> And because it's the internet, there were the inevitable flames against me
It's not "because it's the internet", it's because publishing images of nonconsenting people is widely disliked.
It's not "because it's the internet", it's because publishing images of nonconsenting people is widely disliked.
It’s also the low quality (imo) type of art that does a disservice to the rest. Like the blank canvas art hung in the SF MOMA, it’s the stuff you roll your eyes at and ignore.
A lot of the art at RPI was like that.
They should have prosecuted him, maybe then his lawyers could have explained to him why what he did was wrong.
It sounds like his lawyers recognized that what he did was so obviously not illegal or with sufficient crimnal intent that they were sure the charges would be dropped. It certainly seems like a stretch to apply the CFAA to these actions, what other laws do you think applied?