Post

it is literally so weird that people have turned Swartz into a figure primarily used to browbeat people he knew and worked with personally while arguing for copyright enforcement. do they not hear themselves?

12 reposts136 likes

so many double standards here, too like at the most basic level the “oh should artists work for free?” is the presumed corollary, that knowledge workers, including the professors that wrote those articles, should be debters.

like when people say ‘aaron swartz was hounded to death by aggressive copyright enforcers and now large companies are getting away with things i personally consider to be copyright infringement :/‘ the implication is, what? that we should be doing *more* of the thing that hounded him to death???

It's kinda gross. Making a guy a martyr for a viewpoint he detested? Real "what the fuck are you doing?" behaviour.

tbf complaining about a complete lack of equal enforcement (of an unjust law) is not *quite* the same as supporting the law itself. But it it pretty close

in the sense that the labs are fully capable of continuing to operate and hyperscale while fighting or settling a lawsuit? yeah completely fair. my b

Schwartz was charged multiple accounts of two crimes: wire fraud and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Which one do you think the labs are getting away with? Please note, there are no copyright charges. Anthropic also lost in court and is paying $1.5B for actual copyright violations.

dude killed himself because of an overzealous prosecutor for a crime he should have not gone to jail for and where the prosecutors were trying to black ball him hard to take a six month recommendation for jail time. I know you know this but like I just don't think a martyr's name should be invoked

“he was unfairly punished, and therefore so should everyone else” - puritanism is so back

I try to avoid taking offense online; it’s a bottomless opportunity to be offended if your bar is set low. But turning Swartz into someone who died to prove that intellectual property is sacred — that does actually offend me pretty deeply.

It’s a weirdly perverse move, but a very common one. I suspect it happens so often because people are trying to reconcile the copyleft views they held ten years ago with the copyright maximalism they’ve adopted recently. They do that by implying “even Swartz would agree this is too much.”

My basic theory is this is polarization: The people doing the most to undermine copyright maximalism are modern fascists, large tech companies, and various AI cultists. If your values are supporting scrappy outsiders against capital, well.....

Another way of putting that is just "my material interests weren't threatened ten years ago; they are now; and so my views have changed."