Instead of just one 99 cent song (because hey clever guy, who only has just 1 song?), Alice has 2000 99 cent songs. However, she finds that she doesn't listen to 100 or so anymore, and she would like to sell her legally purchased property. Why shouldn't she be allowed to do so?
I'll tell you why. Because you goons want your cake and to eat it too. "No no, you can't make copies, because they are digital property." and "No no, you can't sell them, because it's just a license, you don't own that."
If you wanted to take it to even more ridiculous and extreme levels, you could argue that her "opposition research" may have enabled her to find a husband faster, thereby "cheating" JDate out of possible profits from keeping her as a paying customer for longer. Again, a long shot, but not a completely implausible reading.
Mike, there is no level too ridiculous or extreme that a career prosecutor won't go to. And defending business models seems to be the new goal of many US govt agencies...
A noble goal my friend. It is too bad that you are under the delusion that there is such a thing as "intellectual property". Just look at those two words. They don't go together! You can't own an idea.
Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
What Swartz did, bottom line, was unambiguously wrong. There's just no question or doubt about that, and there's no point in trying to sugar coat it or torture it to fit some open-source/hacker-type agenda.
Well, right up front you damage your credibility with a statement like that. I assure you that there are many of us who do not feel what he did was clear-cut, black and white "wrong" as you seem to think.
However, it's all a very tricky thing, really; an example, if ever there were one, of how our laws, today, haven't yet caught-up with the realities of an increasingly Internet/online-centric world; and how those who technically own all the intellectual property aren't adjusting thereto with a reasonable operational model.
And now, to me at least, your credibility is irreparably damaged due to the fact that you used the word "own" in conjunction with the nonsense phrase "intellectual property". Here's a pro-tip: you can't own an idea.
Having said that, I did read your complete post, and minus the two glaring issues I've already addressed, I hear what you're saying and I agree that Swartz will be missed.
Also, I need to point something out: Demanding that the files be "returned" was completely idiotic in the first place. Nothing was ever "taken". He *copied* the files once, and I sure as hell hope he copied them again (somewhere open) before he "returned" the files.
It's very interesting to me that the government apologists keep bringing up the "only 6 months" in jail, but keep neglecting an important fact: Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, he didn't want to be labelled as a felon for the rest of his life? Are you aware that a felony conviction, even if you "only" serve 6 months, irrevocably alters a person's life in many negative ways?