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

How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

monbiot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#71

Post by jordanb »

dcminter wrote: post #57
jgrahamc wrote: post #2

Reminds me of the time I wanted to read Chadwick's 1932 paper "Possible Existence of a Neutron" in which he mentioned the discovery of the neutron. http://blog.jgc.org/2008/09/dear-nature.html

Academic publishing seems to be messed up but I'm not sure this is a good demonstration of that. Of the three links that you cite to online copies two no longer link to the article. So while your $32 doesn't buy you anything you can't already get elsewhere the availability (at a price) from Nature does at least supply a degree of permanence to the article. That may be more important with less prominent items.

The illegality (or quazi-illegality in the case of the links from the edu sites) of the mirrors is what's keeping them from being hosted permanently on a free site.

If the copyrights were clear, there would be repositories like arxiv.org that would ensure high-availability free access. The paper isn't on arxiv.org currently because Nature uses its copyright to ensure that it's not.

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#72

Post by rmc »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #40
rmc wrote: post #18

University libraries are still mostly money grabbers aswell, but are slowly changing. In the 1830s Ireland was mapped to a great detail (for tax purposes) of 1:6500ish. These maps would still be very helpful for OpenStreetMap, and are obviously outside copyright. A few Irish universities have them (e.g. Trinity Map Library, a copyright deposit library for Ireland & the UK), however they charge €50,000ish for a copy o…

Presumably somewhere like the British Library has the scans for the maps on disk. They're a government institution aren't they so would a Freedom of Information Act demand supposedly liberate that data ... just a thought. When I'm Prime Minister I'll instigate a government run academic library as the repository for all data originating from tax paid research with free access for individuals and paid access for profit…

These maps are usually on microfiche.

Freedom of Information is a good idea, however the orignals are out of copyright (being 150+ years old). Just scanning a page of a book isn't a creative work, and hence you technically can't claim copyright on it again. Some mapping agencies like the Ordnance Survey of Ireland who have copies, scan and then join images up together, and rectify them so they work on google maps. This 'stitching & rectifiying' is a creative act, and hence they can (and do!) claim copyright on the new item. So this map from 1833 is Copyright 2008 OSi. :(

However a lot of libraries claim copyright on just a straight scan, even though they can't really. A FoI would get you the map, but probably something with a copyright symbol on the corner. If you want to use them (for OpenStreetMap tracing) the onus is now on you to prove you can. In short, they don't want to share them out to everyone. :(

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#73

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rmc wrote: post #72
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably somewhere like the British Library has the scans for the maps on disk. They're a government institution aren't they so would a Freedom of Information Act demand supposedly liberate that data ... just a thought. When I'm Prime Minister I'll instigate a government run academic library as the repository for all data originating from tax paid research with free access for individuals and paid access for profit…

These maps are usually on microfiche. Freedom of Information is a good idea, however the orignals are out of copyright (being 150+ years old). Just scanning a page of a book isn't a creative work, and hence you technically can't claim copyright on it again. Some mapping agencies like the Ordnance Survey of Ireland who have copies, scan and then join images up together, and rectify them so they work on google maps. Th…

>This 'stitching & rectifiying' is a creative act, and hence they can (and do!) claim copyright on the new item. //

I was trying to find the caselaw on a related point the other day. I remember there being something to do with, I think the British Museum or similar, taking high res scans of old paintings and claiming a renewed copyright term on that then ferreting away the original. Do you have caselaw to cite? AFAIR the act is supposed to be transformative to create a new work, stitching doesn't appear to be tranformative to me. However I also seem to recall the the "sweat of the brow" argument was made to support a new copyright in high res scans, that a large amount of work had been done and that this somehow earned them a new right.

It seems this sort of manoeuvring is within the letter of the law but not at all within the spirit of it. Very underhand for those who are supposed to be managing works owned by the country for the country itself using public money.

If one can get a copy of the original then it could be leaked to wikileaks ... the onus is not on the copier to prove they have a right but on those suing to show that tortuous infringement has occurred. The demands of OpenStreetMap may be different however.

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#74

Post by dctoedt »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #73
rmc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These maps are usually on microfiche. Freedom of Information is a good idea, however the orignals are out of copyright (being 150+ years old). Just scanning a page of a book isn't a creative work, and hence you technically can't claim copyright on it again. Some mapping agencies like the Ordnance Survey of Ireland who have copies, scan and then join images up together, and rectify them so they work on google maps. Th…

> This 'stitching & rectifiying' is a creative act, and hence they can (and do!) claim copyright on the new item. // I was trying to find the caselaw on a related point the other day. I remember there being something to do with, I think the British Museum or similar, taking high res scans of old paintings and claiming a renewed copyright term on that then ferreting away the original. Do you have caselaw to cite? AFAI…

> Do you have caselaw to cite?

Try Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), summarized in the Wikipedia article [1].

The court's opinion [2] surveys the relevant case law beginning at paragraph 19.

The court states its conclusion and summarizes its reasoning in paragraph 25: "In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create 'slavish copies' of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality -- indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances."

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_....

[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.ht....

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#75

Post by mathattack »

blahedo wrote: post #66
mathattack wrote: post #65

I agree with All the points about hiw government sponsored research (including all public school research) Should be free or near free. The unanswered question is "Why is the market failing?" A couple unmentioned ideas: - Until recently, tuition hikes went unchallenged. - Faculty have a vested interest in maintaining the system. (If my publishing in Journal X marks my competence, what happens if it goes away?) - An a…

> "Why is the market failing?" There's an easier answer to this question: because it's not a "market". There is no part of this whose pieces are fungible. Not the researchers, not the ideas, not the papers, not the journals. For "the market" to do its thing (to the extent that we can even say that), it requires the goods for sale or the people providing the services to be substitutable and commodified. That isn't (an…

Thank you for the comments. I appreciate your insights as an academic living through this. Even still, I have to respectfully disagree.

I'll grant that the economics in most textbooks starts with the assumption of homogenous buyers and sellers. Economists have found ways of breaking down this assumption without giving up the concept of a market. Granted you lose "Perfect competition" but that's ok.

Let's look at an analogy...

Rather than academics, let's talk about programmers. There is as much variety in programmer performance as senior faculty performance. The firms that hire these programmers have not been able to create a monopoly. Yes - Google, Microsoft and Facebook have some high margins, but all of them are looking over their shoulders for the next competitor. The technology firm graveyard is filled with former near monopolists. (Excite? Altavista? Compuserve?)

I'm sure that there are reasons for the market failing, but I think it's more than a lack of homogenous products and vendors.

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#76

Post by ramchip »

mateo42 wrote: post #69
electrichead wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about that. If you pump out a tonne of great research, but use relatively less money, wouldn't that make you look better? Or is the academic world that far removed from the rest of the economy?

It's really sad that this is the case, but in the lab I worked for at a UC many of our costs were complete BS made up so that we could use up the full amount of our grant. The system encourages this behavior. The logic is completely flawed: If you don't use the money, then you obviously don't need it. Next time you won't receive the full amount from your grant. When your grant is millions of dollars over a few years,…

If you don't use the money, then you obviously don't need it. Next time you won't receive the full amount from your grant.

That's exactly, word-for-word, what professors have told me here. Sad indeed.

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#77

Post by shasta »

tylerneylon wrote: post #56

The obvious negative this has on folks outside of research-level academia is a significant contribution to tuition prices, which seem to be rising at about 5% per year. But a less obvious - and personally very painful - consequence of greedy publishers is the inability to do serious academic research outside of academia/industry. I have the ability (math PhD) and the will (have published a few papers post grad school…

I guess you don't live near a decently sized university?

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#78

Post by thesteamboat »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #16

A professor emeritus recently sent me an article to publish on my web magazine. The turnaround time was around 18 hours and he replied to express his surprise at how quickly his piece was published. In contrast, he has had an article pending at an academic journal for three years now.

This varies greatly by field. In theoretical computer science, most conferences have turnaround times on the order of 3 months or so.

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#79

Post by pbhjpbhj »

dctoedt wrote: post #74
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This 'stitching & rectifiying' is a creative act, and hence they can (and do!) claim copyright on the new item. // I was trying to find the caselaw on a related point the other day. I remember there being something to do with, I think the British Museum or similar, taking high res scans of old paintings and claiming a renewed copyright term on that then ferreting away the original. Do you have caselaw to cite? AFAI…

> Do you have caselaw to cite? Try Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. , 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), summarized in the Wikipedia article [1]. The court's opinion [2] surveys the relevant case law beginning at paragraph 19. The court states its conclusion and summarizes its reasoning in paragraph 25: " In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create 'slavish copies' of public domain works o…

Thanks for that, the Wikipedia page has some useful links and info on the relevance to UK copyright law. The case I was remembering is almost certainly this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_copyr... concerning use of photos of images in the National Portrait Gallery on Wikimedia pages, the case dating from 2009.

Re: How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?

#80

Post by forkandwait »

Academic journals are gatekeepers of academic promotion, the prestigious old journals are the only ones that count today, and they are owned by Wiley and friends.

To make matters worse, academics are among the most tradition bound creatures in the universe, especially when there is no clear criteria for truth (which is like all of the social sciences and humanities). The only thing they have to calibrate against is consensus, and consensus favors institutions already in place.

Post reply on HN