jhardy: Good point BUT . . .
jhardy . . . You do have a good point from a legal standpoint but . . . what about the moral point. Aaron was doing what he believed in just like our Founding Fathers. According to the legal aspect all of our Founding Fathers were traitors and should have been hung. They held secret meetings, they hid what they were doing from the legal government, they damaged property, and they killed people. By all legal aspects of the time they were nothing but criminals who were subverting established legal principles, laws, and the intent behind those laws. Yet, they are the heroes of our Revolution doing what must be done to rid our country of tyranny. I believe Aaron was the same caliber of person doing what he believed to be right in an attempt to gain freedom of information.
Since copyright laws were not violated and only public domain articles were involved, how can there be a legal leg to stand on? How is it that an organization can charge for the information that can be readily found through public sources? From my experience those "public domain" documents are sold by those organization that sell them at a price far above the means and efforts to provide them as a public service. These organizations also bury the public domain documents in a way which makes it hard for the public to gain access to them. As I see it, Aaron was only trying to break the tyrannical conrol these organizations have over information that should be free to everyone.
