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

Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

gen.lib.rus.ec

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 265 posts

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#231

Post by contoraria »

contoraria wrote: post #218
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #25

Not being in a scientific field, one of the previous times this came up I asked if any of the working scientists felt like SciHub had positively impacted their work: exposing them to more papers than they would have read, guiding them in different ways, etc. and the answer was a pretty overwhelming "ohmygodyes". From the outside, it's very difficult to see this as anything but a public good. It certainly seems like l…

From my outsider perspective I mostly agree, I've read a few papers that weren't available for free. But for the opposing perspective, consider that they index curated content and don't curate anything themselves. This is a frequently debated argument. For comparison I'm considering youtube or torrent sites that are swamped with low quality content or outright malware. In effect, the inception of the internet, as far…

* the vocal majority, at any rate

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#232

Post by sidhu1f »

iotku wrote: post #204
sidhu1f wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is BitTorrent more convenient than Netflix?

Torrents are very inconvenient compared to many streaming services. Therefore, you would expect most people to opt for Netflix. (And by and large I'd expect Netflix to be more popular in mass than tormenting at this point for places where it's available.) But what if it's not available where you live (That's inconvenient), doesn't have the content you want (That's inconvenient), or you want a file you can play offlin…

My statement (as can be seen from its GP post) uses convenience to mean ease of use, not in the titles available sense that you (and the two following posts) do.

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#233

Post by mikec3010 »

sevensor wrote: post #205
DrBazza wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really an excuse - it truly is convenient in such a way that you only have to go to one place to get the thing you want. If I want Man in the High Castle, I have to pay for Amazon. But if I want Ozark, I need to pay for Netflix. If I want to watch Metropolis, or The Raven, or The Maltese Falcon, they're old and not any streaming service, even if the rights are owned by a studio. Where can I find them? Yup, b…

The selection of movies on Netflix is beyond dismal. If it's not from the last 15 years, your chances of finding it are virtually nil. If it is from the last 15 years, your chances are merely terrible. The demise of video stores has left me with no idea how I'd (legally) watch an old movie short of purchasing the DVD. Strange that widespread access to classic movies only lasted about 20 years -- from the mid '80s to…

That's a false dichotomy that because there was a blockbuster nearby they automatically had every classic movie in stock. I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix's total active catalog size is much greater than what was in a blockbuster in 1999

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#234

Post by ksk »

sigmundur wrote: post #226
ksk wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, they do not voluntarily approach publishers. What are you basing this on? >I suspect that you either do not understand how academic reputation is built or you think it is somehow beneficial for society to ensure a system that makes scientific knowledge unavailable to anyone byt the elite. Or neither. Its easy to think black/white, but thankfully the world is not so boring. I don't believe that any of the rationa…

Funny how you seem exempt from basing your hunches on citations. Clearly "voluntary" has been demonstrated to be a dubious term to use, with URL references. Researches either publish in high impact journals or lose funding. Publish or perish. Society loses out.

I use voluntary in the same way as the day to day common usage of the term. Seems to me you want it to mean "without personal sacrifice". I hope we can agree that it is not the commonly understood meaning of the term.

> Researches either publish in high impact journals or lose funding. Publish or perish. Society loses out.

I don't see how breaking copyright law addresses this.

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#235

Post by phyzome »

mdaniel wrote: post #200
nneonneo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, just tried this and apparently Transmission isn't a fan of the encoded colons (despite that being very valid URL syntax). Try this one instead: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:97fc8218775e3a1e5b90607435c0581f839e0f1d&dn=repository_torrent&tr=udp:%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp:%2F%2Ftracker.open-internet.nl:6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp:%2F%2Ftracker.skyts.net:6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp:%2F%2Ftracker.piratepubli…

I'll try to remember to do it when I get home, but if you beat me to it can you please check and see if that's a known issue with Transmission? Because that seems easy to fix, and in my mind it's bad news to need "vendor specific" magnet links

It doesn't look like they have an open issue for that. If you file an issue, you may wish to crosslink it with https://github.com/transmission/transmission/issues/249 which would probably be solved by the same fix for URL query handling.

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#236

Post by Fomite »

mistercow wrote: post #214
Fomite wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll answer this as a practicing academic: I do, regularly, and with the same willingness and rigor I review papers for other journals.

One thing that's never been clear to me: what benefit do you get from reviewing articles for paid journals? Phrased another way, what stands in the way of a movement where reviewers "go on strike" against anything that isn't open access?

Lets consider the top three paid journals I review for. This is certainly not all of them of course, but the volume of review work is the highest with them:

* The American Journal of Epidemiology * Epidemiology * Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

Those are the journals of the Society for Epidemiological Research, the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America's journals. I am a member of all of those societies. I would, to be frank, rather like to be on the editorial board of those societies - and certainly wish to be on good terms with their editorial staff. And revenue from those journals does help support the mission of the society.

That's the benefit. "Going on Strike" would harm all that, and in my field, the vast majority of papers will be open access within a year anyway (due to NIH/CDC funding).

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#237

Post by mirimir »

Roritharr wrote: post #100
mirimir wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can't be said too much! Torrenting anything potentially problematic without using a reputable VPN service is foolish . And make sure that the machine is firewalled, to block all traffic (including DNS requests) not using the VPN. Only the VPN client should have direct Internet connectivity. For extremely sensitive material, it's prudent to use nested VPN chains. So no one provider knows both who/where you are, a…

Do you have recommendations for actually anonymous leaseable VPS/Seedboxes? Just buying some bitcoin on Coinbase defeats the purpose. Can I mail cash somewhere?

I've come to like Host Sailor. Some consider their reputation to be iffy. But their prices are reasonable, and their reliability is good. And their customer support is fast and capable. Bithost is also OK. They're a Digital Ocean reseller. But their prices are too high for anything but testing.

Back in the day, I sent cash to Nanaimo Gold for Bitcoin. But I can't vouch for them now. In mailing cash, use printed labels, because handwriting attracts attention. It's best to use a B&W laser printer. Most inkjet printers use watermarking. And use a valid return address, because they're typically scanned. But not yours, obviously. I would often use an address for some charity, so they might get the money if something went wrong. And mail from a public box, not a post office, at some distance from your area.

If LocalBitcoins works in your area, that's a good option. But there's always risk of surveillance. Or theft.

These days, I mostly just use mixing services. Any one service could be incompetent or compromised. So it's best to mix at least twice, using different mixers.

Let's say that your Bitcoin are in some hosted wallet, and aren't anonymous. You need at least two ~anonymous wallets. One gets Bitcoin from the first mix. The other gets Bitcoin from the second mix, and spends.

I use Whonix instances in VirtualBox, each with a local Electrum wallet. The Whonix instances (VM pairs) reach Tor through a VPN service, running in the host machine. DeepDotWeb runs CoinMixer, which seems OK. I've used Bitcoin Fog for years, at http://foggeddriztrcar2.onion/ but it requires creating an account.

Edit: re Host Sailor and Bithost, I've typically gotten 800-900 Mbps (iperf3) for their gigabit uplinks, measured between VPS on each. And ~700 Mbps using such public test servers as iperf.volia.net and bouygues.testdebit.info

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#238

Post by nneonneo »

mdaniel wrote: post #200
nneonneo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, just tried this and apparently Transmission isn't a fan of the encoded colons (despite that being very valid URL syntax). Try this one instead: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:97fc8218775e3a1e5b90607435c0581f839e0f1d&dn=repository_torrent&tr=udp:%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp:%2F%2Ftracker.open-internet.nl:6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp:%2F%2Ftracker.skyts.net:6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp:%2F%2Ftracker.piratepubli…

I'll try to remember to do it when I get home, but if you beat me to it can you please check and see if that's a known issue with Transmission? Because that seems easy to fix, and in my mind it's bad news to need "vendor specific" magnet links

It sounds like their URL handling might just be terribly broken; see for example https://github.com/transmission/transmission/issues/608.

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#239

Post by ksk »

jMyles wrote: post #196
ksk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are applying propositional logic rigor to a comment made in a casual setting that you fail to apply to your own position. Let me show you how.. >Not everyone lives in a jurisdiction where copyright law exists. How many? How did you gather this data? > Among those who do, not everyone lives in a jurisdiction where this action is a violation of that law. How did you survey the jurisdictions of people accessing this…

> Who has communicated to you that they don't recognize copyright law as legitimate or binding? Why is the number statistically relevant? To my personally? Only maybe a few dozen. But obviously these laws are ignored everywhere and by everyone in the USA. Surely you don't mean to suggest that it's a law that enjoys widespread perception of legitimacy? What makes you think people have any interest in following this la…

You might want to read up about the Berne convention, various international copyright treaties and such. You can "ignore" laws, but you might find yourself in handcuffs on a plane, clutching an extradition order if you get popular enough. In any case that is an irrelevant aside as far as I am concerned. I don't wish for people to be jailed over this.

>What makes you think people have any interest in following this law in the first place? It seems like you haven't really given this foundation, which is crucial for your original comment.

Wow, really? Yes, I admit, my argument assumes that normal rational people don't go breaking laws.

Re: Sci Hub repository torrents of scientific papers

#240

Post by ksk »

bborud wrote: post #162
ksk wrote: post #62

Why are people breaking copyright law, instead of questioning the researchers who voluntarily approach the journals? Why not ask the researchers if they'd consider sharing their work? Or convince them of an alternative means of publication. There is no one-handed clap.

Because it is inefficient and change is unlikely?

Breaking copyright law doesn't change anything either. People are still going to publish in those journals. It doesn't address the central problem.
Post reply on HN