Comment by natch 6 months ago *technically 3 comments natch Reply 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. piker 6 months ago No, the parent was referring to how someone “was treated”, and it would have been perfectly valid to reference that case to make the same point.What you’re saying is like calling Al Capone a tax cheat. Nonsense.They went after Aaron over copyright. 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. piker 6 months ago No, the parent was referring to how someone “was treated”, and it would have been perfectly valid to reference that case to make the same point.What you’re saying is like calling Al Capone a tax cheat. Nonsense.They went after Aaron over copyright.
piker 6 months ago No, the parent was referring to how someone “was treated”, and it would have been perfectly valid to reference that case to make the same point.What you’re saying is like calling Al Capone a tax cheat. Nonsense.They went after Aaron over copyright.
dialup_sounds 6 months ago Unlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true.
If you're discussing law, an entirely different law in a different title of US code is more than a technicality.
No, the parent was referring to how someone “was treated”, and it would have been perfectly valid to reference that case to make the same point.
What you’re saying is like calling Al Capone a tax cheat. Nonsense.
They went after Aaron over copyright.
Unlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true.