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

Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

bjoern.brembs.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#91

Post by crispinb »

noiv wrote: post #36
crispinb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the last bit of incivility really necessary?

Have you read the article? ...the part about human rights? What are some street slang bits against a billion dollars money making depravity that keeps the world from spreading the know-how needed to solve problems right now at the front door? I'll never understand why disrespectful words are more comment-worthy than disrespectful actions at a global scale. At least the former can be ignored. If you really feel that u…

I'm not remotely suggesting the ad hominem was more comment-worthy than the maleficence of the rentier academic publishing market. I commented on both, but if that's against a rule somewhere let me know and I'll delete the lesser.

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#92

Post by CJefferson »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #25
dredmorbius wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's critical to realise that the main role journals play among active, tenure-track academics is in restricting upward professional growth . If you must publish in high-impact journals, and those journals are closed-access, then you must publish in closed-access journals. Unless and until a significant portion of the tenure committees of major academic institutions changes their selection criteria, this will not cha…

> Unless and until a significant portion of the tenure committees of major academic institutions changes their selection criteria, this will not change. Couldn't the top tier of Post-docs also make this happen? If they simply refuse to publish in the top tier journals, the departments who are competing for them will have to either relax their publishing requirements or take a 2nd tier candidate. This only works if a…

They can't by definition -- a top tier post-doc is someone who posts in these journals.

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#93

Post by dsacco »

fnord123 wrote: post #85
quickben wrote: post #37

This round is going to be fun. See, I'm old enough to remember this battle starting for music and movies. We know how that ended. But now, it's for the very knowledge that drives our civilization. "Stallman was right", oh how that statement is going to get tested.

>See, I'm old enough to remember this battle starting for music and movies. We know how that ended. Extremely affordable all you can eat subscription models?

With the caveat that most people no longer own any media, and merely rent access to it under DRM terms.

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#94

Post by white-flame »

onikolas wrote: post #40

Worth noting: Many authors will be happy to email you a copy of their paper. People understand that not everyone's library can pay the hundreds of thousands needed for subscription fees. Research Gate has this functionality built in. Also, everyone likes to be cited :) Being easy to circumvent is a big reason why these for profit journals still exist.

I simply do a web search for the exact quoted title, and usually find a PDF floating somewhere. Often on the author's website.

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#95

Post by jccalhoun »

I'm an academic and I have access to most journals through my college's library. I still use sci-hub all the time simply because it is much easier than the legal method where I have to go to my university's library page, log in, search for the article that I already found, struggle with the shitty search to find the article that I already found through google, then click the link to the database, then I get to download the article I already found 10 minutes ago.

Or I could just click the bookmarlet to search scihub...

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#96

Post by kronos29296 »

I am a person who has been benefited by Sci-Hub immensely and hope that it continues to stay just like the Libgen project. Journal publishers need to wake up and get their wits together and do something.

It used to be proprietary Software everywhere before GNU and Linux. Nowadays FSF has made FLOSS a good thing. Today we have FOSS everywhere. Even Microsoft which used to be a bastion of proprietary software now has Open Source projects.

Something similar to that needs to sweep the Academic publishing world otherwise progress will only slow down due to closed nature of existing literature.

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#97

Post by klibertp »

noiv wrote: post #36
crispinb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the last bit of incivility really necessary?

Have you read the article? ...the part about human rights? What are some street slang bits against a billion dollars money making depravity that keeps the world from spreading the know-how needed to solve problems right now at the front door? I'll never understand why disrespectful words are more comment-worthy than disrespectful actions at a global scale. At least the former can be ignored. If you really feel that u…

Are you familiar with "broken windows theory"? According to Wiki, it states that:

> The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent small crimes such as vandalism, public drinking, and toll-jumping helps to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby preventing more serious crimes from happening.

I'm not sure how much of it can be applied to online discourse, but it does seem relevant. If you allow "disrespectful words" in some instances, they will soon pop up everywhere, lowering the overall quality of discussions on the site.

Well, at least that's what I think it is about, I may be wrong of course :)

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#98

Post by lorenzhs »

FabHK wrote: post #30
tacomonstrous wrote: post #5

In my experience as a mathematician, most for profit journal publishing companies are essentially rentiers making money off a captive clientele, who don't even get much utility any more from them, except for access to some older articles. Moreover, the services they provide to authors are also usually worse than the non-profit journals: no copy editing, crappy editorial tools, just a complete disregard for the actual…

Ceterum censeo Elsevier esse delendum.

Wouldn't it be Elsevierum? You need an accusative, and –er nouns tend to be second declension iirc.

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#99

Post by sheisawhatnow »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #49
Grue3 wrote: post #38

She is a [redacted] Putin supporter. Supports Russian invasion of Ukraine as well. Hell, the whole thing is probably financed by Russian government. "Folk hero", my ass.

[citation needed] Also, even if it was, so what? SciHub is literally raining tasty science on the researchers worldwide, improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their work everywhere, including in the US . Political affiliations of the site are really not much relevant to anything.

(throwaway for obvious reasons)

I don't understand people like the person you're replying to. Everyone here makes a point to respect each other's views on US politics but, with russians, it's fine to be against people on account that they support their leader (which by the way, for russia unlike the US is the overwhelming majority of the country).

As a european (and I really have to underline this: a supporter of neither Mr. T nor Mr. P) I find this ridiculously hypocritical. Be consistent.

Re: Sci-Hub as Necessary, Effective Civil Disobedience

#100

Post by jancsika »

Would it be illegal for a person to publicly claim that they would mirror content from sci-hub if N other scientists also made the same public claim?

Further, suppose a person anonymously made a copy of a partial snapshot of sci-hub content. Would it be illegal for that person to post a public search engine that responds to requests for articles from the collection with a only the hash of that document?

Finally, suppose N scientists have the above public hash engines and claim they will mirror a randomly chosen part of sci-hub content when N+1 scientists make the same claim. For what value of N would you be willing to mirror sci-hub content?

Post reply on HN