Prosecutorial Overreach for Download of 4.8 Million Articles?

15 January 2013 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

With the recent death of accused Aaron Swartz there will be no trial to determine whether Mr. Swartz violated federal wire laws by downloading 4.8 million articles and documents from JSTOR at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In the meantime the National Law Journal is questioning whether the government’s actions were prosecutorial overreach brought by U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz. They quote Ms. Ortiz:

Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data, or dollars,...It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.

In the meantime Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig, one of Swartz’s friends and attorney referred to the "Prosecutor as bully" and added these comments: 

The government, …worked as hard as it could to characterize what Aaron did in the most extreme and absurd way....our government continued to push as if it had caught the 9/11 terrorists red-handed.

Notwithstanding how the government pursued Mr. Swartz we will now never know how a jury would have responded, my question remains, why were charges never filed for Copyright Infringement?
 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services

Insights