Live data from Hacker News

In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

custodians.online

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

#51

Each time this subject comes up I feel moved to repost this article [1]. The welfare of humanity, our species, no longer aligns with the "publishing industry". Brutal, radical reform is now necessary. [1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/2048-informatio... (turn off js to view)

> Then came the Covid pandemic and “climate emergency”. What had been a friendly, ideological tussle about the digital rights of scientists versus profiteers took on a new tone. To call it “civil disobedience” would be to miss the point. Universities simply stopped playing the game – and the more progressive governments followed suit by deeming the enforcement of academic publishers’ copyright no longer in the public…

> I seem to recall tussles over where poorer countries would be able to just manufacture copies of the Pfizer, Moderna or Astra-Zeneca vaccine locally, without permission from the IP holders. What ended up happening with that?

Bill Gates convinced them not to free up the IP. No joke.

Re: In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

#52
Before Napster the music industry also had its gatekeepers: the recording companies: EMI-Odeon, Polygram, RCA, Warner Music, ...

Online music piracy destroyed them but then it created other gatekeepers: spotify, iTunes, YoutubeMusic...

This is just one anecdote, but I still don't believe we'll ever have absolute freedom of information. One way or the other gatekeepers sneak in.

Re: In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically "You didn't lose money because I pirated your product, I had no money to begin with". I can relate to this, coming from a poor background. I would've never be where I stand today If I didn't have access to the published material on the internet for free. Also, the prices of scientific papers are atrocious! And that's not even considering the fact that the researchers who wrote the paper and peer review…

See also: game piracy. People who install cracked games are mostly kids, or people who can't afford the game. GabeN was right, piracy is a service problem. Any additional piracy after you solved the service problem was never going to be sales anyway, and now you're just spending money to prevent people from playing your game.

yes. game piracy is huge and STEAM is even bigger. for once, people ACTIVELY use steam because of the multi-player community which is absent in pirated content. sure you can pirate a game and play offline but do you want to? so even pirates pay for that which makes gabeN the one person who ACTUALLY understands the whole thing...

Re: In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

#55
post #36

The academic publishing industry in general, and Elsevier specifically, are a curse upon academia and human progress in general. But they only have power if we give it to them. There is still hope that one of these days, young academics will choose to simply not publish there anymore, and when the old guard dies off so will interest in the old information silos. Of course, an intermediate horror scenario will then co…

The problem (at least for me) is that science is inherently collaborative and most authors on a paper have no say on where a paper is submitted to. Yes, I can say, "We shouldn't publish this in an Elsevier journal because of all the shady things they've done to increase the costs to libraries while providing little added value" and they'll say "The paper is about X. Everybody who works on X publishes in Elsevier's Journal of X. If we don't publish there nobody who works in the field will know about our work".

Re: In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then came the Covid pandemic and “climate emergency”. What had been a friendly, ideological tussle about the digital rights of scientists versus profiteers took on a new tone. To call it “civil disobedience” would be to miss the point. Universities simply stopped playing the game – and the more progressive governments followed suit by deeming the enforcement of academic publishers’ copyright no longer in the public…

Companies like Moderna did dispense with IP restrictions around the vaccine, but it turns out that this was never a binding constraint in the first place. These vaccines must essentially be brewed via a biological process, not merely synthesized in a chemical lab like most pharmaceuticals. There's probably a whole lot of fuzzy know-how in this that's inherently hard to replicate, no matter what the legal environment…

Aren't mRNA vaccines quite straightforward to manufacture?

Re: In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

#57
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do. It's called a library.

With a library, I can't borrow an ebook to my reading device. My country's libraries doesn't really offer ebooks to borrow, my device doesn't support Amazon DRM, and Amazon Unlimited in not available in my region. So no, we don't have such a thing.

Frankly "borrowing an ebook" just does not make sense to me.

After many millennia of humanity striving to preserve knowledge we now have a way to make unlimited perfect copies of books but instead of really making use of it we instead put an unnecessary complicated system in place that makes the book artificially unavailable after some time.

Its like how early cars in Britain had to be preceded by a guy with a flag, really- trying to force and limit a new invention into the existing outdated system.

Or worse it even reminds me of book burning, removing perfectly fine book copies that could make it more likely for the book to survive in the future, like has happened for personal copies of many famous ancient text with the original texts being long lost.

I'm sure every ancient librarian would love to be able to provide books for every human alive - yet we now have the means of doing that, but choose to artificially sabotage it!

Re: In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

#58
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do. It's called a library.

With a library, I can't borrow an ebook to my reading device. My country's libraries doesn't really offer ebooks to borrow, my device doesn't support Amazon DRM, and Amazon Unlimited in not available in my region. So no, we don't have such a thing.

> With a library, I can't borrow an ebook to my reading device.

We have this in my little town in USA for over 10yrs now. Movies and music and newspapers too. Only thing that this process doesn't have is microfiche.

Re: In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub (2015)

#60
The current publishing model is obsolete and broken. To start to fix it, publishing of scholarly/research articles and Books must be treated completely differently. Their only intersection is that the development of both of them CANNOT be based on a scarcity model.

* For scholarly/research articles, the solution is clearcut: Research institutions pay researchers a monthly wage, to do research and produce papers. It's as easy as writing a PDF and uploading it to Arxiv [1]. As a second step, companies like Elsevier, Springer or Macmillan can function as "webs of trust": Getting subscription money for their service, and providing a curation and indexing service as they do now. Shit, they even could provide Editorial/proof-reading services to Universities for people writing the articles. That way, the information itself will be free, and the core value of Elsevier and the others can still be monetized.

* For Books, the "write once get paid forever" model must be stopped. Once the book is written and published, it should be freely shareable. To achieve that, authors should use a model similar to "Kickstarter": Write a TOC, maybe a teaser chapter and look to raise the money he wants to write the full book. (Maybe the book was already written, and chapters are released as their full price is paid). That way the author will benefit in full for the "fair" value of what he wrote, and society will be able to use that knowledge.

[1] I did one: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1738790492983466495... published only in Arxiv, and it got 9 citations.

Post reply on HN