LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  March 2016

LIBLICENSE-L March 2016

Subject:

Re: SciHub

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:15:17 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (86 lines)

From: Richard James <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:48:59 -0500

Ann- I agree wholeheartedly. A lot of commentators are conflating
laziness with necessity. I would think that the vast majority of
scholars who are promoting the use of sci-hub could get the
information they want legitimately, but with a slight delay, through
any number of means- the only difference being that these means are a
couple of clicks more costly. Legitimizing and promoting intellectual
property theft undermines Open Access, threatens the profession (and
definitely the para-profession), and opens institutions to a number of
legal and technical threats.

Also, I suppose that Wiley, Wolters, Elsevier etc. and the myriad
publishers whose support enables Crossref and the DOI Foundation to do
their work have got to start wondering at some point about the
downside of providing the tools that enable sci-hub to operate.
Requiring libraries to implement more secure authentication, ending
PDF as we know it in favor of more restrictive and harder to use
formats, and pretty much whatever they want to do to make their
property more secure and our lives harder- all of these things have
got to be on the table at some point.



On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:39 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:19:49 -0500
>
> Further to Jean-Claude's message below re. Sci-hub's actions as civil
> disobedience:  yes, Sci-hub does break the law, in this case copyright
> laws (of most nations).
>
> Am I the only librarian who's troubled by "the devil made me do it"
> argument that a number of library people are advancing here (the devil
> in this case being the publisher(s))?
>
> For example, from a recent SPARC interview:  "Well, I think
> researchers take for granted that they're - they've been forced into a
> system of workarounds to try to get access to the articles that they
> need to do their research."
>
> So, when a scientist/scholar could go to an eprints site, or library
> doc delivery/ILL services, or ask colleagues for copies (and other
> long-standing legitimate ways of security access to those works that
> aren't locally available) does that qualify as "being forced" to
> something that makes breaking the law preferable?  "Driven" is another
> word I've seen.
>
> Do we as librarians really believe that large-scale copyright
> infringement is a good thing, that it's right, and a means to a better
> future?
>
> Ann Okerson
>
> **********
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: SciHub (was: Elsevier cracks down on pirated articles)
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:34:28 +0000
> >
> > A couple of quick points:
> >
> > 1. OA does not collide with copyright. Sci-hub is not OA; it is civil
> > disobedience (http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/02/sci-hub-as-necessary-effective-civil-disobedience/);
> >
> > 2. The notion of sustainability is very slippery. If it means finding
> > stable financing, including public stable financing, I I have no
> > objection. If it means finding a way to recover costs or, worse, make
> > profits, then I object.
> >
> > As far as scientific publishing is concerned, copyright is needed only
> > to the extent that it is needed to make CC-by work. Without copyright,
> > there is obviously no need for a licensing scheme.
> >
> > Jean-Claude Guédon

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1