Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 129 posts

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#31

Post by Bartweiss »

landryraccoon wrote: post #26
PenguinCoder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the key takeaway from the article. As much as I agree that researches deserve fair compensation for their work; I also believe gate-keeping academic knowledge is also wrong. It's not surprising that the US legal system found against Sci-hub. Issuing the legally binding statement, that blocking a site by ISP and search engine level, is the real problem. It sets a very tenuous precedent.

How do researchers get paid under the current system? My understanding is that the journals do not pay the scientists that produce the articles. Am I mistaken in this?

You're not mistaken - journals don't pay researchers or reviewers. If they did, I'd be significantly less upset by their practices. As is, they get their product (papers) and their skilled labor (reviews) for free.

Elsevier had a 36% profit margin last year, which is a pretty clear signal that they don't face sincere costs or competition.

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#33

Post by vanattab »

landryraccoon wrote: post #26
PenguinCoder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the key takeaway from the article. As much as I agree that researches deserve fair compensation for their work; I also believe gate-keeping academic knowledge is also wrong. It's not surprising that the US legal system found against Sci-hub. Issuing the legally binding statement, that blocking a site by ISP and search engine level, is the real problem. It sets a very tenuous precedent.

How do researchers get paid under the current system? My understanding is that the journals do not pay the scientists that produce the articles. Am I mistaken in this?

They are paid ether by their respective universities/institutions/companies and/or they pay themselves from the grant money they were awarded for a specific project.

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#34

Post by afpx »

cobookman wrote: post #16
Knufen wrote: post #5

As someone who works in academia (Europe) I understand that scientific papers need hosting and server space and such, but does it really help humanity that all advances will be behind very expensive pay walls? I would argue otherwise. The current trend is not sustainable nor favorable for anyone except parasitic publishers. Edit: I understand the website was breaking the law, but this seems like symptom treating

Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something.

Remember that a lot of us don't work for research universities, and we can't afford $199 per paper just to read the details that are summarized in the abstract.

Also, many landmark papers are several decades old. A lot of time I just want to read the details of an influential paper just to see if I agree with how it is portrayed in popular culture. For example, I recently wanted to read the Dunning Kruger paper to see if it really says what people think it says. And, when James Damore cited research for his Google manifesto - I wanted to see if his conclusions held up.

I'm not sure how an average person can make informed judgments without access to these papers. Without Sci-Hub, we must just believe what is fed to us. Since its creation, Sci-Hub has become an essential part of my life.

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#35

Post by Analemma_ »

PenguinCoder wrote: post #7
wccrawford wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blocking of the site by ISPs and search engines is the bad part, IMO. Other than that, it seems pretty standard. And it's kind of dumb, because they could just get a new domain name, like many of the other torrent sites do. It's effectively worthless.

This is the key takeaway from the article. As much as I agree that researches deserve fair compensation for their work; I also believe gate-keeping academic knowledge is also wrong. It's not surprising that the US legal system found against Sci-hub. Issuing the legally binding statement, that blocking a site by ISP and search engine level, is the real problem. It sets a very tenuous precedent.

> As much as I agree that researches deserve fair compensation for their work

Researchers don't get paid by journals for their submissions. In fact, it's usually exactly the opposite: most of the big ones have submission fees.

This is why I don't really have any sympathy for the publishers affected by Sci-Hub, when at the same I strenuously oppose software/game piracy. I just don't see what service they provide: they don't pay the researchers, they don't pay the peer reviewers, and they don't validate the papers beyond basic copy-editing and typesetting. They're just useless middlemen who provide no utility. I'll be spitting on their grave when we finally get rid of them.

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#36

Post by Chaebixi »

vanattab wrote: post #33
landryraccoon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do researchers get paid under the current system? My understanding is that the journals do not pay the scientists that produce the articles. Am I mistaken in this?

They are paid ether by their respective universities/institutions/companies and/or they pay themselves from the grant money they were awarded for a specific project.

But the key point is that they're not paid by the publisher for the publication, they're paid to produce the publication by others. The publisher is just gets it for (basically) free and then profits off the fees.

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#37

Post by travmatt »

rayiner wrote: post #30
Knufen wrote: post #5

As someone who works in academia (Europe) I understand that scientific papers need hosting and server space and such, but does it really help humanity that all advances will be behind very expensive pay walls? I would argue otherwise. The current trend is not sustainable nor favorable for anyone except parasitic publishers. Edit: I understand the website was breaking the law, but this seems like symptom treating

The law doesn't operate by going back to first principles ("will it really help humanity?") in every case. We've decided copyright is reasonable as a concept, and we evaluate each case by reference to the rules of copyright, without creating special exceptions all over the place. Nor are any special exceptions necessary. Absolutely nothing prevents scientists and academics from publishing in open-access journals. Sci…

Because most of the research is funded by tax dollars?

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#38

Post by cobookman »

remus wrote: post #20
cobookman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something.

> Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. > As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. It would be nice if everyone had access to research, not just those who happen to work in organisations with deep enough pockets. > And if not for th…

Sounds like you should start your own free journal. That's the easiest and fastest way of getting these papers out for free.

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#39

Post by Knufen »

rayiner wrote: post #30
Knufen wrote: post #5

As someone who works in academia (Europe) I understand that scientific papers need hosting and server space and such, but does it really help humanity that all advances will be behind very expensive pay walls? I would argue otherwise. The current trend is not sustainable nor favorable for anyone except parasitic publishers. Edit: I understand the website was breaking the law, but this seems like symptom treating

The law doesn't operate by going back to first principles ("will it really help humanity?") in every case. We've decided copyright is reasonable as a concept, and we evaluate each case by reference to the rules of copyright, without creating special exceptions all over the place. Nor are any special exceptions necessary. Absolutely nothing prevents scientists and academics from publishing in open-access journals. Sci…

I completely agree with you, in principle. Though sometimes we have to reevaluate the system and a good way to do this is civil disobedience, which I consider what SciHub is doing.

>We've decided copyright is reasonable as a concept

I disagree here, I think copyright is a great idea, but more and more often, executed poorly.

>Absolutely nothing prevents scientists and academics from publishing in open-access journals

To some extent you are correct, but if you want your paper to be read and spread your knowledge this is the only way. And yes recognition and money is also a factor

As for your question, the law should absolutely step in, but just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right and it can't be corrected

Edit: formatting

Re: US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub

#40

Post by mattmanser »

rayiner wrote: post #30
Knufen wrote: post #5

As someone who works in academia (Europe) I understand that scientific papers need hosting and server space and such, but does it really help humanity that all advances will be behind very expensive pay walls? I would argue otherwise. The current trend is not sustainable nor favorable for anyone except parasitic publishers. Edit: I understand the website was breaking the law, but this seems like symptom treating

The law doesn't operate by going back to first principles ("will it really help humanity?") in every case. We've decided copyright is reasonable as a concept, and we evaluate each case by reference to the rules of copyright, without creating special exceptions all over the place. Nor are any special exceptions necessary. Absolutely nothing prevents scientists and academics from publishing in open-access journals. Sci…

This presents some pretty extreme view points as if they're perfectly reasonable.

I doubt you could find any member of the public who would say "Yes" if asked "Should research you paid for cost you money to read?".

No reasonable person would agree with the rules as they are if they were introduced today, we got here because it's not an election issue and special interests and lobbyists have distorted rules written centuries ago massively in their favour.

Post reply on HN