161–170 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elsevier requires that authors do not do that - they can only provide copies of their papers in response to requests.
How about we have an autoresponder framework, like MailMain, that can handle mail with messages like [paper-request] bacterial population analysis under exposure to fox news ? And it would respond with the proper paper or papers attached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grad student at Berkeley. The commercialization office only takes an interest if your work is high profile enough and has enough commercialization potential. Plenty of UC researchers release CC0 or MIT license code without issue. Elsevier may be only one of many problems for the UC community, but that doesn’t mean it’s a distraction—- millions have been wasted every year subsidizing their profits. And Elsevier’s rent…
Aren't you assuming the risk though? Like, in practice they might not care, but in writing they could care...
There’s stuff that requires IRB, then there’s a whole bunch of judgement and risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elsevier requires that authors do not do that - they can only provide copies of their papers in response to requests.
How about we have an autoresponder framework, like MailMain, that can handle mail with messages like [paper-request] bacterial population analysis under exposure to fox news ? And it would respond with the proper paper or papers attached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or arXiv. Elsevier authors can post their papers on arXiv and/or their own website.
That's not strictly the case. This practice is actually infringing on your (albeit bonkers) agreement with Elsevier. You can only share copies with those who requested it as an act of "professional courtesy".
I am an academic at a UC who publishes in Elsevier journals. I support this. I don't want copyright for anything I work on. I also work in a field where patent/IP stuff would not be relevant, so I view all of my work as public domain as far as I am concerned. With my code I either do CC0 or MIT licenses. I have had to publish in journals that are not open access -- mostly I just make pre-prints available to anyone wh…
Your university commercialization office will disagree. Check with them. From what I understand, it is illegal to release your code in CC0 or MIT unless you have taken permission from the commercialization office (Some universities allow GPL without explicit permission). Have you checked your contract ? Your work is not yours if it has any value. The value belongs to the university (mostly) - which also means you hav…
The model Elsevier operates on is under attack from a number of sides. In addition to UC, there is Plan S: > The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state-funded research organisations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2021.[4] The "S" stands for "shock". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S The plan is backed by a wide range…
> Elsevier may have a right to license its content as it sees fit Elsevier doesn't have content of it's own. It takes others' content (without paying them a dime in most - if not all - cases), maybe runs it through spellcheck, slaps a legal threat and price tag on it, and milks it for as much protection money as it can. Elsevier is the very model of modern major copyright troll.
I have zero sympathy for them. As they say on Wall Street, "Bulls make money, bears make money. But pigs get slaughtered." They've had 20 years to find new ways to deliver value and it doesn't seem like they've bothered. At this rate they'll be out of business soon, and I'll enjoy it thoroughly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not strictly the case. This practice is actually infringing on your (albeit bonkers) agreement with Elsevier. You can only share copies with those who requested it as an act of "professional courtesy".
Clicking a link is requesting it, and I am professionally courteous to everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As enabled by Bayh–Dole Act [0]. Reversing this law would put publicly funded research back into the hands and minds of the public. This is the very law that creates a perverse incentive for universities to operate as for profit corporations, even with public dollars. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act
Wouldn't that just put it back in the hands of the Federal Gov where it would languish like it did before?
Not saying I understand the complexities but an outright repeal doesn't seem like it would address this underlying systemic problem. Maybe times have changed.
To clarify, Elsevier is unhappy that they aren't allowed to profit off of other peoples work. 1. It costs money to submit to Nature, Cell, Science, etc 2. Reviewers for journals are not paid 3. It then costs money to read the published papers 4. The journals are filled with ads Literally the entire thing is profit for Elsevier, they are paid by the people who do the original work, they don't pay for any of the vettin…
I totally agree with your overall point, but I'd be remiss not to mention that these journals originally were paper-only and mailed to institutions & profs (and Xeroxed ad infinum). This did involve a cost, but surely nothing like the million dollar agreements unis are signing with multiple publishing houses. Nowadays, publishers still put out paper versions, but their worth does indeed revolve around scientist givin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I find interesting is how open source hardware companies can coexist with their cheap clones. The Prusa i3 printer is a great example. An assembled Prusa costs $1000 while clones are $200, and yet the two options serve different markets. If you’re a broke hobbyist you get the clones, and they take a lot of work to keep running. If you’re operating a school, business, or makerspace you get the Prusa because it’s…
One thing the layman loses with no IPR is the ability to tell which are the "real" Prusa, or the real brakes for their bike, or whatever. That is one thing that causes clear and imminent harm. I'm pretty communist in my thinking, rail hard against established IPR structures, but most of it would be sensible IMO if the balance were shifted back toward the demos . Things have been allowed to slip away from the IP deals…