From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 21:02:12 -0700

Joe,  Sorry, I singled your post because I felt you were trying to
roll up the problem under the rug. Sorry, if I was mistaken.

We face a true dilemma of "clearly perceived public benefit from vs.
outright theft by Sci-Hub". I believe the issue is in stalemate or
"legal equilibrium". Though the NY court seems to be sympathetic to
Elsevier's charges against Sci-Hub, this could have been a lukewarm
decision since the court did not examine the other side's arguments.

The question is how to shake this legal equilibrium - toward one side
or another? Let me attempt to do the feat.

Until a "transferring copyright agreement" is considered as
"transferring property agreement" there is no way to resolve this
problem legally. Unless we invoke a legal notion of "inalienable
right" of a producer of an abstract idea (aka author).

Then my suggestion that "the authors become beneficiaries of whatever
is done with their papers" -- which destroys the legal equilibrium
toward the "outright theft" -- will have a firm legal footing.

There are Elsevier people on the list - are they ready to share their
profits with the authors?

Ari Belenkiy, PhD

Vancouver BC
Canada



On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:54 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 08:26:04 -0400
>
> Ari,
>
> I don't see how your comment is in any way apposite mine. That's your
> prerogative, but it's odd in view of the fact that you used my name in
> your salutation. For the record, I don't believe I have ever made any
> remarks about whether or not authors and reviewers should be paid
> (though some are, despite what you say).
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 20:27:32 -0700
> >
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Whatever you mean here, the basic truth is that if publishers would
> > have shared their earnings with authors, the picture would have looked
> > now quite differently!
> >
> > Then everyone would speak about outright theft.
> >
> > The publishers made themselves hated by everyone and now no one cares
> > about their feelings.
> >
> > Why do Russian publishers pay their authors? Why the Western publishers don't?
> >
> > Anyone on the list can give a history account of this difference?
> >
> > Ari Belenkiy
> >
> > Vancouver BC
> > Canada
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 09:40:40 -0400
> > >
> > > If content were all open, we would not recognize the world we live and
> > > work in. Is that bad? Not necessarily: different is not inherently bad
> > > or good. What troubles me about conversations about "flipping" the
> > > economic model for published scholarship is that it assumes that the
> > > basic units of content will remain unchanged. But the history of media
> > > tells a very different story, that media of all kinds changes when the
> > > business ecosystem changes. The business model, in other words, is not
> > > something that is wrapped around a piece of content but is a property
> > > of that content. This is McLuhan 101. Shouldn't we go back to reading
> > > him?
> > >
> > > Joe Esposito