(Close Window)
Topic: Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 13, 2016 11:53AM)
Discuss?
http://www.sciencealert.com/this-woman-has-illegally-uploaded-millions-of-journal-articles-in-an-attempt-to-open-up-science
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 11:58AM)
It's theft. I have little sympathy for rapacious academic publishers. But that doesn't justify theft.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 13, 2016 12:08PM)
Good! I have little sympathy for the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 01:11PM)
You are correct Magnus: Elsevier is profiting off the research they steal from the researchers.

[quote]
the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.
[/quote]



To put it another way, imagine if you wanted to make a DVD of your magic act ... and the only way to do so way to pay Elsevier to "publish" your DVD ... and after you pay them to "publish" your DVD, they keep all the profits they make selling it.

So who is stealing from whom??

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 13, 2016 01:33PM)
I would like to see what experiments Monsanto have been up to in Brazil

http://www.naturalnews.com/052943_Zika_virus_hoax_larvacide_chemical_GM_mosquitoes.html
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 02:02PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
You are correct Magnus: Elsevier is profiting off the research they steal from the researchers.[/quote]

This is nonsense. Researchers voluntarily submit papers for publication. Elsevier is one of many publishers. There are also an increasing number of "open access" journals.

I don't like Elsevier, but they are not in any way stealing research.

[quote]
the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.
[/quote]



To put it another way, imagine if you wanted to make a DVD of your magic act ... and the only way to do so way to pay Elsevier to "publish" your DVD ... and after you pay them to "publish" your DVD, they keep all the profits they make selling it.

So who is stealing from whom??

-JoeJoe [/quote]

Again, researchers voluntarily submit papers where they choose to do so. There is no coercion.

1. Almost all academic research is done by people who are paid to research. Why should they expect to get paid a second time for the research they were paid to do?

2. Most research (in the West, at least) is funded by grants. When the researcher applies for the grant, publication and conference publication are among the "deliverables" the researcher promises.

While funders could stipulate open source publication or some such, they don't.

Stealing from a company you don't like is still stealing.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 13, 2016 02:09PM)
I wonder if any geo engineering secret expedients revealed that will explain the strange weather and the like.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 02:17PM)
No - researchers are required to publish their material so it can be peer-reviewed. Until their work is published, it is worthless to everyone including themselves.

To put it another way again: the only way you would be allowed to do a magic show is if you paid Elsevier to publish your DVD first ... and after you paid them to do so, they kept all the money made from your DVD ... rendering your magic show worthless anyway, because everyone else has already paid Elsevier for it. A mafia style extortion racket.

Ultimately, it is about the money ... money or research?? Because that is what we are talking about ... the cure for Polio was given away for free, and unlike most cures sold today it actually worked.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 02:21PM)
What are you saying "No" to, JoeJoe?

BTW have you ever published academic research? Or been awarded a research grant?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 13, 2016 02:37PM)
Conditional research grants from the Rockefeller foundation?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 13, 2016 02:45PM)
She should be arrested and prosecuted.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 02:59PM)
I am saying I agree with Alexandra Elbakyan that Elsevier's business model is an illegal money racket. Your statement that the researcher is paid to do the research doesn't change that, it only means Elsevier is stealing from whoever paid the researcher.

Further, in order for science to come up with cures for diseases, the research must be shared so it can be peer-reviewed and verified. The idea of hiding scientific research that affects every single human being on Earth is unethical on multiple levels.

For example, what if your doctor had you taking a cancer drug and the research that shows this drug does not work is not made available to your doctor?? Are you willing to die in order to protect Elsevier's money?? I'm not.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 13, 2016 03:03PM)
[youtube]1Kl6u6rIbPo[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 03:11PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
I am saying I agree with Alexandra Elbakyan that Elsevier's business model is an illegal money racket. Your statement that the researcher is paid to do the research doesn't change that, it only means Elsevier is stealing from whoever paid the researcher.

Further, in order for science to come up with cures for diseases, the research must be shared so it can be peer-reviewed and verified. The idea of hiding scientific research that affects every single human being on Earth is unethical on multiple levels.

For example, what if your doctor had you taking a cancer drug and the research that shows this drug does not work is not made available to your doctor?? Are you willing to die in order to protect Elsevier's money?? I'm not.

-JoeJoe [/quote]

Illegal? How so?

I don't like the way it works, either. But our dislike of something doesn't make it illegal.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 03:24PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Illegal? How so?

I don't like the way it works, either. But our dislike of something doesn't make it illegal. [/quote]

Because the researcher (or company paying the researcher) does not get paid for their research that Elsevier then sells.

Again, that would like requiring you to pay Elsevier to publish and review your magic act ... and then Elsevier selling your act without paying you for it. Just like your act is not their act to sell, it is not their research to sell; they are stealing it from the researchers.

And it is not a question of if I like it or dislike it, nor is it a question of if it is legal or illegal; it is a violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 03:31PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Illegal? How so?

I don't like the way it works, either. But our dislike of something doesn't make it illegal. [/quote]

Because the researcher (or company paying the researcher) does not get paid for their research that Elsevier then sells.[/quote]

As I said above, the researcher VOLUNTARILY submits the paper. There is no theft.

And as I said above, the researcher usually is paid to conduct research, with publication part of the expectation.

There is no theft. None.

[quote]Again, that would like requiring you to pay Elsevier to publish and review your magic act ... and then Elsevier selling your act without paying you for it. Just like your act is not their act to sell, it is not their research to sell; they are stealing it from the researchers.[/quote]

Except that researchers are not required to publish with Elsevier (I never have.) There are other choices.

[quote]And it is not a question of if I like it or dislike it, nor is it a question of if it is legal or illegal; it is a violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

-JoeJoe [/quote]

So this is a change of heart. Just a few minutes ago you said that Elsevier was acting illegally. Glad to see you've changed your tune on that.

As for the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you've got me curious. Which article(s) of the Declaration do you believe that Elsevier (or any other academic publisher) is violating?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 13, 2016 03:32PM)
First there is sympathy, then there is no sympathy, then there is
The lock upon my garden gate's a snail, that's what it is.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 03:44PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
As I said above, the researcher VOLUNTARILY submits the paper. There is no theft.
[/quote]

FALSE - the researcher's research MUST be published so it can be peer-reviewed and verified.



[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Except that researchers are not required to publish with Elsevier (I never have.) There are other choices.
[/quote]

This is another choice created by the very researchers that are having their research stolen. The author's comparison to Pirate Bay is inaccurate in that it is the researchers themselves running this site, not a third-party profiteering middleman.



[quote]
As for the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you've got me curious. Which article(s) of the Declaration do you believe that Elsevier (or any other academic publisher) is violating? [/quote]

I'm just curious too - did you actually bother to read the article?? Because if you had you wouldn't need to ask me this question. :)



-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 03:49PM)
She makes the claim that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

Do you actually believe that this justifies theft?

Why stop at academic research? If the argument is valid, then there can be no justification in charging fees for movies, plays, music, museums, magic shows...

You seem to want to protect your magic show, while agreeing with this silly interpretation of article 27.

of course, she prevaricates with

[quote]She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.[/quote]

But how this is relevant to the claim that "everyone has a right to participate..." is beyond comprehension. If people have a right to the articles, it can't be contingent on how much the creator gets paid.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 04:14PM)
It is not her "claim" or a "silly interpretation" - it is an exact quote from the actual Declaration. Again, do your own research.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 04:22PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
But how this is relevant to the claim that "everyone has a right to participate..." is beyond comprehension. If people have a right to the articles, it can't be contingent on how much the creator gets paid. [/quote]

Exactly - that is why she is giving them away for "free". Because everyone has a right to scientific research ... if your doctor had you on a medicine you would expect access to all available medicine data on that drug as your very life depends on the accuracy of the researcher's claims.

Again, the Polio vaccine was given away for free ... that is how we knew it actually worked, because other doctors could verify the results. Otherwise, you are taking medicine they "claim" to work without knowing if it actually does work or does not.

Elsevier's comparison to the media industry that they have the "rights" to the researcher's research is a violation of basic human rights and puts the health of every human being on the face of this Earth in jeopardy - including your very own.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 04:29PM)
Her claim is that the quoted material
1. Applies to academic publishing,
2. Authorizes her to distribute the material that academic publishing houses have published,
3. Does not apply to other published material.

This is her justification. And JoeJoe seems to agree by saying "it is a violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights." Perhaps this was intended other than how it was written, rather like the earlier statement "I am saying I agree with Alexandra Elbakyan that Elsevier's business model is an illegal money racket."
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 04:40PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Her claim is that the quoted material
1. Applies to academic publishing,
2. Authorizes her to distribute the material that academic publishing houses have published,
3. Does not apply to other published material.
[/quote]

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights authorizes "everyone" to have access to scientific advancement, including Alexandra Elbakyan.

The ability of researchers to peer-review scientific research is more important than protecting Elsevier's bottom line; that is why it was declared a basic human right and has historically always been done that way.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 13, 2016 05:05PM)
[quote]I don't like the way it works, either. [/quote]

Then what is to be done? Does a society have a legitimate interest in making research public and freely available to other researchers?
Or shall it be that only those with the adequate funds are allowed access to previous work?
How can knowledge possibly advance this way?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2016 05:05PM)
Anyone read Russian? Sci-Hub
! Ошибка: не удалось открыть страницу
попробовать еще раз ➝
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 05:13PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, landmark wrote:
[quote]I don't like the way it works, either. [/quote]
[/quote]

It is odd ... people defending a "system" they admittedly don't like.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2016 05:22PM)
More interesting would be finding articles which were not actually published...

Even Wikipedia has a verification problem in that respect.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 06:02PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
As I said above, the researcher VOLUNTARILY submits the paper. There is no theft.
[/quote]

FALSE - the researcher's research MUST be published so it can be peer-reviewed and verified. [/quote]

It must be published SOMEWHERE. It doesn't have to be published with any particular publisher. There are a number of open-access journals that are unaffiliated with any for-profit publisher.


[quote]
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Except that researchers are not required to publish with Elsevier (I never have.) There are other choices.
[/quote]

This is another choice created by the very researchers that are having their research stolen. The author's comparison to Pirate Bay is inaccurate in that it is the researchers themselves running this site, not a third-party profiteering middleman. [/quote]

Sci-Hub does not ask for author permission. It does not pay one penny to the authors of the articles. The only people that benefit are the users who get something for free. The researchers/authors have no say in the running of Sci-Hub.


[quote][quote]
As for the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you've got me curious. Which article(s) of the Declaration do you believe that Elsevier (or any other academic publisher) is violating? [/quote]

I'm just curious too - did you actually bother to read the article?? Because if you had you wouldn't need to ask me this question. :)



-JoeJoe [/quote]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 13, 2016 06:31PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Anyone read Russian? Sci-Hub
! Ошибка: не удалось открыть страницу
попробовать еще раз ➝ [/quote]
Google translate says:
Error: Could not open the page
to try one more time
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 13, 2016 06:32PM)
Folks it's a battle for credibility.

Latest vs most prestigious vs most verified. Think of the metadata studies and mean time between updates of available research datasets.

Then if you let google at the raw data...

When in college, for a Jr project I accumulated available MMPI at the library and keyed the study data into a file to have SSPX run the ANOVA. Year, group, participants, scale, score. Got a pretty good finding on the PA scale against time with supporting related score correlations. That was going against the papers and data available at the school library. Spent a fair amount of research time finding that journal articles cited in an available journal were in a journal that was not unhand.

As you might imagine, I had hoped hypertext study data would have become standard by 1999. One of my advisors wanted arguments presented as citations. I wanted to do something like that for logic vs personal logic.

I'd like to see all the data as public access. I can understand the base level verification argument against dogma.

And I recall some history about the Student's tables and CRC books.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 13, 2016 06:34PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It must be published SOMEWHERE. It doesn't have to be published with any particular publisher. There are a number of open-access journals that are unaffiliated with any for-profit publisher.
[/quote]

It should be published EVERYWHERE.



[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Sci-Hub does not ask for author permission. It does not pay one penny to the authors of the articles. The only people that benefit are the users who get something for free. The researchers/authors have no say in the running of Sci-Hub.
[/quote]

Permission for EVERYONE to access the research is implied when they have their researched published. The purpose of publishing their research is so EVERYONE can have access to it.

The researcher doesn't profit from the sale of the publication, but rather from the ability of the other researcher's to peer-review and verifying their research, thus restricting that research is in no way, shape, or form in their best interest - you are making stupid and non-nonsensical conclusions. Trying to suggest the researchers are being harmed by this website is butt-backwards thinking.

Elsevier does not pay one penny to the researchers either, that is what the researchers are complaining about (duh).

The only people that benefit from Elsevier's business model are the rich elite that can afford to participate, and research on cancer and AIDS and virus' should be available to EVERYONE not just the rich elite (duh).

The researchers have no say in Elsevier's business model so all of your points are basically completely worthless (duh).



-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 13, 2016 06:47PM)
"Researchers voluntarily submit papers for publication. Elsevier is one of many publishers. There are also an increasing number of "open access" journals. I don't like Elsevier, but they are not in any way stealing research."

"Except that researchers are not required to publish with Elsevier (I never have.) There are other choices."

I have published in at least one Elsevier journal. Elsevier has an effective lock on some subject areas. In one area I have significant expertise in, hands down Elsevier has the best journal. It is hugely advantageous to publish in it. Open source journals that would publish results in the area are simply not respected.

I freely admit, the above represents only a tiny portion of the subject areas Elsevier covers.

I've not read the article in the original post yet (but I will do so soon) so I've no opinion on what the person did.

Off the top of my head, though, didn't someone else do this (release journal papers online) a few years ago? (For all I know right now, perhaps that is mentioned in the article.)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 07:00PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It must be published SOMEWHERE. It doesn't have to be published with any particular publisher. There are a number of open-access journals that are unaffiliated with any for-profit publisher.
[/quote]

It should be published EVERYWHERE.



[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Sci-Hub does not ask for author permission. It does not pay one penny to the authors of the articles. The only people that benefit are the users who get something for free. The researchers/authors have no say in the running of Sci-Hub.
[/quote]

Permission for EVERYONE to access the research is implied when they have their researched published. The purpose of publishing their research is so EVERYONE can have access to it.

The researcher doesn't profit from the sale of the publication, but rather from the ability of the other researcher's to peer-review and verifying their research, thus restricting that research is in no way, shape, or form in their best interest - you are making stupid and non-nonsensical conclusions. Trying to suggest the researchers are being harmed by this website is butt-backwards thinking.

Elsevier does not pay one penny to the researchers either, that is what the researchers are complaining about (duh).

The only people that benefit from Elsevier's business model are the rich elite that can afford to participate, and research on cancer and AIDS and virus' should be available to EVERYONE not just the rich elite (duh).

The researchers have no say in Elsevier's business model so all of your points are basically completely worthless (duh).



-JoeJoe [/quote]

The researchers have no say in SciHub's business model. So your points are completely worthless.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 07:01PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, balducci wrote:
"Researchers voluntarily submit papers for publication. Elsevier is one of many publishers. There are also an increasing number of "open access" journals. I don't like Elsevier, but they are not in any way stealing research."

"Except that researchers are not required to publish with Elsevier (I never have.) There are other choices."

I have published in at least one Elsevier journal. Elsevier has an effective lock on some subject areas. In one area I have significant expertise in, hands down Elsevier has the best journal. It is hugely advantageous to publish in it. Open source journals that would publish results in the area are simply not respected.

I freely admit, the above represents only a tiny portion of the subject areas Elsevier covers.

I've not read the article in the original post yet (but I will do so soon) so I've no opinion on what the person did.

Off the top of my head, though, didn't someone else do this (release journal papers online) a few years ago? (For all I know right now, perhaps that is mentioned in the article.) [/quote]

IMO academic publishing is a mess for a number of reasons. The fact that some journals have all the influence in a field, giving the publisher a virtual monopoly is definitely one of them.

The squabbling is about whether this mess justifies large-scale theft.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 13, 2016 10:24PM)
Theft? I think it's more like an act of civil disobedience. Action against a broken system that would not otherwise be fixed.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 10:59PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, landmark wrote:
Theft? I think it's more like an act of civil disobedience. Action against a broken system that would not otherwise be fixed. [/quote]

Is it not both?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 13, 2016 11:31PM)
So I read the article, and I think the thing is overblown. People who NEED to access, and who can actually understand, the articles for the most part can do so through their workplace license. I LOL at the notion that each uploaded article costs Elsevier $750 to $150,000 (figures taken from the article).

True story, decades ago I used to subscribe to one particular Elsevier journal. It cost something like $1100 a year (again, this was decades ago). I met the editor a few years later and he mentioned that there were only about 200 subscriptions to the journal, world wide. (I was one of the very few individual, versus institutional, subscribers. The editor was unaware of this at the time.)

Another true story, I learned a few weeks ago that some of my work was included (without permission) in a popular open source software package. Where are my sweet royalties, I asked myself. Just kidding. I was happy and flattered to see my work get that sort of recognition. But only because the work had previously appeared in a formal refereed forum.

My thoughts on the subject are complicated and perhaps (at least to those unfamiliar with publishing) somewhat contradictory.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 13, 2016 11:51PM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, balducci wrote:


Another true story, I learned a few weeks ago that some of my work was included (without permission) in a popular open source software package. Where are my sweet royalties, I asked myself. Just kidding. I was happy and flattered to see my work get that sort of recognition. But only because the work had previously appeared in a formal refereed forum.
[/quote]

R?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2016 05:04AM)
I think it would have been polite to have asked the authors for permission to publish.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 08:10AM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
The researchers have no say in SciHub's business model. So your points are completely worthless. [/quote]

Again false ... SciHub was setup by researchers ... Scihub is being run by researchers ... the lawsuit being filed is against researchers.



[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
The squabbling is about whether this mess justifies large-scale theft. [/quote]

You keep trying to hold on to this illegal file-sharing Pirate Bay comparison, you are being misled.

A more accurate comparison: the record company is suing Metallica because Metallica downloaded their album after they paid the record company to publish the album.

At some point you realize that Elsevier is involved in an illegal mafia-style racketeering scam that is making it nearly impossible for scientists and researchers to create the cures we the human beings of Earth need to survive here.

We should not willing to give up our quality of life to protect Elsevier's ill-gained profits.



-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 08:45AM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
Again false ... SciHub was setup by researchers ... Scihub is being run by researchers ... the lawsuit being filed is against researchers.
[/quote]

I can add that the access keys used by Scihub to access the research in the first place were provided by "anonymous donors" who are most likely researchers themselves, so the idea that this data was illegally download is a total crock-of-crap as Elsevier was indeed paid.

It was "donated" to the researchers by someone anonymously.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 14, 2016 08:46AM)
Ok JoeJoe, at least I know where you stand. If I submit my paper to an academic journal of my choosing. The paoer passes oeer review and meets editorial standards. And the publisher then publishes my paper, that's bad. But after publication, if a researcher I've never met obtains a copy of my paper and puts it on SciHub without my consent, then that's good.

Is this what you believe?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2016 09:33AM)
His position as usual seems to be that everyone should own everything so there is never any theft. We suspend all private property rights.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2016 10:03AM)
Open access is unrestricted online access to peer-reviewed scholarly research more or less and many pure open access journals do charge an article processing fee. One must buy a journal, a newspaper or whatever and so nothing is really free. In short public access is not the same as free access.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 14, 2016 10:38AM)
What is the study / repeat study verification history of the data they publish?

The copyright on the journal article seems a straightforward claim.

The other access side could work with all the documents that comprise the data and exclude the formal journal article text. Treat that as black box / relic in a case and work around it in open discussion. By analogy sailing to India by going east...

Probably easier to take the first approach as verification path. But excluding the text and including all the study documents to get to the thesis and findings may also work. After a few duplication failures a more honest dialog can commence.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 10:43AM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
His position as usual seems to be that everyone should own everything so there is never any theft. We suspend all private property rights. [/quote]

What I said is the information was never "illegally" downloaded from Elsevier's servers - it was legally downloaded thanks to "anonymous donors". The author's spin on this article is inaccurate, starting with his comparison to Pirate Bay.

In order for it to have been illegally downloaded, someone would have had to have broken into Elsevier's computers and downloaded the research without actually paying Elsevier for it ... that never happened, they received payment for each and every article ever published at Sci-hub thanks to "anonymous donors".

We basically have a non-profit information hub for professionals; if you started a research company and paid Elsevier for a research article, all of your employees would be able to access said research article. There is no violation of the "system" here.

What I said was that just because Elsevier published someone's research does not give them world-wide exclusive license to that research to the extent that even the researcher that did the research can then no longer be legally allowed to re-publish the research elsewhere.

Because that is exactly what Elsevier is claiming - that if a researcher publishes the cure for AIDS through them, they then own that research outright and everyone else in the world (including the original researcher) must then pay them whatever they charge for it.

The human population is not going to allow that - only an idiot would agree to it.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 10:49AM)
Think of it like this: a book publisher is trying to sue the public library because people can read books for free at the library.

Too ******* bad, deal with it *****. :)

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 14, 2016 11:02AM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
Think of it like this: a book publisher is trying to sue the public library because people can read books for free at the library.

Too ******* bad, deal with it *****. :)

-JoeJoe [/quote]

Ah, we get the honest answer at last. I will take whatever I want and you can't stop me. Nyaaaah.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 11:09AM)
That is right - not everything has to be bought sold or traded; it can be "donated". Even you benefit from this - welcome to the human race.

Hopefully these researchers can find cures for AIDS and cancer and blindness, I wish them the best. :)

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 14, 2016 11:31AM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Ok JoeJoe, at least I know where you stand. If I submit my paper to an academic journal of my choosing. The paoer passes oeer review and meets editorial standards. And the publisher then publishes my paper, that's bad. But after publication, if a researcher I've never met obtains a copy of my paper and puts it on SciHub without my consent, then that's good.

Is this what you believe? [/quote]
I've had very limited experience with this, but here's my take.

I've had a (very) few articles in my field (theater history) that were peer-reviewed and published in respected journals. This is decades ago. But I can find those articles now on the Internet republished by third parties. I never gave permission to those third parties.

[i]Nor would I expect that permission would have to be given. [/i]

I don't and wouldn't feel the same way, say, had I written and published a novel.

The [i]confluence[/i] of the following is important I think:

1) We're talking about non-rivalrous goods
2) We're talking about academic research
3) We're talking about access to other researchers

If academic research isn't freely available to peers for review and building upon, then the concept of academia in a free society is a joke.

Jon's solution, just giving access to the raw data is only a partial solution. Science is not just about replication but the interpretation of results. Without an actual article to review, important discussions would be curtailed.

There is much to be said pro and con about the arguments for intellectual property rights in various venues. But this is [i]not[/i] that discussion. We are talking about academic research.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 11:48AM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Ok JoeJoe, at least I know where you stand. If I submit my paper to an academic journal of my choosing. The paoer passes oeer review and meets editorial standards. And the publisher then publishes my paper, that's bad. But after publication, if a researcher I've never met obtains a copy of my paper and puts it on SciHub without my consent, then that's good.

Is this what you believe? [/quote]

I believe that if someone you've never met downloads your research from SciHub and uses your research to discover the cure for AIDS ..... then that is good.

I believe that If your research had not been downloaded, and AIDS does not get cured when it could be cured ..... then that is bad.

What does your consent have to do with the use of the research?? By having it published, you are consenting to let other researchers use it - that is exactly what is happening here, research is being used for what it was intended to be used for.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 14, 2016 12:32PM)
Surely there is a distinction between changing a system to function differently and stealing from those who currently have a legal right to control their property.

I'm not a fan of the current system of academic publishing. I'd love to see changes.

But none of that justifies theft today.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 12:39PM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Surely there is a distinction between changing a system to function differently and stealing from those who currently have a legal right to control their property.
[/quote]

The scientific "system" you are referring to has historically always worked this way - it is only within the last so many years that an attempt to change it began.

You seem to be confused; Elsevier is the one trying to change an existing system - not me. As I already stated, research on the polio vaccine was given away for free - that is how it was confirmed to actually work.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2016 12:50PM)
It is not property legally speaking but a thing in action. If it is in the public domain then who owns it?
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 12:57PM)
The research itself is not "property"; only the paper it is printed on is. They don't get an exclusive copyright just because they printed the research - they only get the paper they printed it on.

It would be like trying to copyright letters of the alphabet and telling people they have to pay you a fee to use their letters - not happening.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 14, 2016 01:21PM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The research itself is not "property"; only the paper it is printed on is. They don't get an exclusive copyright just because they printed the research - they only get the paper they printed it on.

It would be like trying to copyright letters of the alphabet and telling people they have to pay you a fee to use their letters - not happening.

-JoeJoe [/quote]

Are you inventing international copyright law now? You seem to be confusing the law as it is with the law as you'd like it to be.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 01:52PM)
I am pointing out that scientific researchers do not get to use copyrights laws to pick and choose who gets to peer-review and verify their data.

Would you honestly inject a drug into your body that the researcher refused to let your doctor review and verify that it actually worked first??

You are honestly okay with letting a researcher inject a drug into the entire human population, the same population they refuse to share their data on that drug with??

All so a publishing company that had absolutely nothing to do with the research can profit off it?? [[rolling eyes]]

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2016 02:07PM)
It seems to me, it is author who owns a peer-reviewed published paper in one sense. However, because it is published for everybody to challenge etcetera, then nobody is taking possession of it or stealing it but simply reading it or distrusting it in accordance with the authors wish. Anybody holding it from others is the real crook because he is circumventing the will of the author.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2016 02:20PM)
He obviously has no clue how the world actually is and pines away for a world he wants.

JoeJoe you do not get to make up stuff out of whole cloth and have everyone believe it is true.

Try understanding first, then change. Without understanding what you want to change from, to it is meaningless.

You keep yapping about a Polio vaccine. Amazing how that is the only example you can think of.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 14, 2016 02:33PM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
You keep yapping about a Polio vaccine. Amazing how that is the only example you can think of. [/quote]

All medical research must be peer-reviewed; again, it is not my responsibility to do your research - if you don't understand the process or it's history, it is not my responsibility to explain it to you.

As Tommy pointed out, if you want to contribute scientific research to the community then the community has the right to challenge your research. Anyone holding it back from others is the real crook, go back to where I stated "who is stealing from whom?".

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2016 02:49PM)
YOU have no clue the terms you bandy about. You say "peer reviewed" and yet have deonstrated in this very thread you have NO CLUE what goes into the process or what that process actually is.

2 contributers who have GONE THROUH the process have tried to help you and as usual you IGNORE anyone with ACTUAL EXPERIENCE and forge ahead with your nonsense.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 14, 2016 03:47PM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
I am pointing out that scientific researchers do not get to use copyrights laws to pick and choose who gets to peer-review and verify their data. [/quote]

So what? Copyright law has nothing to do with their dinner dates either. Copyright law is about the ownership of the right to copy something.

[quote]Would you honestly inject a drug into your body that the researcher refused to let your doctor review and verify that it actually worked first??

You are honestly okay with letting a researcher inject a drug into the entire human population, the same population they refuse to share their data on that drug with?? [/quote]

You're changing the topic. The issue at hand is whether academic publishers--who usually, but not always own the copyright to the material they publish (in some cases, the publisher gets first right, and the authors retain future publication rights)--are protected by copyright law.

Drug testing is a completely different issue than results publishing.

[quote]All so a publishing company that had absolutely nothing to do with the research can profit off it?? [[rolling eyes]]

-JoeJoe [/quote]

A publishing company can profit off of--wait for it--publishing! Owning the copyright to an article does not give patent rights, manufacturing privileges or anything like that. When publishers publish journals or books they have the legal right to sell them and they have legal protection of the reproduction of their products.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2016 03:55PM)
It reminds me of climate gate scandal where Phil Jones was holding back and destroying data and sayings things like I am not giving it to you because all you want to do is criticize it.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 14, 2016 04:11PM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, tommy wrote:
It reminds me of climate gate scandal where Phil Jones was holding back and destroying data and sayings things like I am not giving it to you because all you want to do is criticize it. [/quote]

But it's a very different issue. Here, researchers submit their articles to publishing houses. The publishing houses charge very high fees for the right to read these articles. Ultimately, the journals are available to well-funded universities, libraries and well-funded researchers.

The issue behind all this is cost. SciHub steals the material, making it freely available.

At that's the issue. Is the stealing justified?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 14, 2016 04:16PM)
[quote] The publishing houses charge very high fees for the right to read these articles. Ultimately, the journals are available to well-funded universities, libraries and well-funded researchers.
[/quote]
Or not.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2016 04:42PM)
Just because somebody publishes something does not mean they have the copyright. After the peer review if the publisher asks you to sign a copyright transfer agreement, then I suggest that you say no.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 14, 2016 04:50PM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, tommy wrote:
Just because somebody publishes something does not mean they have the copyright. After the peer review if the publisher asks you to sign a copyright transfer agreement, then I suggest that you say no. [/quote]

As I said, a few journals allow the author to retain rights most do not. It's how the academic publishing world works.

In reality very few scholarly articles would make any money for the authors if they retained all rights.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2016 04:51PM)
I think you would be an idiot to sign a copyright transfer agreement to the publisher for your peer reviewed work, but I am only a street kid as opposed to a stupid scientist. :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 14, 2016 08:00PM)
[quote]If academic research isn't freely available to peers for review and building upon, then the concept of academia in a free society is a joke.
[/quote]
Discuss?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2016 10:11PM)
I think the real issue is if they can or not sell it at prices not all can afford. I would say not. because that would be a form of censorship.

"Freely" available. what does that mean?


My understanding anyway is the purpose of the process is to share legitimate information in the field, as opposed to sowing nonsense, so that it can be tested etc by all. Not sharing it or sharing it with a select few is contrary to the purpose.

Suppose it was a climate change paper supporting the man made idea but it was only shared with climate hysterics and no skeptics were allowed to see it. Then it would not be valid at all but a joke I think.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 15, 2016 06:42AM)
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
A publishing company can profit off of--wait for it--publishing! Owning the copyright to an article does not give patent rights, manufacturing privileges or anything like that. When publishers publish journals or books they have the legal right to sell them and they have legal protection of the reproduction of their products. [/quote]

That is right - they own the paper they printed it on - period!! They do not own the research itself, therefore have no right to prevent anyone else from also publishing that research. They charge people to download the content, not the content itself.


[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
So what? Copyright law has nothing to do with their dinner dates either. Copyright law is about the ownership of the right to copy something.
[/quote]

Exactly - and as you already said they don't own the research, only the copy they made of it. They do not have the authority to sue someone else for something they don't own, only the original author has that right and no illegal "pay-to-play" racketeering scam to steal those rights from the author can be allowed to stand ... if I were a judge, I would hold the company in contempt of court for a frivolous lawsuit and seek the incarceration of the upper management. :)



The really sad and disgusting part is you fail to understand the purpose of the system: the research is published so that other researchers can have access to it and verify it and build upon it in the pursuit of scientific advancement. If the researchers do not have access to it, there can be no scientific advancement.

You seem to think the purpose of the "system" is for people to make money: NO!! The purpose of the system is to distribute goods and resources, in this case: scientific research to the scientific community. If it is not doing that ... it is broken and needs to be fixed.

Your love of money is going to be the extinction of the human race because it is failing to meet the purpose of the system. Left to it's own devices ... it will collapse ... and take down whomever is standing on it.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 15, 2016 06:44AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
the purpose of the system: the research is published so that other researchers can have access to it and verify it and build upon it in the pursuit of scientific advancement. If the researchers do not have access to it, there can be no scientific advancement.
[/quote]

And before you say something stupid ..... remember that the researchers are the ones that have to PAY to use this system!! They make no profit from this system.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 06:49AM)
[quote]"Freely" available. what does that mean? [/quote]

Not "freely" available. Freely available. No ambiguous quote marks. I would think the meaning clear, but to amplify, it means access through libraries/websites/filesharing without payment to those who wish access. There are all sorts of governmental and non-governmental websites that presently expedite that process for some kinds of knowledge.

Agreed with your climate change paper example. Restricting access to the scrutiny and development of academic knowledge is harmful to a democratic society.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Feb 15, 2016 07:30AM)
I feel Magnus has made some great points here. My brother is an academic and I nearly went down the same route. Instead I became a writer.

When I write a book the publishing is where the profit is. So as a writer I need to make my income there. So do artists and musicians. Academic work, however, is paid for in other ways (salary from your university, patents, research grants, etc). Publication is not where the profit is, but is just one of the end results of publication. So the researchers are not being ripped off by scientific publishers. Whether scientific publishers over-charge for their publications is a whole other debate.

In practice if you are a poor academic researching some obscure scientific nook, and you want access to research you will get it. You can always contact the original researchers. Information and knowledge does get spread.

Making everything available free online will have a few knock-on effects. If you make scientific journals less profitable they will cease publication, reducing the outlets for publication. But you won't help the original researchers at all. I think what this Russian site is doing is illegal (obviously) but also immoral and unethical.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 07:30AM)
[quote]
And before you say something stupid ....
-JoeJoe [/quote]

If only you would hold yourself to such a high standard this would be much easier.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 07:33AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, TonyB2009 wrote:
I feel Magnus has made some great points here. My brother is an academic and I nearly went down the same route. Instead I became a writer.

When I write a book the publishing is where the profit is. So as a writer I need to make my income there. So do artists and musicians. Academic work, however, is paid for in other ways (salary from your university, patents, research grants, etc). Publication is not where the profit is, but is just one of the end results of publication. So the researchers are not being ripped off by scientific publishers. Whether scientific publishers over-charge for their publications is a whole other debate.

In practice if you are a poor academic researching some obscure scientific nook, and you want access to research you will get it. You can always contact the original researchers. Information and knowledge does get spread.

Making everything available free online will have a few knock-on effects. If you make scientific journals less profitable they will cease publication, reducing the outlets for publication. But you won't help the original researchers at all. I think what this Russian site is doing is illegal (obviously) but also immoral and unethical. [/quote]

Who pays the salary, who pays the grants and who applies for patents? Certainly that money is not free it is an investment. Shouldn't the person making that investment of their property be able to benefit from such a thing?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 07:57AM)
[quote]Who pays the salary, who pays the grants and who applies for patents? [/quote]
Not the publishers.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 08:03AM)
[quote]
When I write a book the publishing is where the profit is. So as a writer I need to make my income there. So do artists and musicians. Academic work, however, is paid for in other ways (salary from your university, patents, research grants, etc). Publication is not where the profit is, but is just one of the end results of publication. So the researchers are not being ripped off by scientific publishers. Whether scientific publishers over-charge for their publications is a whole other debate.

[/quote]

Agreed, the distinction between academic research and other kinds of creative work. But whether scientific publishers overcharge (and restrict access) is, imo, [i]exactly[/i] the debate.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 08:16AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, landmark wrote:
[quote]Who pays the salary, who pays the grants and who applies for patents? [/quote]
Not the publishers. [/quote]

No but isn't publishing a different business?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 09:06AM)
Not sure what you're getting at. Could you explain more?
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 15, 2016 09:21AM)
[quote]"Freely" available. what does that mean? [/quote]

Scihub is not "freely" available; the researchers being sued pay for it and not just with money but with their blood sweat and tears.

If the private sector can't do as good as a job as the free sector, perhaps they should step-up their game and stop telling others to tone down theirs. Because that is what they are complaining about.

This is not like Metallica suing fans because they are using Napster; this is Napster suing Metallica because they won't let them publish their content exclusively ...

... case-in-point: scientists are vowing to boycott this publishing company that ya'll is defending. They are the owners of the research - when the publishing company publishes their research, they are publishing it as a service for them - that is what they are paying them to do ... they do not get paid to impede publishing, duh:

http://thecostofknowledge.com/

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 09:58AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, landmark wrote:
Not sure what you're getting at. Could you explain more? [/quote]

All research is an investment. So who pays for that investment?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 15, 2016 10:18AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, landmark wrote:
Not sure what you're getting at. Could you explain more? [/quote]

All research is an investment. So who pays for that investment? [/quote]

This is an important insight. If anyone has the power to (legally) weaken the publishing monopoly, it's the research funders. If funding were contingent on affordable distribution, the publishers would have to accommodate or die.

I suspect that it will eventually come to something like this.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 10:48AM)
Everyone seems to ignore the hard cost of research.

And beforemost someone says something stupid like free oranges think first.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2016 10:54AM)
Does sciHub review submissions?

If not, then what is the,reliability if the data one finds there?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 11:42AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, landmark wrote:
Not sure what you're getting at. Could you explain more? [/quote]

All research is an investment. So who pays for that investment? [/quote]

This is an important insight. If anyone has the power to (legally) weaken the publishing monopoly, it's the research funders. If funding were contingent on affordable distribution, the publishers would have to accommodate or die.

I suspect that it will eventually come to something like this. [/quote]
In the case of non-governmental funders, there's no incentive for funders to demand that of publishers. What's the incentive for funders?

This is a societal problem that needs to be solved with societal norms: i.e. it is in the interest of a democratic society to support the free dissemination of academic knowledge. There are several approaches--the easiest is the filesharing approach; other possible approaches include govt subsidies for journals, or subsidies for those who would access them. I'm not sure yet which approach I favor.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 11:47AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Does sciHub review submissions?

If not, then what is the,reliability if the data one finds there? [/quote]
My understanding is that Sci-hub is simply reprinting the journal articles, so the reliability is the same.

If your point is that the journals incur costs in the peer-review process, I think that's the one fair point so far. But those costs are minor compared to what they are charging; as far as I know, at least in my case, peer reviewers are not paid. So there are some costs for providing the container but it is vastly inflated. Either govt subsidy for real costs, to private publishers or an arm of the govt printing office could cover those costs.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 15, 2016 11:52AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
A publishing company can profit off of--wait for it--publishing! Owning the copyright to an article does not give patent rights, manufacturing privileges or anything like that. When publishers publish journals or books they have the legal right to sell them and they have legal protection of the reproduction of their products. [/quote]
That is right - they own the paper they printed it on - period!! They do not own the research itself, therefore have no right to prevent anyone else from also publishing that research.[/quote]
You clearly don't understand copyright.

The publisher doesn't own merely the paper. They own the right to publish the research. Nobody else has that right. If someone else publishes that research, they've violated the publisher's copyright.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 15, 2016 11:59AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Does sciHub review submissions?

If not, then what is the,reliability if the data one finds there? [/quote]

This is one of the biggest issues with open access. Who will be the custodian, and can they be trusted? Open access without funded and transparent archival responsibilities opens to door to Ministry of Truth editing.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 12:01PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
A publishing company can profit off of--wait for it--publishing! Owning the copyright to an article does not give patent rights, manufacturing privileges or anything like that. When publishers publish journals or books they have the legal right to sell them and they have legal protection of the reproduction of their products. [/quote]
That is right - they own the paper they printed it on - period!! They do not own the research itself, therefore have no right to prevent anyone else from also publishing that research.[/quote]
You clearly don't understand copyright.

The publisher doesn't own merely the paper. They own the right to publish the research. Nobody else has that right. If someone else publishes that research, they've violated the publisher's copyright. [/quote]


Not in the land where oranges are currency of the realm and free.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 12:13PM)
Just a point of clarification of my position for those who are talking about the cost of research.

I am not talking about limiting someone from recouping on their research investment. Jonas Salk donated his polio vaccine in an incredible gesture of generosity, but I recognize that that is the exception. I am only arguing about the reproduction of the published academic work, not the rivalrous goods that may come out of it.

Suppose someone tomorrow finds an AIDS vaccine. I am *not* arguing that they should not be allowed to make money off it. But that is in the realm of patent law and possibly trade secrets. What I am arguing is that in that case, researchers should still have access to the published paper in order to vet the science and possibly advance it. If the researchers decide not to publish, then we are in a different world than that of academic research.

When a journal charges $750 for access to an article, the investors in the research see none of that money. That is strictly a publishing issue.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 12:15PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Does sciHub review submissions?

If not, then what is the,reliability if the data one finds there? [/quote]

This is one of the biggest issues with open access. Who will be the custodian, and can they be trusted? Open access without funded and transparent archival responsibilities opens to door to Ministry of Truth editing. [/quote]

John, as a matter of clarification--in the scientific fields is it the norm that peer-reviewers get paid for their review work?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 12:17PM)
Doesn't publishing cost money?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 15, 2016 12:21PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, landmark wrote:


John, as a matter of clarification--in the scientific fields is it the norm that peer-reviewers get paid for their review work? [/quote]

First, in my brief academic "career" I was a social scientist (education research) not a scientist, as we usually use the term. (I am not, and never have been tenured faculty at a university.)

Generally speaking, researching, journal publishing and peer-reviewing are not tasks for which scholars are paid. Authors of books get royalties; authors of journal articles and book chapters usually do not.

Peer-reviewing is seen as one of the duties of a paid scholar; it's contribution to the academic community.

In most colleges and universities (in North America, anyways), a professor's salary and increments are based on a formula that includes research, teaching and academic service such as peer-reviewing. There is a new trend toward adding public service (community outreach, support of public education, media, etc.) to the formula.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 12:28PM)
[quote]Generally speaking, researching, journal publishing and peer-reviewing are not tasks for which scholars are paid. Authors of books get royalties; authors of journal articles and book chapters usually do not.

Peer-reviewing is seen as one of the duties of a paid scholar; it's contribution to the academic community. [/quote]
Yes, that was my experience in the humanities too. I'm assuming that's true in the hard sciences too, but I could be wrong.

@Danny: yes, there is a cost of publishing and that is a fair point. So it seems to me that there needs to be a solution that addresses those costs while keeping open access to scholars and researchers.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 15, 2016 12:52PM)
What's the product?

Timely prestigiously announced findings?
Robust research data?

Different use cases.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 15, 2016 12:59PM)
Referees are very rarely paid cash money to referee journal papers. What I've observed in recent years is that you might be given complimentary short term access to some online resource maintained by the publisher. Like, say, access to the journal archives for a month. I think this is probably only a real benefit for people in developing or very poor nations. I mean, I doubt a researcher at, say, State College, Some State, USA, would not already have access.

Once in a blue moon you might get a cash honourarium for reviewing a book. I think I once scored $50 for doing this. Woo hoo.

Let me also mention that some for profit publishers, including Elsevier, support provide versions of open access for some or all of their publications. A random example:

https://www.elsevier.com/journals/applied-geochemistry/0883-2927/open-access-options
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 01:07PM)
From balducci's link:

"To provide open access, this journal has a publication fee which needs to be met by the authors or their research funders for each article published open access.

The open access publication fee for this journal is USD 2500, excluding taxes."

We're starting to get into [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli] Martin Shkreli territory,[/url] though I'll probably be sorry I brought him up, as the cases have some important differences.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 15, 2016 01:14PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
You clearly don't understand copyright.

The publisher doesn't own merely the paper. They own the right to publish the research. Nobody else has that right. If someone else publishes that research, they've violated the publisher's copyright. [/quote]

You are the one that clearly doesn't understand. The publisher's publication is a COPY of the researcher's research. The RESEARCHER owns the right to allow that to be copied .... NOT the publisher.



[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Everyone seems to ignore the hard cost of research.
[/quote]

The investor paying the cost of the research must also pay the publisher to have the research published. The publisher not allowing people to read the research is an example of someone not doing the job they are being paid to do. It is a violation of your system ... not mine.

Do the people reading the magazines at the doctor's office have to pay the publisher for the privilege of being able to read the magazines their doctor paid for?? Of course not - duh.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 15, 2016 01:15PM)
[quote]What was needed was a piece of pure fantasy. Suddenly there sprang into his mind, ready made as it were, the image of a certain Comrade Ogilvy, who had recently died in battle, in heroic circumstances. There were occasions when Big Brother devoted his Order for the Day to commemorating some humble, rank-and-file Party member whose life and death he held up as an example worthy to be followed. Today he should commemorate Comrade Ogilvy. It was true that there was no such person as Comrade Ogilvy, but a few lines of print and a couple of faked photographs would soon bring him into existence.

Winston thought for a moment, then pulled the speakwrite towards him and began dictating in Big Brother’s familiar style: a style at once military and pedantic, and, because of a trick of asking questions and then promptly answering them (‘What lessons do we learn from this fact, comrades? The lesson -- which is also one of the fundamental principles of Ingsoc -- that,’ etc., etc.), easy to imitate.

At the age of three Comrade Ogilvy had refused all toys except a drum, a sub-machine gun, and a model helicopter. At six-- a year early, by a special relaxation of the rules-- he had joined the Spies, at nine he had been a troop leader. At eleven he had denounced his uncle to the Thought Police after overhearing a conversation which appeared to him to have criminal tendencies. At seventeen he had been a district organizer of the Junior Anti-Sex League. At nineteen he had designed a hand-grenade which had been adopted by the Ministry of Peace and which, at its first trial, had killed thirty-one Eurasian prisoners in one burst. At twenty-three he had perished in action. Pursued by enemy jet planes while flying over the Indian Ocean with important despatches, he had weighted his body with his machine gun and leapt out of the helicopter into deep water, despatches and all — an end, said Big Brother, which it was impossible to contemplate without feelings of envy. Big Brother added a few remarks on the purity and single-mindedness of Comrade Ogilvy’s life. He was a total abstainer and a nonsmoker, had no recreations except a daily hour in the gymnasium, and had taken a vow of celibacy, believing marriage and the care of a family to be incompatible with a twenty-four-hour-a-day devotion to duty. He had no subjects of conversation except the principles of Ingsoc, and no aim in life except the defeat of the Eurasian enemy and the hunting-down of spies, saboteurs, thought-criminals, and traitors generally.

Winston debated with himself whether to award Comrade Ogilvy the Order of Conspicuous Merit: in the end he decided against it because of the unnecessary cross-referencing that it would entail.

Once again he glanced at his rival in the opposite cubicle. Something seemed to tell him with certainty that Tillotson was busy on the same job as himself. There was no way of knowing whose job would finally be adopted, but he felt a profound conviction that it would be his own. Comrade Ogilvy, unimagined an hour ago, was now a fact. It struck him as curious that you could create dead men but not living ones. Comrade Ogilvy, who had never existed in the present, now existed in the past, and when once the act of forgery was forgotten, he would exist just as authentically, and upon the same evidence, as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar.[/quote]

Orwell, [i]1984[/i]. Chapter 4
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 15, 2016 01:17PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
A publishing company can profit off of--wait for it--publishing! Owning the copyright to an article does not give patent rights, manufacturing privileges or anything like that. When publishers publish journals or books they have the legal right to sell them and they have legal protection of the reproduction of their products. [/quote]
That is right - they own the paper they printed it on - period!! They do not own the research itself, therefore have no right to prevent anyone else from also publishing that research.[/quote]
You clearly don't understand copyright.

The publisher doesn't own merely the paper. They own the right to publish the research. Nobody else has that right. If someone else publishes that research, they've violated the publisher's copyright. [/quote]
Not quite. For instance, Elsevier allows research / data / results to be published elsewhere. You cannot just republish the same research paper effectively word for word elsewhere. But one certainly can reference and republish the results and data elsewhere. This is done all of the time.

https://www.elsevier.com/copyright

"Elsevier supports the need for authors to share, disseminate and maximize the impact of their research"

Authors "Retain patent, trademark and other intellectual property rights (including raw research data)"

But Elsevier certainly wants to be attributed.

See the link and its sublinks for all the details. Again, I have been published by Elsevier and have personal experience in these matters.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 01:30PM)
[quote]

Do the people reading the magazines at the doctor's office have to pay the publisher for the privilege of being able to read the magazines their doctor paid for?? Of course not - duh.

-JoeJoe [/quote]
One of the most ridiculous things you have ever written. And I must say that is a competitive title.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 15, 2016 02:14PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
You clearly don't understand copyright.

The publisher doesn't own merely the paper. They own the right to publish the research. Nobody else has that right. If someone else publishes that research, they've violated the publisher's copyright.[/quote]
You are the one that clearly doesn't understand. The publisher's publication is a COPY of the researcher's research. The RESEARCHER owns the right to allow that to be copied .... NOT the publisher.[/quote]
Try to follow along here JoeJoe: the researcher has given the copyright to the publisher.

The researcher owns the research (or, more accurately, the entity that paid the researcher to do the research owns the research), but the publisher owns the copyright.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 15, 2016 02:16PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 14, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
A publishing company can profit off of--wait for it--publishing! Owning the copyright to an article does not give patent rights, manufacturing privileges or anything like that. When publishers publish journals or books they have the legal right to sell them and they have legal protection of the reproduction of their products. [/quote]
That is right - they own the paper they printed it on - period!! They do not own the research itself, therefore have no right to prevent anyone else from also publishing that research.[/quote]
You clearly don't understand copyright.

The publisher doesn't own merely the paper. They own the right to publish the research. Nobody else has that right. If someone else publishes that research, they've violated the publisher's copyright.[/quote]
Not quite. For instance, Elsevier allows research / data / results to be published elsewhere. You cannot just republish the same research paper effectively word for word elsewhere. But one certainly can reference and republish the results and data elsewhere. This is done all of the time.

https://www.elsevier.com/copyright

"Elsevier supports the need for authors to share, disseminate and maximize the impact of their research"

Authors "Retain patent, trademark and other intellectual property rights (including raw research data)"

But Elsevier certainly wants to be attributed.

See the link and its sublinks for all the details. Again, I have been published by Elsevier and have personal experience in these matters.[/quote]
It seems to me that your viewpoint should trump all others in this discussion.

That it doesn't is shameful.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 15, 2016 02:23PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
It seems to me that your viewpoint should trump all others in this discussion.[/quote]

Neither balducci nor Elsevier have the authority to write copyright laws, a court's viewpoint will be what trumps everything in this discussion.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 02:33PM)
You're joking right?

Courts since the inception of this country have written private property laws you do nor respect. Court means nothing to you.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Feb 15, 2016 02:50PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, tommy wrote:
First there is sympathy, then there is no sympathy, then there is
The lock upon my garden gate's a snail, that's what it is. [/quote]

Wow, it's been a long time since I flashed on Donovon.

[youtube]lkLp9d7HKuA[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 04:06PM)
[quote]But Elsevier certainly wants to be attributed.[/quote]
Uh, again, hard to give attribution to that which you can't access.
An abstract is simply not the same as the original article for research verification purposes.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 15, 2016 07:50PM)
In my view, if you sign a copyright transfer agreement to the publisher, then the publisher owns it. Moreover, I think they will try to get you to do just that and I would not sign it if I were you. JoeJoe, I think is one knows. It is a legal matter anyway and so better to speak to a lawyer about it, as opposed to a scientist or a magician.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 15, 2016 08:04PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
It seems to me that your viewpoint should trump all others in this discussion.[/quote]
Neither balducci nor Elsevier have the authority to write copyright laws, a court's viewpoint will be what trumps everything in this discussion.[/quote]
Not surprisingly, you've completely misunderstood the conversation.

A court doesn't know whether a researcher transfers the copyright to their research to Elsevier.

A researcher who has had research published by Elsevier is likely to know whether the copyright is transferred.

Try to keep up.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 15, 2016 09:12PM)
Just remember all things are free. It is simply a matter of how many oranges it will cost you.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 15, 2016 09:12PM)
Another article about Sci-Hub here:

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 15, 2016 09:13PM)
You Bill are the one that claimed that the publisher owns more than the paper without knowing if or not a copyright transfer agreement had been signed. Without evidence of a copyright transfer we must assume that there is none and all the publisher owns is the paper.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 15, 2016 10:09PM)
Copyright transfer is pretty standard in this kind of thing. Kind of like The Magic Café. Agree or don't play.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 15, 2016 10:31PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, tommy wrote:
You Bill are the one that claimed that the publisher owns more than the paper without knowing if or not a copyright transfer agreement had been signed. Without evidence of a copyright transfer we must assume that there is none and all the publisher owns is the paper.[/quote]
I was relying on the testimony from balducci and John.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 15, 2016 11:24PM)
So were many who have now frozen to death. :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 16, 2016 12:07AM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, balducci wrote:
Another article about Sci-Hub here:

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science [/quote]

[quote]"Why would any self-respecting researcher willingly hand over, for nothing, the copyright to their hard work to an organization that will profit from the work by making the keys prohibitively expensive to the few people who want to read it? The answer is ultimately all to do with career prospects and prestige. Researchers are rewarded in jobs and promotions for publishing in high-ranking journals such as Nature.

Ironically, it is becoming increasingly common for researchers to be unable to access even their own published work, as wealthier and wealthier universities join the ranks of those unable to pay rising subscription fees. Another tragic irony is the fact that high-impact journals can actually be less reliable than lesser-ranked journals, due to their requirements that researchers publish startling results, which can lead to a higher incidence of fraud and bad research practices"[/quote]
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 16, 2016 06:29PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, tommy wrote:
You Bill are the one that claimed that the publisher owns more than the paper without knowing if or not a copyright transfer agreement had been signed. Without evidence of a copyright transfer we must assume that there is none and all the publisher owns is the paper.[/quote]
I was relying on the testimony from balducci and John. [/quote]

As usual he shoots from the hip based on mis-leading headlines and his own bias, and not on the actual content of the conversation. I'm used to it. :)



[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Courts since the inception of this country have written private property laws you do nor respect. Court means nothing to you.[/quote]

The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".

And they do not write the laws on behalf of private corporations. They write laws on behalf of other people, those people are called "citizens".



[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
Try to follow along here JoeJoe: the researcher has given the copyright to the publisher.
[/quote]

Correction: the researcher has given *A* copyright to the publisher ... not *THE* copyright. The publisher is not allowed to have an exclusive copyright on research material, which is what Elsevier is trying to claim. Their attempts to extort this right from researchers is an illegal racketeering scam.

The entity that paid the researcher is also being extorted here, not just the researcher. It would be like Steve Brooks telling us that if we make a post here, we are not allowed to post it anywhere else. No ... if you make a post here, you still own the original copyright and have every authority to post it elsewhere.

And that is exactly what Elsevier is doing - sending take-down notices to the original researcher demanding they remove their own content from other sites:

[quote]
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science

Elsevier is perhaps most notorious for delivering takedown notices to academics, demanding them to take their own research published with Elsevier off websites like Academia.edu.
[/quote]

[quote]On Feb 15, 2016, landmark wrote:
Copyright transfer is pretty standard in this kind of thing. Kind of like The Magic Café. Agree or don't play. [/quote]

Can you imagine the uproar if Steve Brooks started sending users take-down notices for posts they made at the Genii forums?? Laughable at best. Like I said, if I were judge I'd lock-up the entire upper management of Elsevier for filing a frivolous lawsuit. They have no authority to tell a researcher they can't publish their own research.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 16, 2016 08:42PM)
From the Magic Café splash page:

"All contents & postings Copyright © 2001 - 2016 Steve Brooks-All Rights Reserved."

Now, I suspect that if I posted a dupe over at Genii, 1) I could claim fair use, and 2) The fine folks who run The Magic Café would not want to look like doofuses. So no problem on that score.

But...let's say I wanted to sell an ebook, "The Complete landmark Files," with all my posts. I think if they wanted to, they could stop me.

OTOH, what I really want to know is, what are my rights if I want to sell an ebook of "The Complete Censored landmark," all 30,472 of my deleted posts?
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 16, 2016 09:02PM)
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, landmark wrote:
But...let's say I wanted to sell an ebook, "The Complete landmark Files," with all my posts. I think if they wanted to, they could stop me.
[/quote]

No they could not - the movie industry already learned they can't just write their own copyright laws when they tried to tell Blockbuster they would not allowed to rent their movies.

If you give someone a right to copy something, you still own the original copy. In order for them to have an exclusive, you would have to give them the actual something (the research) - not just the right to copy it.

Elsevier only has a right to copy their copy of the research, they do not own the actual research and can not claim the researcher that did the research is in violation of "their" copyright by publishing his own research elsewhere.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 16, 2016 09:39PM)
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".[/quote]
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

Why am I not surprised?
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 16, 2016 09:42PM)
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".[/quote]
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

Why am I not surprised? [/quote]

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3b7yxf/is_a_supreme_court_ruling_an_actual_law/



-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 16, 2016 09:49PM)
[quote]If you give someone a right to copy something, you still own the original copy. In order for them to have an exclusive, you would have to give them the actual something (the research) - not just the right to copy it.
[/quote]
No publisher claims to own "the research." They claim to own the submitted article about the research. If a researcher were to write a different article based on the same research, there would be no claim.

That said, the present situation is ridiculous, and not in the public or scientific interest. I'm not sure that it's even in the interest of commerce.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 16, 2016 10:47PM)
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".[/quote]
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

Why am I not surprised? [/quote]

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3b7yxf/is_a_supreme_court_ruling_an_actual_law/



-JoeJoe [/quote]


He posted a link so he must be right.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 16, 2016 11:30PM)
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
The courts have never ever written a single law one in the entire history of this country ... laws are written by people, and those people are called "legislators".[/quote]
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.

Why am I not surprised?[/quote]
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3b7yxf/is_a_supreme_court_ruling_an_actual_law/ [/quote]
Opinions in a chat room.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2016 08:08AM)
But it's a link!
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 17, 2016 10:15AM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Feb 13, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
You are correct Magnus: Elsevier is profiting off the research they steal from the researchers.[/quote]

This is nonsense. Researchers voluntarily submit papers for publication. Elsevier is one of many publishers. There are also an increasing number of "open access" journals.

I don't like Elsevier, but they are not in any way stealing research.

[quote]
the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.
[/quote]



To put it another way, imagine if you wanted to make a DVD of your magic act ... and the only way to do so way to pay Elsevier to "publish" your DVD ... and after you pay them to "publish" your DVD, they keep all the profits they make selling it.

So who is stealing from whom??

-JoeJoe [/quote]

Again, researchers voluntarily submit papers where they choose to do so. There is no coercion.

1. Almost all academic research is done by people who are paid to research. Why should they expect to get paid a second time for the research they were paid to do?

2. Most research (in the West, at least) is funded by grants. When the researcher applies for the grant, publication and conference publication are among the "deliverables" the researcher promises.

While funders could stipulate open source publication or some such, they don't.

Stealing from a company you don't like is still stealing. [/quote]


Sounds a lot like indentured servitude ;)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2016 10:39AM)
Sound a lot more like if you want to play in their game you can't make up your own rules to play by.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 17, 2016 11:29AM)
Copyright assignment for the article as written is a question. Exclusive?
Aside from that:
The research logs, data, computational artifacts, correspondence... belong to whom?

Science as branded product?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 17, 2016 11:40AM)
[quote]The research logs, data, computational artifacts, correspondence... belong to whom?
[/quote]
That's a whole new thread. But if you're game, go ahead.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 17, 2016 12:10PM)
I guess the question is who does the "work product" belong to? And I am fairly sure one person on this thread knows the answer to that better than anyone.
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Feb 17, 2016 03:39PM)
Unless the research was done under a "Work Made for Hire" arrangement, the research/work papers/other material is owned by the author. Rights in that material is not transferred with a transfer of rights in the paper itself to the publisher.

Traditionally, the author of a scientific paper selected for publication by a scientific journal was required to transfer rights governed by the copyright to the journal publisher. Usually this was an "all rights" transfer. The author was "paid" in several copies of the paper, but otherwise the author had no claim on the article.

In fact, the author can never use that paper again, in its current form. While the author is still nominally the copyright holder, he or she has no rights left to exploit. To resell that material, the author would have to create a substantially different version. In addition, the purchaser of "all rights" is free to reprint the author's material, sell it to other publications for reprinting, include it in an anthology, post it online, or sell it to some other agency, all without paying the author any additional compensation. And the authors granted "all rights" for a few paltry reprints of the paper because the publishers had them over a barrel: the authors were generally required to publish as a condition of their continued employment.

Publishers claimed this arrangement was necessary in order to "protect" authors' rights, and to coordinate permissions for reprints or other use.

Many authors, especially those active in the open access movement, found this unsatisfactory and have used their influence to effect a gradual move towards a license to publish instead. Under such a system, the publisher has permission to edit, print, and distribute the article commercially, but the authors retain the other rights themselves.

Even if they retain the copyright to an article, journals may allow certain rights to their authors. These rights usually include the ability to reuse parts of the paper in the author's future work, and allow the author to distribute a limited number of copies. The rise of open access journals, in which the author retains the copyright but must pay a publication charge, such as the Public Library of Science family of journals, is another recent response to copyright concerns.

[Much of this comes from Wikipedia, which I used as a convenient source for the text.]
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 17, 2016 03:50PM)
So, Opus . . . it sounds as though under either system (copyright transfer or license to publish), the publisher owns more than the paper on which the article is printed.

Who'da thunk it?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 17, 2016 05:00PM)
Copyright[edit]
Traditionally, the author of an article was required to transfer the copyright to the journal publisher. Publishers claimed this was necessary in order to protect authors' rights, and to coordinate permissions for reprints or other use. However, many authors, especially those active in the open access movement, found this unsatisfactory,[8] and have used their influence to effect a gradual move towards a license to publish instead. Under such a system, the publisher has permission to edit, print, and distribute the article commercially, but the authors retain the other rights themselves.
Even if they retain the copyright to an article, most journals allow certain rights to their authors. These rights usually include the ability to reuse parts of the paper in the author's future work, and allow the author to distribute a limited number of copies. In the print format, such copies are called reprints; in the electronic format, they are called postprints. Some publishers, for example the American Physical Society, also grant the author the right to post and update the article on the author's or employer's website and on free e-print servers, to grant permission to others to use or reuse figures, and even to reprint the article as long as no fee is charged.[9] The rise of open access journals, in which the author retains the copyright but must pay a publication charge, such as the Public Library of Science family of journals, is another recent response to copyright concerns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 17, 2016 07:09PM)
Boil it down to tangibles / actions on the people level: Science as product?
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Feb 18, 2016 07:35AM)
The internet has had a disruptive effect on many things. The music industry has been impacted significantly, and I am not sure that that industry has completed its journey. Publishing has also been impacted; scientific publishing has its own issues.

Generally, the protections of copyright apply to the expression of ideas, but not the ideas themselves - the ideas themselves might be protected by other means (e.g., patents, trade secret law), but not through copyright. In fact, publishing ideas may well preclude other protections (e.g., general publication of an idea renders it no longer a trade "secret;" publication can also defeat the requirement of being "novel," an essential element of patentability).

Publication of scientific papers has served an important validation purpose in the past: such papers must survive an initial screening by a person with expertise in the area to determine whether it has merit and then must pass a peer review by several experts in the area. The cost of this is borne by the publisher, and so that publisher will want to obtain as extensive a set of rights in the material as possible; hence the requirement of the transfer of "all rights" in the material. The author, on the other hand, wants to put the material out to the community to spur acceptance and/or validation for the ideas the paper contains.

In the internet age, publishing is cheap, but there is no gatekeeper: any crackpot idea can be (and usually is) put out on the internet. There is no screening that had been performed by the publisher in the pre-internet days.

Nevertheless, the internet has promoted an abiding belief on the part of some that information should generally be "free," a belief that clashes significantly with the tenets of the pre-internet publishing industry.

We need to understand what the policies were behind the copyright and other IP laws, and consider whether they have validity in the post-internet world.

Note that scientific papers are similar to descriptions of magic effects. However, scientists seek to publicize the ideas/methods contained in their papers, while magicians seem to be trying to do precisely the opposite.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 18, 2016 05:48PM)
Information does not want to be free.


If someone else publishes a finding open source with better data...

Magic advertising or just poorly written method work without citations and discussion of prior art?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 18, 2016 05:58PM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalndXdxriI
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 19, 2016 10:14AM)
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.
[/quote]

The judicial branch can call their review process whatever they like, that doesn't make it "the law". The United States Code of Law is authored by the legislative branch and the most the judicial branch can really do is make the legislative branch re-write the law ... they themselves cannot actually change the words (nor can the president).

There is no copyright on it and it can be legally shared for free (even online):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/

Title seventeen covers copyrights, such as chapter two which states ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object, and chapter one that limits "exclusive rights" for reproduction by libraries and archives (ie: SciHub and LibGen).

Not that this is a copyright case - this is a theft case where a publishing company is trying to steal research from researchers ... as in, sending the original researcher a take-down notice on his own research ... which the publishing company does not own (they only have the right to copy that research).

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 19, 2016 10:29AM)
[quote]On Feb 19, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of case law.[/quote]
The judicial branch can call their review process whatever they like, that doesn't make it "the law".[/quote]
In fact, it does.

And why did you attribute my quote to Danny.

You're losing it, JoeJoe.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 19, 2016 10:56AM)
[quote]On Feb 19, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
In fact, it does.

And why did you attribute my quote to Danny.

You're losing it, JoeJoe. [/quote]

No it does not - the [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text]United States Code of Law[/url] is authored by Congress. When someone says something is "against the law", they are referring to [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text]that[/url] law. The court can only affirm or deny something is or is not against [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text]that[/url] law.

And Danny quoted you so I accidently stripped his quotes wrong ... I'm partially blind and it is hard to see this so get over it already and be thankful that I take the time to post here at all. [b]:[/b] )

This isn't even "my" system - this is your own system cannibalizing itself ... I'm just pointing it out to you, don't shoot the messenger.

Being as how Elsevier no longer has to incur the cost of paper and mailing and can now let their clients "download" the data, I'm wondering why anyone would expect them to be making the same money they "traditionally" were able to make. I've noticed most small independent publishing companies have gone under, including Kinko's which I'd think would have qualified as one of the largest ... this is like Kinko's claiming if they copy something on their machine for you, they then own it and you have to stop letting other people make copies of it.

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 19, 2016 11:05AM)
[quote]On Feb 19, 2016, JoeJoe wrote:
This isn't even "my" system - this is your own system cannibalizing itself ... I'm just pointing it out to you, don't shoot the messenger.[/quote]
I never said that it's "your" system.

You're not being chased here.

As for case law, it's used all the time . . . as law.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 19, 2016 11:14AM)
I for one would be happier if you didn't struggle to post JoeJoe.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 19, 2016 03:41PM)
[quote]On Feb 16, 2016, landmark wrote:
From the Magic Café splash page:

"All contents & postings Copyright © 2001 - 2016 Steve Brooks-All Rights Reserved."

Now, I suspect that if I posted a dupe over at Genii, 1) I could claim fair use, and 2) The fine folks who run The Magic Café would not want to look like doofuses. So no problem on that score.

But...let's say I wanted to sell an ebook, "The Complete landmark Files," with all my posts. I think if they wanted to, they could stop me.

[/quote]

This is something I've been wondering about. I think there are plenty of dupe posts across the lines of Genii and the Café.

The second matter is of more concern to me. Would the Café copyright preclude me from publishing my own words elsewhere? I confess I composed a script last year with exerpts of posts I've made here. A little late in asking but, is that allowed? At the time I couldn't bring myself to actually ask for permission to quote myself. ;)

Does the Café own that form of my words, or just precisely the form posted here? Can I take them elsewhere?

I would think the Café's not necessarily trying to take my words from me, but more likely trying to prevent them being appropriated by someone else. Would someone like to give me an opinion or declaration on that?

I'm working on a documentary right now and it would streamline things for me if I could use my words as originally written at the time rather than rewriting. Maybe I'll start posting on my own website blog. ;)

I have a wordpress site, too- maybe I'll do some writing over there, or at Medium- but would I be in the same boat in regards to transferring text/narration to my documentary?

Appreciate any thoughts on this, thanks, and, Steve, if you'd like to chime in, that would be appreciated also. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 19, 2016 04:55PM)
My guess would be he is stopping others from misappropriation of your thoughts and words.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 19, 2016 06:11PM)
I don't think I agree with JJ on the way the law works but I don't know how it works in the USA. I am not too sure how it works in England but still, I think the government can make a law but the courts interpret that law and that is case law. In other words the law is not set in stone. The government try to write the laws as tight as they can but the courts have the power to interpret it as they will and as they do it changes. suppose the government made a law that stated that all ginger haired people must be sentenced to death. The courts will decide who is and who is not ginger and if they decide this one is not then neither are the others of same color, even if the government thinks they are.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 19, 2016 09:49PM)
[quote]On Feb 19, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
My guess would be he is stopping others from misappropriation of your thoughts and words. [/quote]

I don't think so, since if the words simply belonged to the authors (i.e. no Café copyright notice), it would have the same effect.
I think it's specifically to lay claim to compilations and re-printing in the future.
Message: Posted by: JoeJoe (Feb 20, 2016 08:20AM)
[quote]On Feb 19, 2016, magicalaurie wrote:
Would the Café copyright preclude me from publishing my own words elsewhere? I confess I composed a script last year with exerpts of posts I've made here. A little late in asking but, is that allowed? At the time I couldn't bring myself to actually ask for permission to quote myself. ;)
[/quote]

Every time a page is displayed here, the Café has created a "copy" of the poster's words ... thus, we are obligated to give them some sort of right to copy them. But they do not own the actual words so your script itself belongs to you. Don't take my word for it, you can read this yourself in the actual US Code of Laws:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/202

And here is a layman's explanation ... the script your wrote is the material object, all the Café gets is the right to copy what you give them:

http://copyright.uslegal.com/copyright-ownership/ownership-of-copyright-distinguished-from-ownership-of-material-object/

I should point out that the Copyright Right Act changed this, so that may be where some members are getting their confusion from. They made this change after people like Elsevier were stealing other people's work by claiming they owned the copyright and the original author was no longer allowed to use his own work. In order for Steve to own your script, you would need to give him rights to the script itself - not just the right to copy it.

Steve Brooks himself is on record as saying it is no different than sending a letter to the editor of a magazine; if you send a letter to the editor of a magazine, the magazine cannot stop another magazine from receiving and publishing the same letter.

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=2918#1

-JoeJoe
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 20, 2016 11:52AM)
O.k. that makes sense, JoeJoe, like the photo sites need a right to display members' photos but the photographers retain ownership. I think that could be said a little clearer here at the Café, as the photo sites certainly reassure photographers of as much very clearly in their terms of use. I know, as landmark says, an author/artist's original work is their own, copyright is implicit, but then when you see a notice like the one here at the Café it can make you wonder what it intends. ;)

Btw, I'm with you on this thread issue, I think, landmark. The way some people do things and the authority they claim, continually leaves me wondering and inspired to stay present and LIVE NOW. I think North American culture is so brainwashed, going on and on about places like China and can't even see itself in the mirror. Free country, my a**. Pardon my ranting, once more, if you will. Thanks for your help with this, all. Have a great day. Pouring rain here and I haven't even got my snowshoes out yet this winter. :sun:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Feb 20, 2016 04:11PM)
Look at the question of authentication/bogons/dogma/science.

For folks who've forgotten their readings: Science(tm) or perhaps sience as off brand/knockoff?