[Daaave]

"the rules (Term of service.) Aaron were said to have violated purported to limit the amount of JSTOR (A digital repository that archives content.) that any user was permitted to download. They were rules of contract. Aaron exceeded those limits, the government charged. He therefore breached the implied contract he had with JSTOR. And therefore, the government insists, he was a felon."

"JSTOR -- the only plausible entity "harmed" by Aaron's acts -- pled "no foul." JSTOR did not want Swartz prosecuted. It settled any possible civil claims against Swartz with the simple promise that he return what he had downloaded. Swartz did. JSTOR went away."

"But the government did not. In the weeks before his death, the government reaffirmed what they had been insisting upon for the 18 months before: jail, a felony conviction, and a bankrupting fine, or else Swartz was going to face a bankrupting trial."

nationaljournal.com

[Mr. Jeeves]

Then I guess the legal question is “cui bono?” Aside from a generic, Gramscian desire to destroy the successful, who was actually gaining a professional or political benefit by prosecuting this guy in the absence of any valid legal reason to do so?