It seems to be that David Byrne isn't that familiar with Aaron Swartz's fight.
He says:
Withholding cancer research from academics
who can’t afford access because a big pharmaceutical
company “owns” the data doesn’t seem like a very morally
defensible position—even if it is what the law might say
is perfectly legal.
I do not know what he is referring to here at all.
(1) JSTOR likely does not have much cancer research in the journals it covers.
(2) Publications are owned by publishers, not any "big pharmaceutical company". The "big pharmaceutical company" receives no payment from the purchase of articles, and in some cases has to pay to publish in the journal that then also requires assignment of the copyright and charges for access the content.
his main point, it seems to me, is that when compared with other rights protesters, swartz fought going to jail.
i don't know if that's true (and would black rights protesters have defended themselves legally if they had the means?), but it's an interesting point about tactics.
more generally, even though it wasn't the most informed article, i thought it was interesting - a smart person trying to understand a complex situation, not afraid to point out problems, and not afraid to acknowledge the lack of clear answers.
Firstly, civil rights protesters were charged with numerous crimes - not just related to the Jim Crow laws, but as part of an active campaign to silence them (Martin Luther King, for example, was charged with tax fraud by Alabama, which he was found innocent of).
Secondly, I don't see the relevance of the number of felonies being charged at any one time. Many in the civil rights movement were repeatedly arrested, charged, and tried over many, many years. And many faced length sentences off only one or two charges.
I'm not totally sure of the point you were trying to make, but if you're trying to equate Aaron Swartz's persecution with that of those in the civil rights movement then you're treading onto extremely shaky ground.
What makes the article interesting is not the point that it makes, but the perspective that a musician would have on these issues. There seems to be this idea that academic publishing companies are like recording companies, and that researchers have the same relationship with publishers as musicians have with recording studios.
His view of this issue is very much shaped by his profession.
He says:
I do not know what he is referring to here at all. (1) JSTOR likely does not have much cancer research in the journals it covers. (2) Publications are owned by publishers, not any "big pharmaceutical company". The "big pharmaceutical company" receives no payment from the purchase of articles, and in some cases has to pay to publish in the journal that then also requires assignment of the copyright and charges for access the content.