Sci-Hub Is Blowing Up the Academic Publishing Industry • Hacker News Board

Re: Sci-Hub Is Blowing Up the Academic Publishing Industry

#121

Post by wernercd » Wed, Jun 01, 2016, 2:26 AM UTC

drivingmenuts wrote: post #119

wernercd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd feel pity if you wasn't trying to get something for free... Heaven forbid you help propagate lesser used stuff as payment for getting access to the few papers that you feel entitled to get for free...

> Heaven forbid you help propagate lesser used stuff as payment for getting access to the few papers that you feel entitled to get for free... I'd more than likely just delete the unusable stuff after setting aside what I actually needed. So, yeah, waste of bandwidth to send in the first place.

The idea, especially with Torrents, is that you are sharing what you downloaded...

So even if you download 10 files, and then delete 8... BEFORE You delete those 8, you can "share" them for a small period (or until you have positive "Download to Seed" ratio), thus helping others.

Pay it forward and what not...

That's the theory... lots of people download and stop thus leech without helping.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Blowing Up the Academic Publishing Industry

#122

Post by carbonatedmilk » Wed, Jun 01, 2016, 12:00 PM UTC

Really, this couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. Research staff need to get published in "A+" journals for tenure, promotion and all that jazz. At the same time, they know that these journals are exploitative, bankrupting their University and generally impeding progress in their field. Sci-Hub solves everyone's problem. Who on earth (except the academic publishers, who we all agree are pond scum) is against it?

Re: Sci-Hub Is Blowing Up the Academic Publishing Industry

#123

Post by colejohnson66 » Wed, Jun 01, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

gherkin0 wrote: post #97

userbinator wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I believe I've read before that DMCA takedowns only cause content to become inaccessible publicly but not actually deleted, which in the case of SciHub sort of defeats the purpose; however, it does mean archive.org retains an "archive" of the content, presumably until its copyright expires or copyright laws change.

> presumably until its copyright expires or copyright laws change. Then what's the point? The whole point of Sci-hub is to distribute copyrighted papers, "archive" would be inaccessible until it is useless.

The point would be to keep an archive of scientific papers, but prevent access to them in case SciHub goes down.