• The channel analyzed the federal indictment USA v. Swartz (Criminal Document 53), focusing on the statutory interpretation of “damage affecting at least 10 protected computers” and whether MIT/JSTOR’s operational costs constitute legally cognizable harm.  
• Discussion highlighted that Quinn Norton and Alec Resnick testified before the grand jury and that Norton’s partial fingerprint was found on the seized laptop, underscoring the limited shield-law protections for journalists and the difficulty of resisting subpoenas.  
• Court filings from 2011–2012 revealed Swartz had mirrored a large JSTOR cache to “an unidentified server in China,” prompting speculation about a “lost pirate treasure” of academic papers and the broader challenge of liberating ~50 million articles from ~200 publishers.  
• A Pirate Bay torrent claiming 18,592 JSTOR papers from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society was shared but deemed too small; participants framed the full liberation as a multi-terabyte scraping and anonymity problem.  
• Technical threads compared open-source CAD tools (BRL-CAD for precision engineering vs. Blender for animation), Firefox vs. Chrome session-management hacks, and command-line tricks for counting lines of code across entire directories.  
• The Kopimist religion (“copy all the bytes”) was jokingly proposed as ideological cover for large-scale archiving, while the feasibility of a distributed, searchable mirror running on mobile proxy networks was debated.  
• Distribution strategy discussions concluded that a single central site is takedown-prone, a torrent of that size is hard to seed, and the immediate priority should be raw-data preservation rather than advanced search features.  
• Participants nostalgically recalled the 1990s abundance of open SOCKS proxies, contrasting it with today’s reliance on paid VPNs or scarce Canadian proxies for anonymity.