[PLUG] Creator of RSS passes away
amarendra.godbole at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 16:41:29 PST 2013
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Praveen A <pravi.a at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/1/18 ag at gmail <amarendra.godbole at gmail.com>:
>> So do I read it something like this: While walking on the street, I found an unlocked door to a bar and walked in, grabbed a bottle of vodka, gulped it down, and walked out. I was caught, since I was 17.
>> Now blame the bar for having its door unlocked or the person who forgot the bottle of vodka on the table. Don't every utter anything about underage drinking... (though it is illegal). Not exact, but you get the idea.
> The point is, MIT kept the network open as well thought out policy. It
> is MIT culture not to restrict their network. Do you not see the
> proportion as an issue? Agreed, it is rude on Aaron's part to have
> misused the access, but does it deserve 35 years in jail? Also
> remember JSTOR did not want to prosecute Aaron.
>> If JSTOR should be free - one should put efforts to gather those many articles on their own. Why steal? Another thing - part of JSTOR fees goes towards paying the authors of those articles, from what I read. By wanting it for free, you also deny rightful money to the very people who put their ideas on paper. I consider this abuse of the term Free... Gandhi did not take away salt from the British, it was rightfully given to those who owned it. In this case, the papers were not rightfully Aaron's or of public...
> Copying is not stealing and Aaron did not distribute the articles he
> copied. The people who wrote the papers are already paid.
I consider not paying for a paid-only thing as stealing. YMMV.
> "Another thing to consider is that academic writers are paid through
> salaries and grants; they aren't paid (not directly, anyway) for the
> publication of their work. The whole system of compensation for
> academic content is very different from commercial publishing. When
> you pay for a JSTOR article online, none of the money goes to the
> author, it goes to the publisher."
Clause #4 from http://about.jstor.org/10things says otherwise about
paying content owners. I think it is a bit more generalization of the
word freedom if you expect everything to be free.
More information about the plug-mail