Why should it be that just when technology is most encouraging of creativity, the law should be most restrictive? - Lawrence Lessig

A defesa de idéias, a argumentação e a crítica melhoram a democracia.

I received an email from JSTOR four days before Aaron died, from the president of JSTOR, announcing, celebrating that JSTOR was going to release all of these journal articles to anybody around the world who wanted access — exactly what Aaron was fighting for. And I didn’t have time to send it to Aaron; I was on — I was traveling. But I looked forward to seeing him again — I had just seen him the week before — and celebrating that this is what had happened. So, all of us think there are a thousand things we could have done, a thousand things we could have done, and we have to do, because Aaron Swartz is now an icon, an ideal. He is what we will be fighting for, all of us, for the rest of our lives. … Every time you saw Aaron, he was surrounded by five or 10 different people who loved and respected and worked with him. He was depressed because he was increasingly recognizing that the idealism he brought to this fight maybe wasn’t enough. When he saw all of his wealth gone, and he recognized his parents were going to have to mortgage their house so he could afford a lawyer to fight a government that treated him as if he were a 9/11 terrorist, as if what he was doing was threatening the infrastructure of the United States, when he saw that and he recognized how — how incredibly difficult that fight was going to be, of course he was depressed. Now, you know, I’m not a psychiatrist. I don’t know whether there was something wrong with him because of — you know, beyond the rational reason he had to be depressed, but I don’t — I don’t — I don’t have patience for people who want to say, "Oh, this was just a crazy person; this was just a person with a psychological problem who killed himself." No. This was somebody — this was somebody who was pushed to the edge by what I think of as a kind of bullying by our government. A bullying by our government.

"Os participantes das redes de compartilhamento de arquivos compartilham diferentes tipos de conteúdos. Podemos dividi-los em quatro tipos.
A-Esses são aqueles que usam as redes P2P como substitutos para a compra de conteúdo. Dessa forma, quando um novo CD da Pitty é lançado, ao invés de comprar o CD, eles simplesmente o copiam. Podemos argumentar se todos os que copiaram as músicas poderiam comprá-las caso o compartilhamento não permitisse baixá-las de graça. Muitos provavelmente não poderiam, mas claramente alguns o fariam. Os últimos são os alvos da categoria A: usuários que baixam conteúdo ao invés de comprá-lo.
B-Há alguns que usam as redes de compartilhamento de arquivos para experimentarem música antes de a comprar. Dessa forma, um amigo manda para outro um MP3 de um artista do qual ele nunca ouviu falar. Esse outro amigo então compra CDs desse artistas. Isso é uma forma de publicidade direcionada, e que tem grandes chances de sucesso. Se o amigo que está recomendando a música não ganha nada recomendando porcarias, então pode-se imaginar que suas recomendações sejam realmente boas. O saldo final desse compartilhamento pode aumentar as compras de música.
C-Há muitos que usam as redes de compartilhamento de arquivos para conseguirem materiais sob copgright que não são mais vendidos ou que não podem ser comprados ou cujos custos da compra fora da Net seriam muito grandes. Esses uso da rede de compartilhamento de arquivos está entre os mais recompensadores para a maioria. Canções que eram parte de nossa infância mais que desapareceram há muito tempo atrás do mercado magicamente reaparecem na rede. (Um amigo meu me disse que quando ele descobriu o Napster, ele passou um fim de semana inteiro "relembrando" músicas antigas. Ele estava surpreso com a gama e diversidade do conteúdo disponibilizado.) Para conteúdo não vendido, isso ainda é tecnicamente uma violação de copyright, embora já que o dono do copgright não está mais vendendo esse conteúdo, o dano econômico é