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

111–120 of 129 posts

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

#111

Post by diffeomorphism »

Xylakant wrote: post #17
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. The peer review often happens by unpaid peers, even for commercial journals. It's really not the dominating factor for costs.

> The peer review often happens by unpaid peers

Do you know of an example of paid reviews? This would seem like a big conflict of interest and I have not heard of any but predatory journals doing that.

Historically, a large cost was typesetting and print publication. However, print is used less and less in favor of online subscriptions and typesetting is mostly using the publisher's LaTeX style file.

The "value" provided by journals seems to be:

- communication with the editor (unpaid, mostly senior peer researcher)

- review (unpaid peer)

- software to manage submissions, reviews etc (commercial)

- proofreading for typos and some fine tuning for figures and layout (useful)

- prestige of having published in an important journal (very valuable for your career)

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

#112

Post by danielford »

jstarfish wrote: post #100
danielford wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Community colleges like the one I work at can't afford the journal fees. One of my assignments involves reading several peer-reviewed articles on a narrow topic and writing an explanation of the research. Every semester I have students that struggle with finishing this assignment because the articles they need are inaccessible.

If the barrier to accessibility is such a problem, why perpetuate it by throwing your students against that wall? The journals' business model does suck, but you're delivering students to a paywalled garden to retrieve information on what amounts to a proprietary topic. You have the power to change this by redirecting the students' attention elsewhere, either by loosening requirements or changing topics to one with m…

They choose the topic. I'm fine with anything in biology, medicine, chemistry, and even some social science topics. Some of them run into trouble and others don't depending on what they choose.

I've considered removing the assignment a few times, but there's no skill more essential to success in science than the ability to synthesize different research articles into a coherent whole. I wouldn't feel like I was doing my job if I stopped assigning it.

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

#113

Post by joliv »

mnm1 wrote: post #67

I fail to see how the injunction is not a violation of the first amendment right of search engines and ISPs to display any legal content they want--and we are talking about legal content here (links). It is clearly improper under DMCA, but it seems to me such injunctions are simply unconstitutional, DMCA or not. Anyone care to explain the twisted logic of the court here?

First, the Court sees Sci-Hub as essentially hosting the copyrighted materials. From the order in ACS v. Does:

> ...Sci-Hub has copied elements—and, in many cases, the entirety of—those works, and that Sci-Hub has distributed those works by allowing individuals to download the works from its website, all in violation of the Copyright Act.

But to entertain your argument of First Amendment protections, linking to infringing documents is pretty clearly incitement of imminent lawless action as established in Brandenburg.

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

#114

Post by remus »

pas wrote: post #96
remus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. Is there good data on this? (I mean, I guess there is, but would someone present it to ignoramuses such as myself? Thanks.)

I'm not aware of any, though I haven't really looked. My understanding is that peer review is done for free because it's understood that it's a necessary part of science. That is, you review other peoples papers for free because they'll do the same for you.

I guess that falls down a bit because I bet there is a very uneven distribution of peer review work, but it's a nice sentiment at least!

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

#115

Post by remus »

jklein11 wrote: post #82
remus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It seems that the publisher's value is curating studies that have gone through this process. If you were to find a study through Sci-Hub would you know that it had gone through editorial/review panel? How do you know that the study is trustworthy?

Surely that's the work of the editorial board? Again, they are largely unpaid as far as Im aware.

This makes interesting reading if you're interested in how a free (or at least very low cost) journal can work https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an...

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

#116

Post by travmatt »

solomatov wrote: post #109
rayiner wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? If the government funds contractors to e.g. clean government buildings, should the contractor automatically be subject to all sorts of considerations "in the public interest" just because it is being paid with tax dollars? The government, as an economic actor, is entitled to attach whatever conditions it wants on its grants. The reason it doesn't attach conditions such as "you can't publish your results in " is b…

> If the government funds contractors to e.g. clean government buildings, should the contractor automatically be subject to all sorts of considerations "in the public interest" just because it is being paid with tax dollars? IANAL, but that's actually true. For example, government contractors are required to have affirmative action programs. See, for example here: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samp…

Government procurement requirements have been hugely important in regulating and advancing the state of many industries.

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

#117

Post by ggg9990 »

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…

You're right that copyright law does not need a special case here. Rather, taxpayer-funded research grants should come with the requirement that all findings will be published open access. If you want to publish in Nature, go get your own research money. Scientists should not have complete personal ownership over subsidized research that they conduct.

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

#118

Post by sanbor »

Analemma_ wrote: post #35
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.

> 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…

Why they don't start publishing in Sci-Hub directly instead?

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

#119

Post by jimnotgym »

Bedon292 wrote: post #86
jimnotgym wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what the World Wide Web was designed to do, before the web app? Why not just publish online on a university site, or a site for your specialty?

The difference is the peer review. If something is published in Nature, you can reasonably trust that it is legitimate science, and not a random person with no real credentials. Its an interesting cycle. People publish their best work in a prestigious journal because it is the most prestigious and trusted. Thus perpetuating what goes where. And this is also perpetuated by the grant system itself, you need to publish…

Yes but why couldn't peer review be organised by a not-for-profit group? Perhaps a society attached to your specialty could provide a panel?

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

#120

Post by Analemma_ »

sanbor wrote: post #118
Analemma_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Why they don't start publishing in Sci-Hub directly instead?

Right now the main barrier is the prestige that comes with some of the bigger journals, but that's a shallow moat. Honestly, it could happen soon. There have been stories recently about people presenting at scientific conferences, asking the room "raise your hand if you think Sci-Hub is doing something wrong", and getting no response. Everyone knows that the current model is indefensible.
Post reply on HN