No, there were other mechanisms used to deny Aaron access to the JSTOR archive (and he made several attempts). I don't think this law change would have affected Aaron's case at all.
What he did was still plausibly wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access, and computer damage.
The charges against Aaron do appear legit, and I don't see how changing the definition of wire fraud to exclude TOS violations would have affected Aaron's case. Set aside the issue of whether you think the prosecution pursued Aaron's case too aggressively (I think they did) or whether you think the permissible sentences for these crimes are fair (I think they are not).
Interesting sidenote: Kerr himself defended Lori Drew in the so-called "MySpace suicide" case (2008), in which Drew was convicted of computer crimes and wire fraud for violating MySpace's TOS by "cyber bullying" 13-year old Megan Meier, resulting in Megan's suicide (the conviction was overturned on appeal). http://www.mail-archive.com/volokh@lists.powerblogs.com/msg1...
There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide.
> There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide.
This is the thing that's strange to me. Seems as though existing laws against harassment would apply. What is so different about this activity online than offline?
Perhaps less that it has amped up penalties and more that it has a careless and capricious standard for mapping alleged damages into sentencing categories. It's not necessarily that the CFAA on it's face is unreasonably harsh; it's that it's attached to a stupid scheme from which harshness is an emergent property.
What he did was still plausibly wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access, and computer damage.
Edit: To those downvoting me, please read Orin Kerr's take on this case here: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
The charges against Aaron do appear legit, and I don't see how changing the definition of wire fraud to exclude TOS violations would have affected Aaron's case. Set aside the issue of whether you think the prosecution pursued Aaron's case too aggressively (I think they did) or whether you think the permissible sentences for these crimes are fair (I think they are not).
Interesting sidenote: Kerr himself defended Lori Drew in the so-called "MySpace suicide" case (2008), in which Drew was convicted of computer crimes and wire fraud for violating MySpace's TOS by "cyber bullying" 13-year old Megan Meier, resulting in Megan's suicide (the conviction was overturned on appeal). http://www.mail-archive.com/volokh@lists.powerblogs.com/msg1...
There is no federal law against cyber-bullying, so the prosecution in that case used these same computer and wire fraud laws to go after Drew for her role in Megan's suicide.