The charges brought against Swartz for these actions are primarily wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030). In several instances, the criminal charges are based specifically on the fact that Swartz violated MIT and JSTOR user policies—and in those instances, these charges raise some significant issues that the academic library community should be concerned about.
Follow me on Twitter (@petermeyers) for periodic updates and pointers to interesting finds; I’ll also keep posting here, as I write, the better to virtually think out loud about some of the topics I’m tackling in the book. This is an enormously fun project for me and I hope it proves helpful to everyone out there trying to figure out the future of reading and writing.
In the end, I conclude that the ASA [the Amended Settlement Agreement (the "ASA).] is not fair, adequate, and reasonable. As the United States and other objectors have noted, many of the concerns raised in the objections would be ameliorated if the ASA were converted from an “opt-out” settlement to an “opt-in” settlement. (See, e.q., DOJ SO1 23, ECF No. 922; Internet Archive Mem. 10, ECF No. 811). I urge the parties to consider revising the ASA accordingly.
The motion for final approval of the ASA is denied, without prejudice to renewal in the event the parties negotiate a revised settlement agreement. The motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is denied, without prejudice. (p.45-6)
