The JSTOR downloading caper at MIT (Aaron Swartz): user rip-off ≠ author give-away

Assuming the world has not gone entirely bonkers (and the US Attorney's Office has not contracted terminal wikileakimania), one can expect that charges against Aaron Swartz will be dropped by JSTOR once it becomes clear that he was (as I hope!) only interested in data-mining what he downloaded, not redistributing it. Breaking into a locked room and computer at MIT is not ethical except if something far more important is at stake -- but Swartz will be pardoned for that peccadillo too. But access to retroactively scanned journal article databases is definitely not the same sort of "primal right" as access to current, born-digital articles, when the access is provided by their authors. Nor is author give-away the same thing as user rip-off. I hope the JSTOR downloading caper will not be conflated or even associated with the worldwide efforts by researchers to give and get open access to one another's refereed research.