Frankly I don’t think JSTOR has a leg to stand here. If they don’t own the content then restricting access to it becomes their business model.
JSTOR didn’t actually write or own or purchase any of the information that they are trying to control.
I hope this guy gets a good lawyer who points out the nature of JSTOR’s business is basically to tell people what they can or can’t read.
Does JSTOR pay royalties or “pay-per-view” fees back to the authors.
If not, they’re no better than Huffington Post - profiting on the backs of someone else’s labor.
Higher education is a racket - and JSTOR is just another tool of extortion along with high priced text books and overprice tuition.
This doesn’t seem to be a copyright infringement case. The charges involve breaking into the MIT computer and network.