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