I may not know the particulars of his actions, but I think there may be an important and subtle distinction here. Did Schwartz limit his actions to only releasing publically funded research?
IIRC: Schwarz "never got that far," being apprehended quite quickly [while he was still mid-DL on-campus]... because a trap had been set for him after the massive datatransfer was first observed.
BUT I personally support lib-gen, so I absolutely do not respect the concept of "Intellectual Property." I have contracted for several opensource projects which still find ways to become profitable (usually by distributing code with hardware).
"Privatize profits, subsidize losses" == take taxpayer funds, charge taxpayers for access IMHO
>I absolutely do not respect the concept of "Intellectual Property."
I think it's perfectly fine to selecting to work on open source projects based a principle of not respecting intellectual property rights. But it's another think to flaunt those laws and not be expected to be held accountable. What you can't expect IMO is think your lack of respect for a law somehow means you're above it. (That's not saying the govt didn't overreach in the Schwartz case; I'm not familiar enough with all the details to form a strong opinion.)
My ultimate "take" on the entire US v Schwarz is one of Misunderstanding.
Thank you for this discussion in fostering better understandings [e.g. your perspective].
----
One of my sick optimisms about generative AI being trained upon all this human creation, is that it may actually lead to the disolution of IP ownership... one can dream =P
RIP Aaron Schwarz... he wasn't wrong [in his attempts to share publicly-funded research], just early.