SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times has an opinion piece about Open Access publishing. It starts with the case of Alexandra Elbakyan a guerilla open access activist who is on the lam from the US government acting on behalf of the copyright cartel. Pricing and other restrictions put many journals out of reach of all but the few researchers at major, well-funded universities in developed nations. The large publishing companies usually have profit margins over 30% and subscription prices have been rising twice as fast as the price of health care, which itself is priced insanely, over the past two decades, so there appears to be a real scandal there. Several options are available including pre-print repositories and various open access journals. The latter require the author to pay up front for publishing. However, the real onus lies on the communities' leaders, like heads of institutions and presidents of universities, who are in a position to change which journals are perceived as high-impact.
Edit: Alexandra Elbakyan founded Sci-Hub in 2011.
(Score: 1) by devlux on Monday March 14 2016, @11:57PM
Information wants to be free.
If only there was a "pirate bay" for this stuff.
Perhaps something like this???
https://sci-hub.io/ [sci-hub.io]
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:21AM
Alexandra Elbakyan is the creator of Sci-Hub...
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by devlux on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:25AM
Thank you. I did not know that.
I want to mod you up, I have the karma to do it, but I don't see the option anywhere.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:26AM
Don't worry about it. I've put that fact in the summary.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:34AM
Mind you, RTFA is a no-no if you want to avoid the risk of posting something relevant.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:11PM
NYT is paywalled. I wouldn't give those bums a penny.
But just from the summary the stupid shines out. Just take their facts at face value and it makes no sense. The journals make 30% profit. Oh the horror, they almost make Apple level profit margins! Burn them at the stake!
Now lets really get to the heart of it. Assume they cut their prices in half, operating as a non-profit AND cutting costs without impacting quality. Like I said, ASSUME it for purposes of debate. Raise your hand if you think more than 1% of the people currently going on all butthurt about this would suddenly say "Oh, that is now a reasonable price." and shut up. Now raise your hand if you think these thieves would continue trying to convince themselves they are the good guys until the price was zero. Ok, so shut up about the prices because that distraction isn't fooling anyone.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday March 16 2016, @06:39AM
It's not about getting "stuff for free" or not. It's about how researchers can communicate with each other. Every year the publishers have been more of an impediment, and the problem has been growing for decades.
You've missed the point and assume the wrong thieves. The journals provide almost no value added, maybe a little branding and the distribution but that's about it. The distribution is easy in the digital age and any one else could do it instead. The branding comes more or less automatically as a consequence from the selection of content. The actual research, analysis, review and (usually) editing are all paid for by others not the journal. The journal just comes in and takes the work that has been provided them and puts a very high price tag on it. In other words, the researchers are in a situation of having to buy back their own work which they've already paid dearly for.
By price gouging on the essential titles, the journal publishers are becoming bottlenecks in what is supposed to be scholarly communication across distance and time. They're preventing rather than facilitating communication. The whole point of a researcher publishing is to get the word out to their peers. When fewer and fewer institutions can afford the titles, fewer peers have access. It looks like a model designed to implode eventually anyway.
There is a lot written up on Open Access, here's one in French Un guide de l'Open Access à destination du grand public [actualitte.com] , which translates quite well with an automated translator to A Guide to Open Access for the general public [google.com]. The NYT opinion piece only covers one aspect. The paywall must be selective because I have not seen it for so long I thought it was gone, I would not have linked to a paywalled site.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:23AM
Oh, wow! That's informative...
One can only wish there'd be someone to tell the sci-hub story and contextualize it... perhaps it would even worth submitting that to Soylentnews [soylentnews.org]. Something like the following would be great:
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by devlux on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:32AM
I see, so what you're really saying is that I should have read the article before posting?
In retrospect, I agree but reading the article is a really kind of going against the spirit and tradition of the site.
Also I think it speaks volumes when someone posts a link to the site in question completely blind, not having read the article, based solely on gut reaction.
To my mind that means that Ms. Elbakyan has at least in part achieved her mission. "open access to paywalled research" sci-hub, check!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:37AM
Someone said it better [soylentnews.org]
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:31AM
So, if someone gets busted for identity theft, or stealing or buying credit card info, they should go scott free because it costs virtually zero dollars to transfer that information and, in 2016, it's time for banks and merchants to adapt their business models to the changing times.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by devlux on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:45AM
If all they do is steal and copy the information then yes, let them go. No harm, no foul. Next time secure your systems better.
In fact I would go so far as to say that the organization from which the data "leaked", should be held criminally liable for usage of that data as though they were a co-conspirator.
If the consequences were real, I can promise that security would suddenly get very real as well.
But the hacker, cracker whatever? Leave him/her/it be. There is no damage from having "information" out there.
The damage is when that information is utilized without the subject's consent and it causes them debt, or damages them in some fashion.
We already have laws on the books dealing with illicit gain. But information is not something that can be "stolen" by the act of copying. It does not deprive the original owner of the use of that data. However if that data is used to masquerade as the original owner causing them some nonconsented to consequence then hell ya, sue, punish, toss in jail and throw away the key.
My thoughts on the matter.
Alexandra Elbakyan has made it to my very short list of personal heros.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:50AM
It does not deprive the original owner of the use of that data.
It certainly does in some cases (including this one, with the scientific journals), because it reduces the potential pool of people willing to pay full price to buy that item. You can't tell me with a straight face that this type of piracy doesn't cost the publishers significant money.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:16AM
(sudden attack of pedantry)
Look at my face: ⚅ - is as straight as a dice face can be and it's mine.
Now, read my lips: this type of piracy does not cost the publishers significant money.
There's a difference between cost and potential income.
The first one can be quantified and demonstrated, the second doesn't.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:29AM
Why have so many daily newspapers across the US either gone under, or experienced hard times and multiple downsizings, over the past 15 years? Obviously, it's because of the competition for information from the Internet.
Now, I'm asking you to use your imagination here. Suppose the competition came not from public web sites, but from pirate sites illegally giving away the stuff that you produced and curated. That could still pack a big financial punch, couldn't it?
I think the reason you don't see it is because you don't want to see it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:54AM
Sorry, I don't have any, all I have it's a straight face.
You mean... like Google? I seem to remember some attempts to extract a potential income from Google, the judges recently have said "Naah, mate" [reuters.com]. Pretty unimaginative folks, those judges.
--
And this is related with costs exactly how?
Ah, are you backpedalling on the unfortunate choice of words, and you agree we are discussing about potential (but unrealized) income?
Then I'll ask you to categorically demonstrate (with as straight a face as mine), that you are entitled to realize that income you pretend you lost, in other words that every pirated download is a loss - you simply just don't believe you on your word, don't come to me with "because I say so".
What is the benefit for other members of the society that you bring in? Especially how the researchers that produced the articles and the citizens which paid for a great deal of them (grant from budgets) are benefiting?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:56AM
...from pirate sites illegally giving away the stuff that you produced and curated.
"Extorting" is not the same as "producing and curating".
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:03AM
(mmm... in the context of "daily newspapers across the US", extorting seems to be a quite strong term.
Or... do you imply US is using its military to extract the news from those unwilling to part with them? I'm intrigued...)
(peace, bro. I'm just clowning to the left)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:15AM
mmm... in the context of "daily newspapers across the US", extorting seems to be a quite strong term.
Yes, it is, and I really didn't mean newspapers.
My bad, I should have specified the science journal publishing bad guys.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:03AM
Obviously it is because paper is a vastly inferior medium to digital methods. It is far more costly, and much more limited. Paper simply isn't searchable and copyable like digital data is, taking many orders of magnitude more time to do. Paper really is obsolete for delivery of news.
The tragedy is that publishers have not responded to this reality in a constructive fashion. Instead they have been extremely reactionary. They don't believe they can earn a living in a digital world, and instead of listening to evidence that they can, they've enshrined copyright as the one and only means to flourish. They play upon public sympathy, inertia, nostalgia, and even the whiff of wealth in a meritocratic possibility that anyone could get published if only their work is good enough, and then they too could become wealthy off of copyright. When that hasn't worked, they've resorted to the desperation measures of propaganda, force, and fear.
They ask way too much of us when they want everyone to go on acting as if the Internet does not exist, and keep buying books and audio CDs. The "problem" of piracy is best resolved by admitting it is not an immoral, reprehensible activity that causes artists to starve, it is instead a natural right, and should be fully legalized.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by devlux on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:17AM
It's about making the access available to those who otherwise couldn't pay.
Sure it might deprive the publishers of money.
For the researcher who is trying to "get published", the publisher is acting as a barrier by only allowing access to those with the not inconsequential sums of money required to purchase a full subscription.
However they are not providing anything of value in this transaction.
The cost to society from even allowing this paywall behavior especially on research that is primarily funded by government grants is enormous.
I would argue with a straight face that the only way this could actually cost the "publisher" money is if the publisher paid for the research. Otherwise they are just using their position as a "journal of note", to abuse the researcher into signing away their rights to publish wherever the heck they want, in favor of exclusivity to that single publisher. This actually blocks most of the rest of the world from being able to freely fact check and ensure that the science was performed correctly. In other-words one of the fundamental cornerstones of good science "peer review" is very much harmed by this exclusivity.
As for actual ownership.
If it was paid for by public grant money then the results of said research belongs to the public. If it was paid for by private grant money then of course it belongs to the private institution. But simply having copies circulating does not deprive the author of funds, the author isn't getting anything from the publisher and the only thing the publisher brought to the table was a place of notoriety in which to publish. In many cases the publisher doesn't even fact check or edit. Here is a citation http://www.nature.com/news/investigating-journals-the-dark-side-of-publishing-1.12666 [nature.com]
The author, who is the only party for whom deprivation of income could really be argued was already paid via the grant. They are not harmed are in fact helped by having their research circulating as widely as possible.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:50AM
You can't tell me with a straight face that this type of piracy doesn't cost the publishers significant money.
Well... yes, I can. Those publishers are abusing their monopoly (you don't have to be the only player to be a monopolist) in order to profiteer. Not being able to extort as much money as they'd like is not the same as losing money.
Just my carefully considered opinion as a retired scientist, YMMV.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.