[HN Gopher] An Interview with Sci-Hub's Alexandra Elbakyan on th... ___________________________________________________________________ An Interview with Sci-Hub's Alexandra Elbakyan on the Delhi HC Case Author : amrrs Score : 140 points Date : 2021-02-25 16:10 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (science.thewire.in) (TXT) w3m dump (science.thewire.in) | xvilka wrote: | All of these publishers are also an impediment for the progress. | Just look at more modern approach for the scientific publishing - | Authorea[1], PubPub[2], some similar platforms. | | [1] https://www.authorea.com/ | | [2] https://www.pubpub.org/ | Fomite wrote: | New, modern publishing mechanisms have, unfortunately, by and | large not solved the career incentives that surround academic | publishing. | oli5679 wrote: | Guerilla Open Access Manifesto Aaron Swartz July 2008, Eremo, | Italy | | https://gist.github.com/usmanity/4522840 | | "Information is power. But like all power, there are those who | want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and | cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and | journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a | handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers | featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to | send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. | | There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access | Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not | sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is | published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to | access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will | only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until | now will have been lost. | | That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money | to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries | but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing | scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First | World, but not to children in the Global South? It's outrageous | and unacceptable. | | "I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the | copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for | access, and it's perfectly legal -- there's nothing we can do to | stop them." But there is something we can, something that's | already being done: we can fight back. | | Those with access to these resources -- students, librarians, | scientists -- you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at | this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked | out. But you need not -- indeed, morally, you cannot -- keep this | privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the | world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling | download requests for friends. | | Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly | by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over | fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers | and sharing them with your friends. | | But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. | It's called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of | knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and | murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral -- it's a moral | imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a | friend make a copy. | | Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws | under which they operate require it -- their shareholders would | revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off | back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide | who can make copies. | | There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come | into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, | declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture. | | We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our | copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff | that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy | secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download | scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We | need to fight for Guerilla Open Access. | | With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong | message opposing the privatization of knowledge -- we'll make it | a thing of the past. Will you join us?" | baali wrote: | For some more context I would like to share a precedent | specifically in India and Delhi that could be relevant to this | case as well, "Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case": | | https://thewire.in/education/du-photocopy-case | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rameshwari_Photocopy_Service_s... | Barrin92 wrote: | Not unsurprisingly a lot of comments are very negative on | publishers but I think the nature of the criticism is kind of | weird. Publishers in almost every comment as well in the | interview are almost always portrayed as institutions that rip | everyone off. But this is strange, because if it was true, | everyone would just stop paying them, they don't literally hold | anyone at gunpoint. | | In the most basic sense what a publisher is, is an institution | that sells reputation and attention. Being on the cover of | reputable journals for a scientist is like being on the cover of | Vogue for a fashionista. | | When people in India rip off scientific articles using sci-hub | they don't compete with the core business model of publishers, | they just want knowledge. But journals aren't really in the | business of selling knowledge in the first place. Journals | survive sci-hub for the same reason Harvard survives free | lectures of YouTube and Hollywood survived ripped blue-rays on | street-markets. Because these institutions are not in the | business of selling textbooks or movies, they sell celebrities | and status. | | So assuming for a second that the publishing hegemon is | destroyed, what will happen next? Will all the up and coming star | scientists happily publish on undifferentiated internet platforms | where all that matters is science? Some maybe, but my more | cynical guess is that a thriving internet status economy would | soon emerge that would inhabit the exact same niche that | publishers have now. Because the exclusivity of publishers is not | the tool they wield against the public or scientists, it's the | very commodity they are selling. | xtracto wrote: | That is indeed a fair point: Why do people go to some Elsevier | journal to look for an article instead of just going to the | corresponding arxiv.org section? Because there is _trust_ in | the curation of those articles. | | The problem with scientific publications is that there has not | been a Spotify, Steam or Netflix disrupting company that | provides the same service in a better way. | jhbadger wrote: | The thing about (closed-access journal) publishers that ticks | people off is just how little of the value they create for | their cost. They get the papers they publish for free, they get | the peer review for free, they even get most of the editing for | free (academic editors are generally volunteer, although copy | editors, who check for spelling and formatting, are generally | employees). | | As for why people keep paying, the answer is industry | lobbyists. Whenever there is a movement to require open access | of research, industry lobbyists shut it down. Although in many | fields like physics and mathematics, people are bypassing | journals (closed or open) in favor of preprints. | rhaps0dy wrote: | > So assuming for a second that the publishing hegemon is | destroyed, what will happen next? Will all the up and coming | star scientists happily publish on undifferentiated internet | platforms where all that matters is science? Some maybe, but my | more cynical guess is that a thriving internet status economy | would soon emerge that would inhabit the exact same niche that | publishers have now. Because the exclusivity of publishers is | not the tool they wield against the public or scientists, it's | the very commodity they are selling. | | That's a very good analysis, I think, but it overlooks that an | internet attention economy is a better state. | | In the field of machine learning, it has already come to pass. | All the top publishing venues (the Journal of Machine Learning | Research, the conferences NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, ...) are already | free of charge and open access for everyone. There are many | problems with reviews in those venues (mostly growing pains | from the rapidly increasing number of submissions, and problems | stemming from the fact that there is 1 single round of review), | and indeed the conferences, JMLR and Twitter are now the | "attention economy" of the field. | | But it has massive positive externalities, namely, you don't | need to pay (or have your university pay) for access to the | research anymore. The system works as badly (or as well) as it | would with the publishers, but without giving them a cut. | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | > what a publisher is, is an institution that sells reputation | and attention | | If that is all publishers are now, then they are no longer what | they once promised to be. Initially many respected journals | were published by non-profit learned societies. (In some | fields, like certain branches of linguistics, they still are.) | For-profit publishers originally told those learned societies | that if they handed their journals over to the corporation, the | corporation could perform more high-quality editing, | proofreading, and typesetting and do it more economically. | | Fast forward a few decades, and the for-profit corporations are | no longer providing those things. Proofreading and copyediting | is now all on the unpaid editorial team (or even on the | individual authors). Typesetting is often on the unpaid | editorial team, and the publisher wants the unpaid editorial | team to simply provide a camera-ready PDF. | | So, yes, in the end the for-profit publisher is just providing | printing and distribution (which even the non-profit learned | societies managed to do just fine) and a vague "reputation and | attention". Sounds like a raw deal. | visarga wrote: | > But this is strange, because if it was true, everyone would | just stop paying them, they don't literally hold anyone at | gunpoint. | | In a world where scientists careers didn't depend on | publications, you'd be right. | pas wrote: | Change is hard, common knowledge attacks are easy, publishers | are like dictators, defectors are punished (publishing in a | worse journal, basically only a minority of researchers can | even flirt with the idea), and even if the global optimum is | not a dictatorship it's hard to get there. | helixc wrote: | A reasonable request is not to shut all prestigious publishing | monopolies down, but to ask/beg/fight them to be less greedy. | As you mentioned, publishers run market places and sell | distribution channels. They do not need that high margins to | run the business. Where the profit goes to? Not the science | community, but heir owners and executives high up on the rank | who do not contribute much but get the most cash rewards. I | believe this is what worth fighting for. | pessimizer wrote: | I'm not sure what's supposed to be wrong with "thriving | internet status economies" or "reputation and attention." The | problem is the "exclusivity" where people have to pay e.g. $45 | to read an article often partially or completely funded by | taxpayers and with absolutely no value-add other than | "reputation and attention," in order to discover it is | irrelevant to what they're researching. | | In my view, it would be ideal if in an open-access world some | editors and/or organizations _endorsed_ and vouched for | particular papers, and academics competed intensely for those | endorsements, if those endorsements were career-making or | career-killing, and those editors /organizations made a living | from charging scientists for their consideration and review. | | That's not the bad part. If the output is available to everyone | to read, I don't see the tragedy. | tasogare wrote: | I didn't know that Twitter deleted Sci Hub account. That company | already had a bad record of political censorship but now it | attacks science too. Disgusting. Elbakyan is doing an amazing and | important work with Sci-Hub, I hope the site will continue to | exist for long. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Despite how you and I feel about Sci-Hub, it _is_ breaking the | law. Copyright infringement, whether you agree with it or not, | is a crime. If Twitter received notice from the journals' legal | teams to take down the account, they may not have the ability | to fight back (depending on the journals' legal arguments). | ska wrote: | But it it breaking any laws on Twitter? Unless the twitter | account was providing links to copyright material, probably | not. | colejohnson66 wrote: | If the Twitter account provided links to Sci-Hub's website, | it'd be very easy for the journals to construe | infringement. Whether the account actually did, I don't | know. I'm just pointing out how it could work. | aryamaan wrote: | What are the efficient ways to fight unjust laws? | krastanov wrote: | Voting and contacting your representatives is pretty | efficient... Yeah, lobbying from big entities is a problem | that we need to solve, but come on, look at what we have | already achieved. Convincing the average people around you | is frequently more work. | colejohnson66 wrote: | I don't know. Some would say "take a stand", but all I know | is that: if your legal team says there's almost no way | you'd win a lawsuit from the journals, and that you could | be on the hook for millions of dollars in damages, you | don't "take a stand". Because it's not just the company | you'd be taking down, but yourself from the inevitable | lawsuits from angry investors. It's sad, buts it's the | reality we live in. | brainless wrote: | You are right. But to add, these laws are lobbied by | large corporations that don't care about much other than | their profits. | | Change is hard and it's okay, not everyone will fight for | it. But some will. | neatze wrote: | Hypothetically, can publishers go after authors who used sci-hub | ? | TT3351 wrote: | I'm willing to bet publishers understand that will make any | remaining good will they have with the people who generate | their content evaporate | srswtf123 wrote: | Hostages aren't usually full good will, and hostage takers | aren't the best negotiators. | lou1306 wrote: | They could, but the optics of such an action would be really, | really bad. Moreover, my gut feeling is that most researchers | that use sci-hub _could_ obtain most of the papers through | their employer 's subscription anyway. It's just that the UX of | Sci-Hub is so much better. | 29athrowaway wrote: | Academic journals pose many problems: | | 1) They restrict access to research with paywalls. | | 2) The research they publish is usually funded with public funds. | Governments do not get money from journals. | | 3) The work being published is produced by researchers. | Researchers do not get any money from the journals. | | 4) Journals rarely verify what they publish. | | So, in short, Sci-Hub is a necessary disobedience movement that | aims to end with the most pointless institution in academia: paid | journals. | | This is not the same as Napster. | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | You are confusing two things here: 1) the problems that for- | profit journals bring, and 2) the supposed problems that all | academic journals have, regardless of whether they are | published by a for-profit or a non-profit publisher. | | In certain fields, journals continue to be published by non- | profit learned societies that now, in the digital era, make | their articles freely available to all. And they certainly do | verify what they publish inasmuch as the peer review process is | rigorous and challenging, and even the most esteemed authors | end up having to make major corrections to the paper to pass | that review. | | If you think journals as a vetted, reputable venue for | scientific debate no longer have a place, just go look at | Academia.edu today where anyone can sign up and participate in | discussion sessions. The result: crackpots, cranks, and wacko | alt-history or racist/nationalist extremists take over those | discussion sessions, drowning out the actual scholars. Thank | goodness for journals. | 29athrowaway wrote: | When you publish something, you also mention your affiliation | and your title. Often with an email that relates to your | affiliation. | | If you are affiliated with the Mickey Mouse Center for | Crackpottery and Eugenics, I am going to have that in | consideration when reading your content. | kikokikokiko wrote: | "This is not the same as Napster" - It's the same thing. | Knowledge, when left to it's own nature, wants to be free and | spread. The digital music revolution is just another aspect of | this same concept, I never ever paid for any string of bits in | my life, and never will. As an app developer, I implement all | the tricks I know to stop people from pirating my work, but if | they KNOW how to do it, and ARE WILLING to do it, good for | them. | 29athrowaway wrote: | Napster is different. The fact you do not want to pay for | music does not make it free to produce, promote and | distribute. | | There is real time and money involved in songwriting, | composing, interpreting, recording, marketing, etc. | | In this case, the journals paid nothing for the research they | publish, and they share none of the money they make. | | An analogy for a journal would be a napster that forces you | to publish your music there and then doesn't pay you | anything. | kikokikokiko wrote: | Scihub and Napster are "the same thing", in the sense that | both are tools that were created to enable the peer to peer | sharing of information, one bypasses the journals | middlemen, the other the record labels. Information is | meant to be free, anything that tries to stop it is going | against the nature of info. The way I see it's like trying | to stop entropy, good luck trying to create your perpetual | motion machine. | xyzzy123 wrote: | There's an implication here that "spotify for papers" - | aka good distribution for a fair price - could be the end | state. | 29athrowaway wrote: | You are then saying Amazon and Ebay are the same as The | Silk Road. | | They are marketplaces, but from an ethical standpoint | they are vastly different. | | You cannot stop piracy but a different thing is saying | music piracy is legitimate. You are conflating different | things. | | If you don't understand the difference between Napster | and Scihub you probably think music piracy is OK. It is | not. | | First of all, scholars themselves use Scihub and most | scholars that do not have a conflict of interest disagree | with how companies like Elsevier operate. | pessimizer wrote: | I think music piracy is more than OK, it is good. I also | understand the distinction you are trying to make and it | is a makes sense. Journals add nothing. Musicians, | producers, and other technicians do work to make music. | sodality2 wrote: | I'm on the fence about Sci-hub. Every time I read about it, I | remember this article about how they operate. | | >Let me be clear: Sci-Hub is not just stealing PDFs. They're | phishing, they're spamming, they're hacking, they're password- | cracking, and basically doing anything to find personal | credentials to get into academic institutions. While illegal | access to published content is the most obvious target, this is | just the tip of an iceberg concealing underlying efforts to steal | multiple streams of personal and research data from the world's | academic institutions. | | This might just be a hit piece by the same companies who are | losing money, but it has some merit with proof of attacks | changing passwords, etc. Real, tangible damage. I'm not sure this | is what Aaron Swartz envisioned. I'm all for vigilante justice or | whatever pirates use to justify it (seriously, I petitioned my | local college to stop subscribing to them) but this is hardly the | same thing. | | https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/18/guest-post-th... | kick wrote: | That link is transparently pushing something, and what it's | pushing definitely isn't "the truth." | | The _only_ thing, and I repeat: _the only thing_ that | absolutely ridiculous, fearmongering, slanderous article even | says outright that they _do_ , rather than just blatant | speculation, is PDF downloading. | | _Then, over a weekend (when spikes in usage are less likely to | come to the attention of publishers or library technical | departments) they accessed 350 publisher websites and made | 45,092 PDF requests._ | | What's the harm in this? There's none! They're literally just | requesting PDFs. The article insinuates murder but doesn't even | _try_ to substantiate their claims of "Oh maybe they're doing | something, just maybe, maybe maybe maybe they're doing | something evil, yes indeed, maybe they are!" | | They aren't even trying at this point. | sodality2 wrote: | No, they say that hackers "not only broke into their | database; they changed the names and passwords of profiles" | but they admittedly do not attribute that to the group. | | >What's the harm in this? There's none! They're literally | just requesting PDFs | | Via stolen, cracked, or phished credentials, though. I'm not | arguing against this, I wholeheartedly believe in the | Guerrilla open access manifesto and its beliefs, and it is | admittedly not proven to be Sci-hub, just a random attack. | nicoburns wrote: | My guess would be that Sci-hub probably isn't doing this | because my guess is that they don't need to. Given how | widespread support and usage of Sci-hub is within academia, | I suspect they have access voluntarily donated credentials | on the order of hundreds if not thousands (remember that | it's not only faculty staff that have access to journal | articles: students do too). | sodality2 wrote: | Now that I agree with; the article specifically avoids | attributing it to them, and if they could, you can bet | they would. So I'm assuming they're taking a mostly | unrelated incident and pushing an agenda with it. | kick wrote: | _No, they say that hackers "not only broke into their | database; they changed the names and passwords of profiles" | but they admittedly do not attribute that to the group._ | | You can't negate "They don't accuse Sci-Hub of actually | doing anything!" with "They accused hackers of Doing Evil, | but admittedly they don't attribute this to Sci-Hub." | | _Via stolen, cracked, or phished credentials, though. I 'm | not arguing against this, I wholeheartedly believe in the | Guerrilla open access manifesto and its beliefs, and it is | admittedly not proven to be Sci-hub, just a random attack._ | | So if there's no proof, and you'd agree with it even if | there was, then why bother posting this awful article? | sodality2 wrote: | I suppose to see what others thought about it. I | specifically mentioned in the parent comment that I was | on the fence and that "This might just be a hit piece by | the same companies who are losing money". I did mention | the proof in the article, which _is real_. I 'll admit my | initial judgement of the article was off, but not | entirely wrong given that I never said I wholly agreed | with it. Or maybe I'm moving goalposts or whatever. | Anyway, I thank you for pointing out what I did not | realize. | | >You can't negate "They don't accuse Sci-Hub of actually | doing anything!" with "They accused hackers of Doing | Evil, but admittedly they don't attribute this to Sci- | Hub." | | I am not negating it, I am admitting that I am wrong. | [deleted] | jjoonathan wrote: | > I'm not sure this is what Aaron Swartz envisioned. | | Right, because Aaron Swartz is famous for negotiating deals to | legally license and pay for PDFs. | | > They're phishing, they're spamming, they're hacking, they're | password-cracking | | I sure hope so. Relying on credential donations would be a | great way to make Elsevier's anti-piracy efforts much easier | while landing more academic activists in jail / suicide. | sodality2 wrote: | Eh. I agree with the sentiment. But you do see how there is a | difference between just downloading PDF's and what is | referenced in the article? Not at all saying it is sci-hub's | fault. And I myself have literally uploaded to sci-hub | (ironically, in case my FBI agent is reading this). But it's | not equivalent to crack accounts, scrape 45k pdfs as it is to | simply upload something you've downloaded. | jjoonathan wrote: | So if Elsevier gets rid of network licenses like the one | Aaron Swartz abused and the next generation of activists is | forced to abuse other kinds of licenses, that means they | should just roll over and give up? Really? | | Nuts! | | Look at it this way: would you rather A. lose the war and | pay Elsevier forever and ever, B. donate your credentials | to scihub and get slapped with a lifetime Elsevier ban and | big Aaron Swartz suicide level lawsuit, or C. use a sketchy | library computer one day and a few months later have to | contact Elsevier support to get your account reset because | the PDFs won't download? | | I don't know about you, but A and B seem really bad to me | and C seems much less bad. | sodality2 wrote: | I prefer C. | neatze wrote: | How many scientist agree that people who access there's paper | should pay ~$30 ? | whatever1 wrote: | We are not compensated for reviewing on behalf of journals. We | even pay to publish, and then pay to read our own paper. | | edit: Nothing wrong with volunteering to review research, but | if the whole process is for-profit, I don't understand why the | reviewers cannot be compensated for their effort. | gautamdivgi wrote: | That's inaccurate. When you publish to a journal, the journal | will give you a pdf of your paper which you can put up on a | personal site. You always have access to distribute your | research. | | Another point - journals never charge to publish (conferences | do). | whatever1 wrote: | Journals charge to publish. They even charge more if you | want color pages. | | I have the proofs of my papers, but I cannot access them | online anymore. | light_hue_1 wrote: | That's inaccurate. Plenty of journals don't allow you to | put up a copy on your personal website. For example these | fine folks that run many journals: | | https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing- | your-... | whimsicalism wrote: | So called "green OA" practices are: | | a. far from ubiquitous | | b. often include provisions created by the publisher | designed to make discoverability outside of the journal | difficult | danielyaa5 wrote: | probably any of them that publish to a journal, the scientist | could make it public themselves if they wanted to. This is | theft... | colejohnson66 wrote: | My understanding is that the universities have contracts with | the journals that mandate the professors and researchers | publish in the journal with almost no exceptions. You're | putting the blame in the wrong place. | Fomite wrote: | This is inaccurate. Universities have contracts with | publishers to get their faculty access to the journals. | | I've never encountered a mandate to publish in certain | journals because the university has contracts with them. On | occasion there are incentives like breaks on open access | fees essentially because the university pre-paid, and there | are field specific norms on where to publish. | gautamdivgi wrote: | Universities have contracts with journals through their | libraries to provide their staff full access to | publications. | | Universities rarely tell scientists where to publish. That | is determined by the scientists, the quality of the paper | and the editor of the journal. | | Scientists and PhD students need to publish in high impact | factor journals for their work to be recognized, for | promotions, graduation, etc. There is a lot of work that | goes into a scientific publication. It's not a blog (which | most people equate it to when they say why isn't it free). | | Scientists can make their publications available on their | personal website. Generally google scholar will give you a | pdf if its available. Some labs maintain papers on their | site, other scientists don't. Generally, finding older | publications is a challenge. | | I've commented on this earlier. Asking the researcher to | not publish in these journals is pointless. You need to | legislate access. But in general, most scientists will have | access to these journals from their university libraries | (at least in US/Canada/Europe). | [deleted] | danielyaa5 wrote: | then they are stealing money from universities... | essentially the scientist is agreeing to work pay free for | the university by attending it. What do you think the money | for the university is used for? | krastanov wrote: | > the scientist is agreeing to work pay free for the | university by attending it | | This statement makes me think you significantly | misunderstand how scientists / universities function. The | scientists (graduate students, postdocs, professors, | staff) are all salaried employees of the university. The | university does take some of the grant money given to | lead professors (e.g. to pay the aforementioned | salaries). | nimih wrote: | Who, exactly, do you think gets the money from journal | access fees? I'll give you a hint, it's not the people | who write the articles, nor the people who peer-review | them, nor the universities who employ either group. | armoredkitten wrote: | Universities around the world collectively pay _billions_ | of dollars to gain access to journals, many of which | their own researchers contribute to. The University of | California cut ties with Elsevier because of the | extremely high cost of accessing their work.[1] And that | is a _huge_ deal for a major US university like that to | end things with the world 's largest academic publisher. | The universities are not making money from journals -- | they're paying exorbitant amounts to for-profit companies | with some of the largest profit margins in any industry. | | If someone were to snap their fingers tomorrow and make | it so that scientists could publish their work without | having to deal with these for-profit publishers, | universities would save millions of dollars (per school), | taxpayers would save money, and the general public would | also have greater access to the work that they themselves | funded through public grants. | | [1] https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-uc- | split-pub... | Fomite wrote: | Hell, I use Sci-Hub on occasion to find my own papers because | it's the fastest way to get to them. | markus92 wrote: | Same. Had to pirate my own paper once as my institution | didn't have a subscription to that specific journal. Zero | qualms here about that. | dutchmartin wrote: | I would pay $10 if the author got at least payed $8 out of | that. But since authors get payed nothing, I rather download | the work from some other site and send the author a thank you | mail if I really liked their work. | crumbshot wrote: | > _The problem is that publishers are not actual creators of | these works, scientists are - they do all the work, and academic | publishers simply use their position of power in the Republic of | Science to extract unjust profits. Sci-Hub does not enable piracy | where creative people are deprived of the reward they deserve. It | is a very different thing._ | | This has strong parallels with how the parasitic private sector, | in its endless thirst for profit above all else, ruins so many | other things that would be better run through public provision: | housing, medical care, etc. | juskrey wrote: | As someone who have escaped from places with public housing and | healthcare provision, I suspect you were never really | experiencing that. Some place for wise regulation - maybe. | | That said, a parallel is very poor. Modern academia is a zero | sum morally corrupt game, guilty of many sins on its own. | pizza wrote: | Maybe you should elaborate on why you think academia is a | zero sum game. Like e.g. for one researcher to get a grant, | another one doesn't? | [deleted] | MrPatan wrote: | Ah, yes, I remember that time when I tried to copy a house and | the private sector, all parasitic-like, went on about bullshit | like "labour" and "materials" and "land". Like, what's that? I | have rights, you know! | someguydave wrote: | Tankies are now top commenters on hn? | diebeforei485 wrote: | I think the private sector (for the most part) does a good job | on delivering new housing, and are largely limited by local | rules such as zoning and set-asides. | | The only real criticism of them IMO is that they're cyclical | with the economy. They tend to build during good times, but the | most cost-effective time to build housing is during bad times | (now) because construction costs are also low. | pmiller2 wrote: | Not the only criticism. How about the fact that there are | incentives to hoard more housing units than one can use while | others have none? | slt2021 wrote: | what a brave woman, she is singlehandedly disrupting the | scientific publications cartel | crumbshot wrote: | Agreed, and with a very pure and selfless motive, in massively | broadening access to works of scientific research. | | Elbakyan's project really is a shining beacon of anti- | capitalist action, against our broken system where a small | number of private companies control access to what should be | communal resources, solely to enrich themselves. | xkcd-sucks wrote: | "Russian hackers stealing valuable Western IP" | | actually kind of surprised I haven't heard this yet | tpmx wrote: | She's Kazakhstani, not Russian, but... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Elbakyan#Views_and_c. | .. | | > Elbakyan has stated that she is inspired by communist | ideals, although she does not consider herself a strict | Marxist.] She has stated that she supports a strong state | which can stand up to the Western world, and that she does | not want "the scientists of Russia and of my native | Kazakhstan to share the fates of the scientists of Iraq, | Libya, and Syria, that were 'helped' by the USA to become | more democratic." | | ... | | > In 2017, a species of parasitoid wasps discovered by | Russian and Mexican entomologists was named after Elbakyan | (Idiogramma elbakyanae). Elbakyan was offended by this, | writing, "If you analyse the situation with scientific | publications, the real parasites are scientific publishers, | and Sci-Hub, on the contrary, fights for equal access to | scientific information." Following this event, and in the | context of her long-running tense relations with the liberal, | pro-Western wing of the Russian scientific community, she | blocked access to Sci-Hub for users from the Russian | Federation. | | So basically she's a Putin supporter. | xyzzy123 wrote: | That seems overly reductive. | | Must all people who want the USA to do well be "Biden | supporters" or "Trump supporters"? I think not. | tpmx wrote: | (I'm not american.) | | At the very least we should be able to agree that her | goals align remarkably well with Putin's goals. | | And to be clear: I also believe that freeing scientific | information from publishers is a nice goal - it's just | that her goal is broader than that. | pessimizer wrote: | That famous Marxist, Putin. | dilawar wrote: | Public mone is spent two times for a paper: first time to publish | and second time to read it. | | OpenAccess for a higher charge is becoming a norm though. Some | positives. Mathematics community has done a good job at making | many open access journals. Biology has only a few: eLife being | the most prominent. | giomasce wrote: | The thing I am concerned about with SciHub is its centralized | nature. So far it has resisted everything, but supposed that | eventually Elsevier manages to land Elbakyan in jail, or hack | back SciHub and delete its content, what would happen? I'd be | much much happier to see the material kept in a more resilient | configuration (IPFS, database dumps, ...) so that other entities | can back it up. And I'd also be happy if the paper collection | segment was free software, so that other entities could cooperate | in case the original SciHub went down. | xkeysc0re wrote: | There are several ongoing efforts to maintain an archive of | SciHub | | https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/8ky647/scihub_... | | https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa7jxb/archivists-are-trying... | | The paper collection software, if I recall correctly, is | actually quite simple and uses APIs provided by publishers. | It's the store of credentials that SciHub uses (that are | provided by academics and scientists) which truly powers the | site | jerheinze wrote: | > I'd be much much happier to see the material kept in a more | resilient configuration (IPFS, database dumps, ...) so that | other entities can back it up. | | For IPFS have a look at https://libgen.fun/ and | https://freeread.org/ipfs/ | | Also see the HN thread on those: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209246 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-25 23:01 UTC)