* Swartz did not create something novel. Tidbits did.
* Swartz was not an MIT student. Tidbits authors were.
* Swartz violated policies/rules of a couple non-profits (MIT and JSTOR). Tidbits did not.
* Swartz misused MIT computer resources. Tidbits did not.
* Jurisdiction in Swartz' case made sense. It doesn't make sense in the Tidbits situation.
* Swartz' case was a federal incident. Tidbits incident is (currently) a state of NJ matter.
* Swartz was charged by the feds. Tidbits has not (yet) been charged by anyone.
Whatever opinion you hold about Swartz' case, I think you should understand that it's not very similar to this one, outside of the fact that MIT is involved in both.
* Swartz did not create something novel. Tidbits did.
* Swartz was not an MIT student. Tidbits authors were.
* Swartz violated policies/rules of a couple non-profits (MIT and JSTOR). Tidbits did not.
* Swartz misused MIT computer resources. Tidbits did not.
* Jurisdiction in Swartz' case made sense. It doesn't make sense in the Tidbits situation.
* Swartz' case was a federal incident. Tidbits incident is (currently) a state of NJ matter.
* Swartz was charged by the feds. Tidbits has not (yet) been charged by anyone.
Whatever opinion you hold about Swartz' case, I think you should understand that it's not very similar to this one, outside of the fact that MIT is involved in both.