Hi all, 33 Gigabytes of academic papers for academic publisher JSTOR has recently been released on Pirate Bay. The reasons why that person chose to do that are here: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6554331/Papers_from_Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society__fro In particular some of those reasons are: - The July 19th 2011, prosecution of Aaron Swartz for downloading too many JSTOR documents via MIT's computers. - JSTOR was still charging $19 per paper on papers which are so old they have passed into the public domain. - Because "scientific publications are some of the most outrageously expensive pieces of literature you can buy" despite the fact that the authors, reviewers and editors rarely get paid for their contributions and for some journals even have to pay if their paper is accepted. Its time for academic paywall gatekeepers like JSTOR to either disappear or drasticaly release their strangehold on academic publishing. Interesting, I'm pretty sure the person who released these papers is a major contributor to the audio and video codecs released by the Xiph foundation that have given us Free (as in seech) codecs like Vorbis and Theora. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
Manifest on the release of 33Gig of academic papers on Pirate Bay
Started by ●July 22, 2011
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
On Jul 22, 8:24�pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> quoted: ...> �- Because "scientific publications are some of the most outrageously > � �expensive pieces of literature you can buy" despite the fact that > � �the authors, reviewers and editors rarely get paid for their > � �contributions and for some journals even have to pay if their paper > � �is accepted. > > Its time for academic paywall gatekeepers like JSTOR to either > disappear or drasticaly release their strangehold on academic > publishing.Amen to that. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
On Jul 23, 12:24�pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:> Hi all, > > 33 Gigabytes of academic papers for academic publisher JSTOR > has recently been released on Pirate Bay. The reasons why that > person chose to do that are here: > > http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6554331/Papers_from_Philosophical_Tra... > > In particular some of those reasons are: > > �- The July 19th 2011, prosecution of Aaron Swartz for downloading > � �too many JSTOR documents via MIT's computers. > > �- JSTOR was still charging $19 per paper on papers which are > � �so old they have passed into the public domain. > > �- Because "scientific publications are some of the most outrageously > � �expensive pieces of literature you can buy" despite the fact that > � �the authors, reviewers and editors rarely get paid for their > � �contributions and for some journals even have to pay if their paper > � �is accepted. > > Its time for academic paywall gatekeepers like JSTOR to either > disappear or drasticaly release their strangehold on academic > publishing. > > Interesting, I'm pretty sure the person who released these papers is > a major contributor to the audio and video codecs released by the > Xiph foundation that have given us Free (as in seech) codecs like > Vorbis and Theora. > > Erik > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Erik de Castro Lopohttp://www.mega-nerd.com/Unis are not charges $19 per pub, that's the cost to some poor guy off the street with no Uni library! The Unis pay some huge yearly supscription and as far as I know there are no restrictions. For IEEE you pay more the more years you go back!! Did you know that IEEE pays the conference runners for the papers however? A flat fee of $1000 US. However, they then charge you $1000 for putting it on Xplore! You have to organise and index the papers yourself of course and submit to IEEE. Most academics are happy but I can see why non-academics would feel short changed. Most of the papers are crap anyway! Hardy
Reply by ●July 23, 20112011-07-23
HardySpicer wrote:> Unis are not charges $19 per pub, that's the cost to some poor guy off > the street with no Uni library!Yep, but if some poor guy off the street wants to read some academic paper via the internet what purpose is served by charging him $19 for that priviledge? By the way, did I mention that these papers are out of copyright and hence in the public domain?> The Unis pay some huge yearly supscription and as far as I know there > are no restrictions. For IEEE you pay more the more years you go > back!!I would also suggest that the money collected this way dwarfs the actual cost of making these papers available on the internet. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
Reply by ●July 24, 20112011-07-24
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:17:01 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer <gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote: [Snipped by Lyons]> >Unis are not charges $19 per pub, that's the cost to some poor guy off >the street with no Uni library! >The Unis pay some huge yearly supscription and as far as I know there >are no restrictions. For IEEE you pay more the more years you go >back!! >Did you know that IEEE pays the conference runners for the papers >however? A flat fee of $1000 US. However, they then charge you $1000 >for putting it on Xplore! You have to organise and index the papers >yourself of course and submit to IEEE. Most academics are happy but I >can see why non-academics would feel short changed. Most of the papers >are crap anyway! > > >HardyHello Hardy, I'm interested in what you're telling us here. Can you tell me what you mean by the phrase "conference runners"? I've never heard that phrase before. Also, you wrote, "...they then charge you $1000 for putting it on Xplore." Who is the 'you' and what is the 'it' in that sentence? I'd sure like to better understand what you're telling us here. [-Rick-]
Reply by ●July 25, 20112011-07-25
There are open source journals like Eurasip. However, the author has to pay £900 unless either he is a member of Eurasip or his institution has Eurasip subscription! Chintan
Reply by ●July 25, 20112011-07-25
>Hi all, > >33 Gigabytes of academic papers for academic publisher JSTOR >has recently been released on Pirate Bay. The reasons why that >person chose to do that are here: > >http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6554331/Papers_from_Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society__fro > >In particular some of those reasons are: > > - The July 19th 2011, prosecution of Aaron Swartz for downloading > too many JSTOR documents via MIT's computers. > > - JSTOR was still charging $19 per paper on papers which are > so old they have passed into the public domain. > > - Because "scientific publications are some of the most outrageously > expensive pieces of literature you can buy" despite the fact that > the authors, reviewers and editors rarely get paid for their > contributions and for some journals even have to pay if their paper > is accepted. > >Its time for academic paywall gatekeepers like JSTOR to either >disappear or drasticaly release their strangehold on academic >publishing. > >Interesting, I'm pretty sure the person who released these papers is >a major contributor to the audio and video codecs released by the >Xiph foundation that have given us Free (as in seech) codecs like >Vorbis and Theora.This is a really stupid protest. I applaud the goal of making university research work more open. However, Aaron Swartz has been charged with physically breaking and entering a wiring closet to tap into information. What reasonable person could support that kind of behaviour? Engaging in that kind of thing just helps the cause of those who like keeping knowledge behind closed walls. Steve
Reply by ●July 25, 20112011-07-25
steveu wrote:> This is a really stupid protest. I applaud the goal of making university > research work more open. However, Aaron Swartz has been charged with > physically breaking and entering a wiring closet to tap into information. > What reasonable person could support that kind of behaviour? Engaging in > that kind of thing just helps the cause of those who like keeping knowledge > behind closed walls.Just to clarify, the person who released these papers in protest is not Aaron Swartz and I believe that all the papers he released were published before 1923 and are hence out of copy right and in the public domain anyway. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
Reply by ●July 25, 20112011-07-25
>steveu wrote: > >> This is a really stupid protest. I applaud the goal of makinguniversity>> research work more open. However, Aaron Swartz has been charged with >> physically breaking and entering a wiring closet to tap intoinformation.>> What reasonable person could support that kind of behaviour? Engagingin>> that kind of thing just helps the cause of those who like keepingknowledge>> behind closed walls. > >Just to clarify, the person who released these papers in protest >is not Aaron Swartz and I believe that all the papers he released >were published before 1923 and are hence out of copy right and >in the public domain anyway.The release of papers is supposed to be a protest in support of Aaron Swartz. That's what I think brings the release into disrepute. Copyright is a strange thing. Most music manuscript claims copyright, even though the music may be very old. The courts uphold this, saying the physical embodiment of the music on paper brings with it its own rights. It appears what has been released is all scans of old documents. This would mean the presentation of the material is in its original form, for which copyright has expired. I'm sure the scanner will try to say otherwise, though. Does anyone know if a court has ever ruled on this? I suspect the release of scanned pages was a conscious choice. Don't simply assume that the public domain nature of the content means you are free to copy a physical representation, though. Steve
Reply by ●July 25, 20112011-07-25
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:28:22 -0500, steveu wrote:>>steveu wrote: >> >>> This is a really stupid protest. I applaud the goal of making > university >>> research work more open. However, Aaron Swartz has been charged with >>> physically breaking and entering a wiring closet to tap into > information. >>> What reasonable person could support that kind of behaviour? Engaging > in >>> that kind of thing just helps the cause of those who like keeping > knowledge >>> behind closed walls. >> >>Just to clarify, the person who released these papers in protest is not >>Aaron Swartz and I believe that all the papers he released were >>published before 1923 and are hence out of copy right and in the public >>domain anyway. > > The release of papers is supposed to be a protest in support of Aaron > Swartz. That's what I think brings the release into disrepute. > > Copyright is a strange thing. Most music manuscript claims copyright, > even though the music may be very old. The courts uphold this, saying > the physical embodiment of the music on paper brings with it its own > rights. It appears what has been released is all scans of old documents. > This would mean the presentation of the material is in its original > form, for which copyright has expired. I'm sure the scanner will try to > say otherwise, though. Does anyone know if a court has ever ruled on > this? I suspect the release of scanned pages was a conscious choice. > Don't simply assume that the public domain nature of the content means > you are free to copy a physical representation, though.If you go to a library that has the originals from 1923, scan them in on equipment that you own or that the library is allowing you to use, and post it, then any copyrights to the _copy_ are yours to do with what you see fit. But yes, one could argue that if I own some scanned-in copies of public domain material that I own copyright on those scanned-in papers. Copyright law is odd, in no small part because it puts some very odd constraints on what would seem to be natural (and traditional) behavior. It has probably advanced Western economies to have it, but making it illegal for person A to sell copies of something that he physically owns to person B makes a lot less sense than making it illegal for person A to haul off and smack person B but good. -- www.wescottdesign.com
