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

Where Sci-Hub Is

whereisscihub.now.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 185 posts

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#51

Post by MacsHeadroom »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #43
dragonsh wrote: post #18

I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. Research papers through sci-hub only helps to make knowledge easily accessible. Humanity's progress depends on people who shared their knowledge, not by people who use it as a tool to rule and hold on to power. It will be nicer if whole sci-hub is able to move to IPFS network and accessible through a domain. The problem is IPFS do not offer anonymity…

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

Information freedom radicalism is not in any way mutually exclusive with compensating creators.

Grants, shareware, donationware, donation subscriptions (like patreon), crowdfunding, and the list goes on and on- of all the ways information creation is compensated prior to the information being given away for free.

Copying information takes virtually no work. It's not unreasonable to hold that the concept of "intillectual property" is morally bankrupt.

Nobody here suggested creators shouldn't be compensated.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#52

Post by unityByFreedom »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #51
unityByFreedom wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

Information freedom radicalism is not in any way mutually exclusive with compensating creators. Grants, shareware, donationware, donation subscriptions (like patreon), crowdfunding, and the list goes on and on- of all the ways information creation is compensated prior to the information being given away for free. Copying information takes virtually no work. It's not unreasonable to hold that the concept of "intillect…

> Nobody here suggested creators shouldn't be compensated.

Sure they did, they said knowledge should be free.

If it is funded, someone's got to pay for it, and that is by definition not free.

If it is the government who funds it, you're paying for it through tax dollars. And, you're not paying a competitive rate, which means low quality information is coming out.

edit: I'm done with this comment chain of people claiming free doesn't mean $0. It clearly did in the original comment to which I replied, where they said "I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible."

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#53

Post by MacsHeadroom »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #50
quadrangle wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there's development costs to publications. It doesn't follow that we thus must lock publications behind paywalls or clutter them with ads. It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free and easily accessible. When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded. The discussion of how to fund wor…

> It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free No, it really isn't. It sounds like you're saying you want someone else to pay for it. That's not free. > When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded. Funded work is not free.

You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty.

Funded information can be liberated.

Shareware is free. Donationware is free. Crowdfunded creative works are often free.

Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonable to consider that this distinction alone may be enough to consider restrictions on copying abhorrently immoral.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#55

Post by MacsHeadroom »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #52
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Information freedom radicalism is not in any way mutually exclusive with compensating creators. Grants, shareware, donationware, donation subscriptions (like patreon), crowdfunding, and the list goes on and on- of all the ways information creation is compensated prior to the information being given away for free. Copying information takes virtually no work. It's not unreasonable to hold that the concept of "intillect…

> Nobody here suggested creators shouldn't be compensated. Sure they did, they said knowledge should be free. If it is funded, someone's got to pay for it, and that is by definition not free. If it is the government who funds it, you're paying for it through tax dollars. And, you're not paying a competitive rate, which means low quality information is coming out. edit: I'm done with this comment chain of people claim…

You're mixing up free of cost with free as in liberty. Information freedom is about liberating access to information not demonitizing creators.

In the context of freedom of information the opposite of free information is not funded information- it's censored, withheld, horded, etc.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#57

Post by [deleted] »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #52
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Information freedom radicalism is not in any way mutually exclusive with compensating creators. Grants, shareware, donationware, donation subscriptions (like patreon), crowdfunding, and the list goes on and on- of all the ways information creation is compensated prior to the information being given away for free. Copying information takes virtually no work. It's not unreasonable to hold that the concept of "intillect…

> Nobody here suggested creators shouldn't be compensated. Sure they did, they said knowledge should be free. If it is funded, someone's got to pay for it, and that is by definition not free. If it is the government who funds it, you're paying for it through tax dollars. And, you're not paying a competitive rate, which means low quality information is coming out. edit: I'm done with this comment chain of people claim…

[deleted]

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#58

Post by MacsHeadroom »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #49
dagenix wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house. My understanding is that most / all articles in academic journals are written by researchers who are not paid by the journal. Then, the articles are peer reviewed by another set of researchers - who are also not paid by the journal. Then, those same…

All knowledge should not be free. The comment above mine wrote knowledge should be free and easily accessible . They are talking about all knowledge, not just academic journals, and that makes no sense.

It does make sense. You're just misreading what they said.

They did not say information should be unfunded or creators demonitized. They said information should be "free" as in liberated, as in freedom.

Valuable information is virtually costless to copy and yet you can be locked away in a cage by men with guns for accessing it. It's not far off from how North Korea handles people found with Western media. That's what the commenter above is advocating against.

Have some perspective.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#59

Post by unityByFreedom »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #53
unityByFreedom wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free No, it really isn't. It sounds like you're saying you want someone else to pay for it. That's not free. > When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded. Funded work is not free.

You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty. Funded information can be liberated. Shareware is free. Donationware is free. Crowdfunded creative works are often free. Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonable to consider…

> You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty.

Sorry, no. What you're describing is "easily accessible".

The comment above wrote "knowledge should be free and easily accessible".

> Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonable to consider that this distinction alone may be enough to consider restrictions on copying abhorrently immoral.

That is an entirely unreasonable and absurd conclusion. Of course it takes more effort to produce valuable information than to copy it. That is the whole point of copyright; it protects creators and encourages people to create their own works. In doing so, creators contribute to higher quality of life for everyone by earning an income in exchange for putting the fruits of their labor down on paper.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#60

Post by andrethegiant »

palijer wrote: post #36

HTTP 451. I never thought I'd see one of those before. I live in Canada... Not some authoritarian dictatorship. Wonder who blocked it.

Off-topic: I think it would be awesome to have a browser extension that collected HTTP codes as achievements, and you get a pretty little badge every time you run into a new code.
Post reply on HN