I find it absurd when people accuse #SciHub of "stealing" from journal publishers. It is the publishers who are stealing, from the scholars who write, peer review and edit the journals without pay, from universities and their libraries who have to pay to so their researchers can publish papers *and* to get access to them, and from the public who fund all this, through public funding, tuition fees and so on.
I would love to see academics take a class action against the corporate journal publishers, demanding to be paid for all the work they've done writing and peer reviewing papers, editing journals, and so on. Those publishers are running a for-profit business. The workers who create all the value they make that profit from deserve at least minimum wage for their work. Instead they often get *charged* for working instead of paid!
I would love to see the emergence of "pirate" journals, who #PeerReview and publish secret research, provided by whistleblowers working for corporations. All that research that companies don't publishing because it's not flattering to their products or their image, as #DrBenGoldacre talks about.
@strypey Slaves, wives, children-- all have been considered "property" at some point or other. People should be similarly accepting of change w/r/t over broadly defined intellectual property.
@wolfcoder that's lovely, and given that you want to be cited, only sensible. But imagine the amount of correspondence that paper authors would be drowned in, if we had to ask and give copies of papers any time someone wanted to read one! #CC licenses were created precisely to avoid this redundant workload.
@strypey I didn't mean it literally, I'm saying a lot of us don't mind the PDFs being copied around and would do it ourselves if we could.
@wolfcoder you can. The journal publishers know their position is untenable, they'd be stupid to make themselves public enemy #1 by suing scholars for putting copies of their own papers on their own homepages, or on the websites of their institutions, as many scholars do.
@wolfcoder you can also make the choice to publish only in journals that allow you to keep your copyright and apply CC licenses, ideally without charging you for the "privilege" (the cheek of it!?!). I get that it's a risky stand for a scholar to take, especially a junior one trying to work towards tenture in #PublishOrPerish institutions. That's why it's great to see UC following the EU institutions that are taking an institution-wide stand against exploitative publishers like #Evilsevier.
@strypey I don't want to say too much more as to not antagonize the sponsors of a lot of conferences.
@clacke @wolfcoder just like the #DataFarms are the China of the net, sponsoring conferences, scholarships etc with money they essentially stole from the public (using surveillance, "intellectual property" extortion etc), taking all the credit, and using that leverage to suppress legitimate criticism of their business models.
@gemlog I agree with the sentiment, but I don't necessarily want that outcome. Those publishers employ a lot of clever people. They could perhaps be transformed from gatekeepers and copyright trolls, into companies that offer something genuinely useful to scholarly publishing, and accept Walmart-level profit margins instead of 10 times that.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!