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 17:34:08 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:24:04 -0500

In response to Ann's query, the question to ask is: if researchers
choose to use Sci-hub, is it because "the devil made [them] do it"?

Intuitively, I would pay close attention to SPARC's remark as quoted
by Ann: in a scientific context where all is managed through
competition, time is of the essence. Time is symbolic capital. If a
simple URL located somewhere allows a quick and full response to one's
query, is it surprising that this URL will be used? Not really. And
this can be done without any reference to, or thought about, the
"devil".

When competition is abused and grows too intense, all forms of
expediency emerge, from the use of Sci-hub to outright cheating on
data, etc.

More fundamentally, this phenomenon points to the fact that the
present publishing system does not provide sufficient access to those
who want, or try, to create knowledge. This is a point that has been
repeatedly made by OA advocates.

The workarounds proposed by Ann are obviously perceived as either too
slow, complicated, or imperfect properly to respond to the needs. They
are and will be used, but they will also prove insufficient.

Given this situation, we should therefore ask one basic question:
given that the creation of knowledge has turned out to be a highly
distributed process, communication among the nodes (i.e. researchers)
is of the utmost importance. The good working of these means of
communication is, therefore, more fundamental and more important than
the preservation of some of the institutional entities that have
emerged in the process. In less abstract terms, the importance of
scientific communication trumps the importance of publishers and their
legal rights. We are speaking about the creation of human knowledge
here, not about recipes to cook a pizza.

In a sense, this is what fair use also tries to address, however
imperfectly and fuzzily. Recent decisions by the Canadian Supreme
Court about the needs of research and education move in the same
direction. In other words, and from a growing number of perspectives,
the Procrustean bed of copyright appears less and less adapted to a
world gradually converting to digital communication. This is not
surprising as history teaches us that copyright itself is a derivative
of print, and it is is precisely print that is on the way out. The law
is the law, but sometimes, the law is way out of line with the
evolution of society. Civil rights anyone?

What Sci-hub expresses is the frustration of many researchers with the
present situation. It also echoes, in some ways, Aaron Swarz' attempt
to disseminate the whole JStor collection. It is civil disobedience
aiming at pointing out fundamental flaws in the present situation. The
resolution of such tensions is called history.

We can expect that the book will be thrown at a number of people in
the coming years. We can also expect that the said book will prove to
be less and less efficient in stopping such endeavours.

Meanwhile, it was recently reported that Elsevier's profits had grown
by 6% last year, which is in line with the usual needs of investors if
we follow Piketty's argument in Capital in the XXIst Century. I add
this detail simply not to give the impression that I am forgetting
about the devil. Elsevier, by law, as a publicly traded company, must
work for its investors, not the researchers and, even less, the
libraries.

As for librarians, what is more important to them? Researchers?
Publishers? Once librarians, as a profession, clearly answer that
their priority is researchers, I believe much of their existential
angst will begin to fade away. But that is another problem...

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