> Was there ever an argument beyond 'information wants to be free' to this?
I can think of four: 1) The information is vital to government and to justice, both personally (if you are party to or have a stake in the case) and as a public affairs issue; its availability should not be restricted in any way, and especially not restricted to those who can afford to pay. 2) In principle, access to the courts should not discriminate based on any factor, especially wealth. 3) The information is a product of taxpayer-funded activities and therefore should be public and free. 4) 8 cents/page for downloaded data is ridiculous; what if HN charged us 8 cents/page?
Does anyone know what Swartz' actual arguments were?
The strongest reason, to my mind, is that we have a common law system, so the public can't fully and accurately comply with the law without access to the court records upon which the common law rulings are based.
The complaint is that the current system of document storage is not good enough to balance private review and public disclosure. Restriction should not be withholding. It is like eating a pizza pie before it cools.
Burning the roof your your mouth sucks... Quality of information is as important as availability. This is a job for a lever.
I can think of four: 1) The information is vital to government and to justice, both personally (if you are party to or have a stake in the case) and as a public affairs issue; its availability should not be restricted in any way, and especially not restricted to those who can afford to pay. 2) In principle, access to the courts should not discriminate based on any factor, especially wealth. 3) The information is a product of taxpayer-funded activities and therefore should be public and free. 4) 8 cents/page for downloaded data is ridiculous; what if HN charged us 8 cents/page?
Does anyone know what Swartz' actual arguments were?