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: 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.