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:

Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:49:04 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

From: Alex Holzman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 23:10:23 -0500

Jean-Claude, let me try to understand your position.  You think
violating the copyright of all publishers is ok because some
publishers are "viewed as unacceptable"?  Or do you think every
publisher trying to enforce copyright is by definition unacceptable?
Including, say, university presses and learned societies who not only
do not earn anything remotely close to 30% profits every year, but
often turn every penny of what they do earn back into the publication
of other scholars' work or the promotion of other scholarly activities
by means of things like teaching and research grants?  Or do you have
a list of publishers whose copyright it's ok to infringe and another
list of those whose articles you would not download because they're
trying in their own way--perhaps not your way, but their own way--to
further scholarship?  Cause last time I looked, university presses and
learned societies are not generating "profits" or even surplus
anywhere near the rates you like to cite when justifying your actions.
What's a fair return for a press operating at an overall deficit to
begin with?  Or a learned society that uses journal earnings to
support their members, who after all, are scholars themselves?

I'm just very, very confused about how you decide who deserves to have
their publications ripped off and who does not.  And if the answer is
everyone, what's the justification?  Because you can not in any
sensible interpretation of the scholarly publishing world as it exists
today accuse all academic publishers of avarice just because they
still employ an end user pays model in conducting their business.

Thanks,

Alex Holzman

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:32 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:59:04 -0500
>
> In partial response to Todd Puccio:
>
> What happens if I download an article from Sci-hub on weekends, from
> my home, without using the U. network... Am I still part of my
> university? After all, I am also allowed to do consulting work, so
> long as it is not on U. time. What is U. time?
>
> Todd Puccio's point has ethical validity, but human beings are rarely
> pure free agents or pure employees. And finding a way not to involve
> one's institution while using Sci-hub is not a terribly challenging
> problem.
>
> The real ethical issue is whether breaking copyright law is
> justifiable if placed in the context of publisher behaviour viewed as
> unacceptable. That is where a term like "civil disobedience" comes
> into play.
>
> A publisher behaviour begins to be unacceptable when some of its
> components contribute strongly to making the process of knowledge
> creation sub-optimal. Remember that creating knowledge about our world
> is among the noblest things that a human being can do. Interfering
> with this objective for financial gain is not terribly ethical IMHO,
> even though it may be legal.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
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