
"Aaron's Law" Might Be Good - TDL
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/16/congresswoman-names-law-after-dead-guy-b
======
thrill
I think the musings of Philip Greenspun at
[http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/16/aaron-
swartz-f...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/16/aaron-swartz-
followup-can-we-get-government-out-of-the-copyright-enforcement-business/)
that we need to make copyright violation a purely civil matter would be a
proper step.

~~~
stretchwithme
Wouldn't that mean people without assets could do whatever they liked with
copyrighted materials?

~~~
dredmorbius
One thing they couldn't do is profit from the materials -- as they'd then have
seizable assets.

But, yeah, a bunch of broke-ass teenagers sharing music amonst themselves? I'm
down with that.

~~~
jychang
What about profiting at a lower price?

Playing devil's advocate here: I agree with "teens sharing music", but what if
I sold them for, say, half iTunes price, and made $500. I would deprive an
artist while profiting for enough money, and if I spend it, the money is gone.
Seems broken.

~~~
Peaker
Why would someone buy them from you at half price, when they can illegally
download them for free?

------
randomwalker
The eminently qualified Jennifer Granick calls it "a great first step"
[https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/thoughts-zoe-
lofg...](https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/thoughts-zoe-lofgrens-
cfaa-bill-great-first-step)

See also her writings over the last few days
<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/jennifer-granick>

~~~
thirsteh
Lawrence Lessig calls it "a critically important change that would do
incredible good":
[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zo...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16njr9/im_rep_zoe_lofgren_im_introducing_aarons_law_to/c7xmx6j)

------
miw-sec-work
A better AArons law would be to force publicly funded research be released
freely and under a Creative Commons license. They did this in EU, why not the
US?

Weakening the Computer Fraud laws, and naming it after Aaron trivializes his
quest for free flow of information.

Of course this wont happen -- too much money tied up in selling research.

~~~
mtgx
I have the same idea about open source software in governments. If it uses
taxpayers money, then it should be open source, wherever possible (so in most
cases). Taxpayers' money shouldn't be used to fatten corporations, if it can
be avoided. And by that I don't necessarily mean that government software
should be written by volunteers, but if they're paying them to write software,
then that software should be made open source later. And they can keep paying
companies for maintenance and upgrading it if they want. But at least the
software would be available to anyone to use and tinker with it.

~~~
Avshalom
I asked before and was told that code written by the government is available
by request due to the FOIA, no state secrets mind you, but it might be true of
(a significant portion of) code written by contractors as well.

~~~
betterunix
Does that really matter? The NSA faced scrutiny for writing its own software
when commercial solutions were on the market. The US government contracts out
almost all its software needs below the state secrets level anyway.

------
andylei
law professor orin kerr on aaron's law:

> A lot of people have wondered how to amend the computer crime laws in
> response to the Swartz tragedy. So far I have seen a lot of interest in
> this, but not a lot of sensible proposals. Already, Rep. Lofgren stepped
> forward with “Aaron’s Law,” , text here, which would amend the statutory
> definition of “exceeds authorized access.” This isn’t new text: It’s just
> the definition of “exceeds authorized access” that was passed by the Senate
> Judiciary Committee last year to try to stop Lori Drew-like prosecutions.
> This amendment is well meaning, no doubt, but I think it is a bad idea for
> two reasons. First, it is weirdly disconnected from the Swartz case. Swartz
> would still have faced exactly the same criminal liability under “Aaron’s
> Law” that he did without it.

the rest here (in section IV): [http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-
charges-agains...](http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-
against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/)

------
will_brown
As an attorney I would like to give a quick two cents about the idea it is
illegal, or volatile of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, to simply violate
the terms of a websites terms and conditions or privacy policy. For example,
if anyone remembers the Mom who created a fake MySpace profile spoofing her
daughters friend, who ultimately committed suicide. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier> . If this women was
acquitted who clearly violated MySpaces terms and conditions which possibly
contributed to the suicide of a minor, then this charge does not have much
bite to it.

Nevertheless a law such as this would prevent prosecutors with ice in their
veins from charging who ever the hell they want, because lets face it we all
somehow or someway are violating a terms of service. As a lawyer I can say
with comfort that the law is catching up to technology, but generally an
existing law is expanded into technology, what is crazy here is that there is
no equivalent pre-existing law to support this kind of criminal charge. In
other words, imagine you violating any non-tech terms of service and it being
a federal crime, for example it would be crazy to imagine paying your credit
card late or returning a movie late (as if Blockbuster still exists) puts you
in violation of criminal law. The closest example I can think of is lying on a
mortgage application which constitutes fraud under federal law but that is
obviously distinguishable, and at least a mortgage application will tell you
lying is fraud I have never seen such a disclaimer on any websites terms of
service (but who reads those anyway?).

------
michaelfeathers
Misdemeanor rather than felony would be a good direction.

------
miw-sec-work
Also, "Aarons law" was raised 1 year ago by the same Congressperson under a
different name.

This is nothing but personal political quests using our martyr for
justification. I'm insulted.

~~~
rz2k
If she hadn't, would the complaint be, "why didn't anyone propose this change
early enough to actually help?"

I suppose one could focus on retribution for this particular event, or
recognize that the CFAA allows for many other unknown people to spend lengthy
jail sentences with few people caring about them.

If the legislation is flawed, it should be changed, so that even people
without celebrity are protected. Prosecutorial discretion has its place, but
the idea of prosecutors selectively applying laws that are on the books with
considerations about how popular suspects are in a poor model for a legal
system.

