
JSTOR Statement on Aaron Swartz - darrellsilver
http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz
======
redegg
For those unable to access their statement due to the traffic load:

\------

Aaron Swartz

We are deeply saddened to hear the news about Aaron Swartz. We extend our
heartfelt condolences to Aaron’s family, friends, and everyone who loved,
knew, and admired him. He was a truly gifted person who made important
contributions to the development of the internet and the web from which we all
benefit.

We have had inquiries about JSTOR’s view of this sad event given the charges
against Aaron and the trial scheduled for April. The case is one that we
ourselves had regretted being drawn into from the outset, since JSTOR’s
mission is to foster widespread access to the world’s body of scholarly
knowledge. At the same time, as one of the largest archives of scholarly
literature in the world, we must be careful stewards of the information
entrusted to us by the owners and creators of that content. To that end, Aaron
returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR settled any civil claims
we might have had against him in June 2011.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service and a member of the internet community. We
will continue to work to distribute the content under our care as widely as
possible while balancing the interests of researchers, students, libraries,
and publishers as we pursue our commitment to the long-term preservation of
this important scholarly literature.

We join those who are mourning this tragic loss.

~~~
darrellsilver
Good call

~~~
slurry
Probably a good call. But "JSTOR killed a dude" will still be the internet's
takeaway from this.

~~~
mscarborough
No, it may be your takeaway but 'the internet' doesn't have one assigned, much
less society at large.

------
carbon8
IMO, JSTOR isn't directly to blame. They are operating within a broken system,
and it seems like they are doing what they can.

Academic publishing is what needs a serious overhaul.

After having worked in an academic library and, more recently, leading
technology operations for a prominent new ebook publisher and article archive,
the first two words that come to mind when I think of both publishing
(academic and trade) and librarianship are "waste" and "bureaucracy."

Librarians are supposed to be the ones advocating for the readers, but they
are hobbled by a culture of committees, conferences, and politics. They work
within organizations that are heavily stratified ("librarians" and "staff"),
with all the worst aspects of severely hierarchical organizations.

Recently I was also was privy to a variety of details during the formation of
a new academic digital publisher, and it was the same kind of top-heavy,
anti-"lean" structure you'd expect. The amount they were raising just to get
started seemed absurd, especially when we were in the process of building a
larger organization that did more with less funding.

The point being, when you look under the surface, it's no wonder that
everything in this space seems to cost more than necessary.

There must be enough of us fed up, skilled, and idealistic enough to disrupt
this space, creating new, actually modern publishers and/or publishing
platforms if necessary.

Does anyone with more domain expertise have any advice about where to start or
what to focus on?

~~~
superuser2
What is your alternative to libraries governed by boards and committees?
Cowboy developers can do amazing things in some situations, but cowboy
librarians? Given the extent to which a university depends on its library,
handing autocratic control to an individual is dangerous to the institution as
a whole. Or are you going to have a fractured set of competing, for-profit
libraries on every campus and let the market decide?

I understand that entrenched ideology is a problem, but boards and committees
are controls that exist for a reason. With what are you going to replace
bureaucracy? The lone-wolf visionary with no regard for other people's needs
is a proven model in technology start-ups (Jobs, Zuckerberg), but what makes
you think that's an appropriate way to run a university library?

------
michael_miller
In the Swartz case, I have to say that JSTOR acted professionally and did the
right thing. They saw someone stealing their data. They reached out to the
authorities to help stop the theft. Swartz returned the data, and JSTOR agreed
not to pursue (civil) legal action against him. It's unfortunate that the US
government couldn't match JSTOR's level of reasonableness. Yes, Swartz did
something illegal, but the time (~35 year prison term and $1m fine) did not
fit the crime.

I can't help but be reminded of the MPAA/RIAA vs. John Doe lawsuits that were
commonplace just a couple years ago. It's sad that our legal system lacks a
sense of proportionality for crimes. 35 years is what someone would get for
murder, rape, or dealing drugs - not for stealing property, and then giving it
back. I hope that the US government takes time to reflect on how they
mishandled the case. At least then something good will come of his death.

~~~
jdiez17
> Swartz returned the data

This... sounds super fishy.

~~~
tripzilch
Yeah, I wonder what that even means?

You can't "return" data. You can either _delete_ the data, or _hand over_ the
media that it's encoded upon.

It reminds me a bit of David Thorne's famous "spider" email exchange
<http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html> (fourth email)

------
ljd
"To that end, Aaron returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR
settled any civil claims we might have had against him in June 2011."

Reminds me of that spider drawing comic [0].

[0] <http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html>

~~~
shmageggy
Seriously. The use of the word "returned" reeks of the same technological
backwardness that has hobbled the music industry. Just as it is nonsensical to
say that copying files constitutes "stealing", it is nonsensical to say that
one can "return" copied files. You can delete them, and that's about it.

However, I don't think JSTOR is technologically backwards, but their use of
that word reveals a very measured, legalistic attitude. You can tell they are
being very careful to use a vocabulary that reflects their legal interests.

~~~
an_to_nio
This was exactly my thought. The use of "returned" reveals a clinging to a lie
that's still lurking in the background.

~~~
tripzilch
I've been assuming it meant something along the lines of "we made him hand
over some of his gear as an early punishment". Seems to be a common thing to
do in nearly all cases of (alleged) "cyber" crimes. It's nothing to do with
"returning data" of course.

An old episode of _Friends_ really nailed the concept: "it's like trying to
take the urine out of a pool".

------
jacoblyles
> "We will continue to work to distribute the content under our care as widely
> as possible"

Hint: put the content on static HTTP server without an authentication system.

~~~
Permit
Do you want them shut down or something? They can't legally do that. They've
taken measures to try and get more articles out there in recent years for
free:

\- Alumni are soon going to be able to freely access all articles.

\- Registered researches can access all articles for free.

\- Anyone can now read three articles every two weeks for free.

Doing what you say would immediately shut down JSTOR and they couldn't
continue to process new articles, provide full-text search and so on.

~~~
jacoblyles
I want a world where the scientific enterprise grows beyond academia. I want a
world where the collective intelligence of humanity can be brought to bear on
humanity's most important problems. I want a world where the conversation of
science is conducted in indexible, searchable, linkable, accessible, and
modifiable public media.

Is JSTOR a friend or an enemy of my vision? Three articles every two weeks -
sounds like an enemy.

~~~
Permit
>I want a world where the scientific enterprise grows beyond academia. I want
a world where the collective intelligence of humanity can be brought to bear
on humanity's most important problems. I want a world where the conversation
of science is conducted in indexible, searchable, linkable, accessible, and
modifiable public media.

As lovely of an idea as that is, someone has to write the backend, design the
front-end, scan tens of thousands of documents and provide full-text search
for them. Prior to JSTOR, these documents were trapped in university
libraries, and you would have no feasible way to access them. I think they
share your goals, and any problems you have with their operation is due to
external factors (publishers, licensing, etc.).

Simply publishing everything for free is an absolutely sure-fire way to see no
new content from JSTOR and a huge setback for the digitization of physical
articles. Your proposal is a ridiculous over-simplification.

>Is JSTOR a friend or an enemy of my vision? Three articles every two weeks -
sounds like an enemy.

How often do you read JSTOR articles? Personally, I don't power through a math
paper in a single day, but maybe you're brilliant.

This limitation is not their fault. You're angry at the wrong people.

~~~
jacquesm
> As lovely of an idea as that is, someone has to write the backend, design
> the front-end, scan tens of thousands of documents and provide full-text
> search for them.

I volunteer, where do I sign up?

~~~
tripzilch
Silly man. You can't just do anything you like, for _free_! ;-)

Count me in, though (given that it'll actually be about opening access to
things that weren't open before).

------
jfaucett
"as one of the largest archives of scholarly literature in the world, we must
be careful stewards of the information entrusted to us by the owners and
creators of that content."

Tax dollars in every country I know of go to pay professors and researchers
salaries ie. the contributors to to all these journals, so why all the
articles aren't fully available public access has never been clear to me.
Frankly, it makes me angry to be double ripped by a system where a few big
players benefit and progress and the furtherment of human knowledge are
impeeded. The spirit behind fighting against this kind of thing is one of the
reasons why we're mourning Aaron so much.

~~~
mjn
I agree, but don't think JSTOR in particular can do a lot about it. Rewritten
to be more accurate, what "entrusted to us by the owners and creators of that
content" means is "licensed to us by the copyright holders". In most cases the
copyright holder is a journal publisher, and they control what terms JSTOR is
allowed to make their files available under. The only major exception are
public domain works, and they _have_ been moving in the right direction on
that: <http://about.jstor.org/service/early-journal-content>

I do think JSTOR could institutionally be run in a more progressive manner.
They can't fix the problem, but they could put a bit more pressure in the
right direction. I'm hopeful that moves like Early Journal Content are showing
some signs of that, though I could just be overly optimistic. But in either
case, ultimately they aren't the ones who can make the decision to do anything
about the post-1923 content. For past content, the journals who hold the
copyrights are going to have to be convinced to open it up, and for future
content, academics are going to have to start publishing in open-access venues
in the first place.

------
exit
the single most constructive thing JSTOR could do in reaction to this tragedy
is loudly denounce the District Attorney for drawing them into the persecution
of Aaron Swartz, for perpetuating the case after they - the victim of any
wrong doing - asked the government to drop its case [0].

from this statement alone it isn't clear to me at all in what sense they
"regretted being drawn into" the case.

if JSTOR is institutionally incapable of acknowledging that prosecutorial
abuse played a significant role in this tragedy, of specifically acknowledging
and denouncing abuse under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [1], it can't be
taken seriously as a "member of the internet community".

0\. [http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-
bull...](http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully)

1\. [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/feds-go-
overboard...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/feds-go-overboard-in-
prosecuting-information-activist/)

------
tommorris
From the outside, JSTOR looks "as bad" as the other academic journal
publishers.

They really aren't.

I'm no fan of the copyright cabals and the continued locking away of academic
publications from public view. JSTOR is a non-profit that charges relatively
low fees to academic reusers for work that is not financially particularly
valuable (it's mostly humanities stuff; pharmaceutical companies and
technology researchers aren't desperate to read back issues of the British
Journal of Philosophy of Science), and they are digitising old, obscure and
non-English papers.

They are providing a very valuable service at a reasonable price for academic
libraries. The restrictions being placed on the content is just part of the
way that academic publishing works. JSTOR have done a bargain with the
publishers and scholarly societies because they believe that getting the
content scanned and online is more important than making sure there is
complete public access to that content.

They are working as best as they can within the constraints of the academic
system. If you want to hate on the academic system, the commercial publishers
are far more deserving of your ire. The commercial publishers are charging
extortionate amounts to academic libraries to sell papers back to the people
who wrote them.

Eliminate the bigger for-profit journal publishers and you'll force an
economic change on all of academic publishers. The whole system is at fault:
don't hate the player, hate the game.

------
WalterSear
This is bullshit.

Coming from academia, I can say that the only people who benefit from this
system are the publishers and the institutions. Everyone else is under the
wheel.

~~~
DannyBee
If you want folks like JSTOR to go away: Stop reviewing papers for their
journals.

------
igravious
You can't "return" copied data. How do I return that recent Hollywood
blockbuster I torrented via PirateBay? Should I courier the bits back to them?
I'm sure the MPAA would be just fine and dandy with that. If JSTOR mean that
they were assured that Aaron deleted what he copied, why not say that?

I recognise that it may seem that I'm being overly pedantic but to me it seems
that they are treating information like stuff when information does not act
like stuff at all. I'm not one of these techno-utopian "information wants to
be free" people, but at the same time we can't treat information the same way
we treat stuff.

JSTOR should get that the rules have changed, if Wikipedia can build a
competitor to Britannica then JSTOR can figure out how to provide (relatively)
inexpensive access to the information that they are hoarding. Given that this
is the very information that is meant to help us collectively build a better
world for ourselves this needs to be done asap.

I don't doubt they sincerely regret what has happened - perhaps it will cause
some much-needed introspection.

~~~
anglebracket
He _did_ return the data, in a sense. He gave JSTOR the hard drives containing
the articles he copied and assured them that it was the only copy.

Source: <https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.html?_r=0>

You're right in that return is probably the wrong word though, because it
implies that they were "gone" in the first place.

------
davidgerard
The "creators" did not charge them with this responsibility.

~~~
kenko
Nevertheless, it is true that Jstor got out of the "hassle Aaron Swartz" game
a long time ago, which is why they're able to post a message like this without
it coming off as totally opportunistic. The prosecutors in the case can't
exactly do the same.

~~~
tellarin
Nor MIT.

Which actually surprised me a bit, due to the culture of hacks/pranks that
used to be common over there.

------
DoubleMalt
"Careful stewardship" is the next neighbour to censorship.

------
3327
"since JSTOR’s mission is to foster widespread access to the world’s body of
scholarly knowledge. At the same time, as one of the largest archives of
scholarly literature in the world, we must be careful stewards of the
information entrusted to us by the owners and creators of that content"

...

------
don_draper
>> while balancing the interests of researchers, students, libraries, and
publishers

Almost all of whom got a sizable chuck of their money for doing research from
the taxpayer.

------
irollboozers
This is so woefully inadequate.

------
surendra_sedhai
JSTOR will be remembered in the history!! :(

