Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday May 11 2017, @06:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-read-that-somewhere dept.

Ross Mounce knows that when he shares his research papers online, he may be doing something illegal — if he uploads the final version of a paper that has appeared in a subscription-based journal. Publishers who own copyright on such papers frown on their unauthorized appearance online. Yet when Mounce has uploaded his paywalled articles to ResearchGate, a scholarly social network likened to Facebook for scientists, publishers haven't asked him to take them down. "I'm aware that I might be breaching copyright," says Mounce, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Cambridge, UK. "But I don't really care."

Mounce isn't alone in his insouciance. The unauthorized sharing of copyrighted research papers is on the rise, say analysts who track the publishing industry. Faced with this problem, science publishers seem to be changing tack in their approach to researchers who breach copyright. Instead of demanding that scientists or network operators take their papers down, some publishers are clubbing together to create systems for legal sharing of articles — called fair sharing — which could also help them to track the extent to which scientists share paywalled articles online.

Sharing information is antithetical to scientific progress.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by requerdanos on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:29PM (10 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:29PM (#508333) Journal

    Attacking a ship is wrong. Helping your neighbor is admirable. There's nothing in common between sharing and piracy, and that propaganda campaign does not deserve our support.

    Hear, hear.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:17PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:17PM (#508362)

    What if your neighbor is attacking a ship? Would it be wrong to help them?
    Both sharing and piracy share ari, so they have 46% of themselves in common.
    Your disinformation campaign does not deserve our support.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by requerdanos on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:56PM (2 children)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:56PM (#508379) Journal

      Both sharing and piracy share ari

      Wow. Noted. It's comments like this that should give everyone hope for mankind.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday May 12 2017, @06:36AM (1 child)

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday May 12 2017, @06:36AM (#508518) Journal

        I know you were being sarcastic, but actually comments like that do help. Because while the claim itself is clearly silly, it draws from a meme (which is exactly what makes it funny to begin with), and therefore causes your mind to, metaphorically speaking, put that meme into the criticism arena. And by being funny and obviously silly, it can pass the barrier for some people who already are immunized against rational arguments. And no, reading it will not immediately change your mind. But it still has a small effect, and constant dripping wears the stone.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @12:10PM

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @12:10PM (#508572) Journal

          I know you were being sarcastic, but actually comments like that do help.

          Well, maybe 25% sarcastic, but mostly serious. It does highlight exactly what sharing and piracy do have in common, in an unexpected way... and it isn't much.

    • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday May 11 2017, @11:29PM (1 child)

      by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday May 11 2017, @11:29PM (#508389)

      What if your neighbor is attacking a ship? Would it be wrong to help them?

      Depends on the ship - is it one that habitually attacks your neighbour's ships without provocation?

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @11:30PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @11:30PM (#508390)

      sh(((ari)))ng
      p(((ira)))cy

      Coincidence detected.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday May 12 2017, @06:51AM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday May 12 2017, @06:51AM (#508522) Journal

        by Anonymous Co(((war)))d. Coincidence detected. ;-)

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 12 2017, @03:02AM (1 child)

    by edIII (791) on Friday May 12 2017, @03:02AM (#508441)

    I like the whole moral superiority of it and all, but you can't simplify like that.

    Often times whether or not it is sharing or "piracy" is determined by rather corrupt people, institutions, and processes. YouTube can kiss my fucking ass. They say "piracy", I say their algorithms are fucking retarded pants-on-head stupid. What's worse is that I possessed a license *CORRECT* for putting it on YouTube which was more expensive. Yet, there is no way to deal with those shit spackled muppet farts because the DMCA wildly leans towards protecting right holders while inhibiting free speech, free expression, and fair use. You can be labeled a dirty pirate and have almost no viable recourse against it.

    Many times to the distinction comes down to interpretations that are controversial and involve fair use. In some cases just flat out civil disobedience because the copyrights are annexed by barbarians that figure might-makes-right and ownership-is-nine-tenths-of-the-law are blunt instruments to beat dissent to death with.

    Some if it is very much deserving of support, and still considered "piracy" by those in power. What about "sharing" government data, that they've no moral, legal, or ethical right to control? Much less pursue people in court for?

    "Piracy" is only an abstract concept in the first place when speaking of information. It only exists because we came together, in order to further the interests of the Public Domain, to encourage works by providing temporary, exclusive, and *limited* control. There was NEVER any agreement on a large scale that information ownership was being pushed as actually real and morally secure in its foundations. When promulgated, it is reviled and the intellectual and spiritual backlash intense as it is immediate.

    So some people say "Piracy", I still say sharing. By sharing, I mean that I don't fucking recognize your imaginary property rights to some fucking information. In the end, we ourselves, may just be information in the universe. I'm sure as hell not owned by anything, or anyone except the chocolate manufacturers.

    I believe in creating an environment that serves the Public Domain above else, and that also means to me that we need to reward the artists and creators (not owners) of the works being added. It does not mean I subject myself to the corruption, abuses, overreach, and especially the lack of options to reward the creators because some owners decided to cartel the shit out of it while manipulating creators. If they make it too difficult, or too invasive, or requires me to give up my rights in return, then I'm just going to pirate. Fuck them.

    Those that are reasonable get rewarded. Those that are avaricious parasitic scum do not. My entertainment is not free, but my wallet does speak freely. I appreciate your moral and ethical position, but it's not that simple and I only give financial rewards that go to the creators themselves. For example, pirate the shit out of a band's music, but then also make sure you go the concerts at least once and buy a t-shirt or glow in the dark cock ring.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday May 12 2017, @06:45AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday May 12 2017, @06:45AM (#508520) Journal

      I like the whole moral superiority of it and all, but you can't simplify like that.

      Sure, the reality is always more complicated. But if one side makes oversimplifying statements ("copying is stealing", "sharing is piracy"), and the other side only makes solid, but complicated statements ("in many cases, the restriction of the right to copy a published work by the author or, worse, a company who bought the rights from the author, to the extent common today, is harmful to society, and when considering the overall effect, that harm does more than compensate for the advantages that come from the fact that those restrictions allow some authors to easily make an income from their works"), which side do you think will win the fight for mindshare? Indeed, I guess for the latter statement, 99% of all people will have no idea what it actually said after hearing it to the end. If they even had the patience to listen that long.

      Sometimes oversimplified statements are necessary to get a point across.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.