincidentally passed away after he was accused of it. kube-system 6 months ago No, the CFAA was the law that had him facing 35 years in prison and $1m+ fines. It wasn't a copyright case. 2 replies →
natch 6 months ago *technically kube-system 6 months ago If you're discussing law, an entirely different law in a different title of US code is more than a technicality. 1 reply → dialup_sounds 6 months ago Unlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true.
kube-system 6 months ago If you're discussing law, an entirely different law in a different title of US code is more than a technicality. 1 reply →
dialup_sounds 6 months ago Unlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true.
arandomhuman 6 months ago No but he coincidentally passed away after he was accused of it. kube-system 6 months ago No, the CFAA was the law that had him facing 35 years in prison and $1m+ fines. It wasn't a copyright case. 2 replies →
kube-system 6 months ago No, the CFAA was the law that had him facing 35 years in prison and $1m+ fines. It wasn't a copyright case. 2 replies →
Swartz wasn't charged with copyright infringement.
*technically
If you're discussing law, an entirely different law in a different title of US code is more than a technicality.
1 reply →
Unlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true.
No but he coincidentally passed away after he was accused of it.
No, the CFAA was the law that had him facing 35 years in prison and $1m+ fines. It wasn't a copyright case.
2 replies →