FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Sat, May 08, 2021, 3:49 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #70

hollerith wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The universities aren't the ones collecting the money. In fact, they the main targets of the extortion. Most professors care mostly about prestige (reputation for being smart, wise or innovative) and would prefer to ignore or disdain the economic and legal aspects of life. OK, that is a little unfair: most profs want to focus on their specialty and sometimes don't pay enough attention to how their actions interact wi…

I can't speak for "most" professors, since I haven't done any kind of scientific survey. However, I work in academia, and every professor I personally know hates Elsevier, and wants to get away from them in any reasonable way. But when the journals that literally define their field are monopolized by Elsevier, there's only so much they can do for the time being. To avoid them, they'd have to accept their research bei…

Post by hollerith » Sat, May 08, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

xhkkffbf wrote: post #83

hollerith wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The universities aren't the ones collecting the money. In fact, they the main targets of the extortion. Most professors care mostly about prestige (reputation for being smart, wise or innovative) and would prefer to ignore or disdain the economic and legal aspects of life. OK, that is a little unfair: most profs want to focus on their specialty and sometimes don't pay enough attention to how their actions interact wi…

I think it's extraordinarily unfair to think of this as extortion. The professors have always been free to publish wherever they like and they each chose the copyrighted journals. Do we say that a fancy hotel "extorted" the fees from the guests who chose to book a room? Some young researchers often claim that they feel pressured by the system to choose the so-called prestige journals. This pressure is coming from old…

Post by danuker » Sat, May 08, 2021, 3:54 PM UTC

mnd999 wrote: post #68

jMyles wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems so absolutely obvious that a jurisdiction adopting a "there is no such thing as IP" approach will have a huge advantage. What's the reason this hasn't happened?

The original purpose of copyright was to encourage people to create works. The theory being that of others can simply copy something where is the incentive to do it at all. IMHO, there’s something in that for some classes of works, so I don’t think no-IP is a good idea universally. It’s certainly questionably for scientific papers though.

Post by croes » Sat, May 08, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

mnd999 wrote: post #68

jMyles wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems so absolutely obvious that a jurisdiction adopting a "there is no such thing as IP" approach will have a huge advantage. What's the reason this hasn't happened?

The original purpose of copyright was to encourage people to create works. The theory being that of others can simply copy something where is the incentive to do it at all. IMHO, there’s something in that for some classes of works, so I don’t think no-IP is a good idea universally. It’s certainly questionably for scientific papers though.

Post by edwardwatson » Sat, May 08, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

cordite wrote: post #77

vaylian wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely right that the current system is nonsense. It only exists, because back in the day there was no internet. Scientists needed publishers that would print and distribute scientific results. But publishers might deny publication in their journals if they thought the science is not good enough. Thereby the publishers established a reputation system. For example, it is really hard to get a scientific pap…

With regard to your last point, that sounds like poor due diligence. But they’re not expecting monetary reward with risk for issuing a grant like a VC.