Live data from Hacker News

The Elsevier boycott one year on

gowers.wordpress.com

61–63 of 63 posts

Re: The Elsevier boycott one year on

#61
post #28
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you value the freedom of profit-driven megacorporations to profit off of their exclusive control of intellectual private property over the freedom to share information with one's friends and neighbours?

I could very well twist that and say: I value the freedom of hard-working content creators to make money from their labor over the freedom of teenagers to get free copies of popular movies and video games, but I won't because the nature of the parties in question is really irrelevant to me. I value the freedom of creators of original works. Without them, there would be nothing to share. I don't care of those creators…

> I value the freedom of hard-working content creators to make money from their labor over the freedom of teenagers to get free copies of popular movies and video games

I appreciate how you twisted this. This reveals that you take an ageist position against teenagers. When I was fifteen I knew everything I needed to know about the world and I was studying higher mathematics full time in college. Teenagers can be just as intelligent and productive as anyone else. Despite this, you value the right of movie companies like Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, 20th Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, Warner bros, and Universal Studios to make a profit over the freedom of our teenagers to share with one another.

> I don't care of those creators are profit-driven mega-corporations or starving artists.

The existing copyright policies are created by profit-driven mega-corporations rather then individual artists because the big corporations have all the political power, so you are implicitly supporting these corporations over individual artists.

Programmers would greatly benefit from living in a society where all software is free because they would never have to use a program that alienates them from the process of software production. Operating systems could be rebuilt to eliminate the user/produce distinction and to drastically increase programmer productivity. However, profit-driven mega-corporations like Microsoft and Apple cannot allow that because that would destroy their profit model.

Similarly, individual artists would benefit from the freedom to use our accumulated artistic knowledge without being alienated from it by the profit-driven corporations. Mega-corporations don't want that, they want what we have now which is copyright that lasts 120 years after creation.

> Thought experiment: in games like World of Warcraft, weapons, armor, etc, are trivially reproducible.

I don't have much of an issue with participating in a virtual commodity economy for fun and not to make a profit. Blizzard makes its money off of WoW from subscription fees rather then game economy itself. However, some free-to-play games like Maple Story run cash shops for profit and I oppose the existence of such cash shops as much as I do all other markets that sell artificially scarce goods for a profit.

Re: The Elsevier boycott one year on

#62
post #56
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thought experiment: in games like World of Warcraft, weapons, armor, etc, are trivially reproducible. But would anyone play the game if you could just click on someone's weapon that he stole off a dragon (or whatever it is you do in WoW--I've never played it) and have your own copy? Not a very good analogy to demonstrate your point, as the scarcity of resources within the game is a central facet of the gameplay. ra…

The scarcity of WoW goods is precisely as artificial as the scarcity of high-def movies.

High-def movies are sold for a profit unlike most WoW goods so they are more like the goods sold in the Maple Story cash shop.

Re: The Elsevier boycott one year on

#63
post #49
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re "deprivation ... from everybody"... I was told once that the typical paper in my field gets only two serious readers, beyond the reviewers. (The joke is that it gets only two, including three reviewers.) Of course, it is impossible to know who has read a paper, and that may explain why I've never seen the number written down. Still, it's easy to count citations. In my field, strong papers get perhaps a dozen citat…

That's because that journal is doing it wrong and someone there is getting too much money. You give me 3k and I'll seed a torrent for one thousand papers as long as my Internet is billed per month instead of per GB. I just saw some redditors link a torrent with tens of gigabytes of technical books, so the method appears to work just fine. And if the author's intent is to distribute it wouldn't be violating anyone's c…

The journal owns the copyright, not the author.
Post reply on HN