How did it work out for him? For Aaron's causes, his constructive rather than destructive approach worked fairly well, creating change and earning wide awareness and respect.

I wish he'd stuck it out; had there been a trial (and possibly sentencing), the public would have learned many of the same lessons about overzealous prosecution, the JSTOR project, the CFAA, the obsolescence of copyright, and importance of open access. Plus, he'd still be with us.

I also believe Aaron's causes with regard to copyright and censorship will succeed in coming decades, easily within his natural lifespan, and he would have helped them succeed faster, so I'm sad he'll miss it.

DDoS is destructive (unlike any amount of copying) because it disables access and functionality and effectively censors content by blocking individual learning and communication. It causes more resources to be be wasted on paranoia and layers-of-defense. It causes a hardening of positions and growth of suspicion. It is much easier to portray Aaron's supporters as 'vandals' if they help by actually committing vandalism. (I'd guess that as an 'applied sociologist', Aaron understood this well.)

That these DoS effects are often temporary is no defense: it's destroying people's freedom-to-communicate for a time... and the early death of a young person should remind you that ultimately all we have is time.

I regretfully disagree with you, in regards to the case playing out actually being helpful to the cause. The public, by and large, doesn't give a damn about this kind of thing.

His suicide, tragically, appears to have helped the cause - the media loves the wild speculation and gossip that it brought about. So while his end goal may now stand a chance of coming to fruition, he won't be around to witness it.

The number of things that went wrong in order to generate this outcome is just astonishing. While I knew nothing of Aaron or his cause prior to this happening (see? media effects sigh), I at least hope the public outcry brings about what appears to be some much-needed change.

I fear that this martyrization of him sends a weird message. His struggle wasn't very appreciated before his death and first now it "seems that people listen to him".

That's an interesting reflection. Time will tell.

Yes, of course death brings more attention and a wider audience. If it bleeds, it leads, on the net as well as TV.

But within the tech community that is already familiar with open access, copyright reform, and anti-SOPA efforts, a trial, ending in either acquittal or conviction, would have focused a lot of attention. The same defenses of Aaron's actions, and attacks on prosecutorial overreach, would have been aired. And any sentence beyond community service or perhaps a few weeks' jail time would have triggered enduring protests and similar petitions for pardon/redress.

> Also, if DDoS is "destructive" then copying a file is stealing.

How does that follow?

"destruction" and "stealing" are both words with a physical connotation, that is misleading when used in a computational/digital context.

I'd argue "destroy" means simply "cause to no longer be". "Stealing" means simply "Remove <x> from someone else's possession and put into your own".

The reason we don't refer to copying as stealing is not because it's "not physical" but more because only the second part of the definition holds.

A DDOS is a trespass to chattels. It denies others the use of a resource they own or have a right to use.

I would rather see anonymous discover who at MIT is responsible for this matter and dox them than deny students access to their network. Doxing is like a sniper attack. DDoSing is like dropping napalm on villages.

Haven't there been lots of problems with doxxing the wrong people?

I don't think anyone will know, actually, who is responsible without the investigation that MIT is already doing. We can speculate, but we'll probably get it wrong.

Well, unlike most defendants he chose not to find out how well it would work out, so we'll never know.