3 ms·

Suppose you needed 40k/yr of AWS computing time and couldn't afford it. And suppose someone hacked into AWS and redistributed it for free. As far as I can tell

by ikeboy 11y ago

Suppose you needed 40k/yr of AWS computing time and couldn't afford it. And suppose someone hacked into AWS and redistributed it for free. As far as I can tell, if the argument you made is correct, you should support the same argument that says the AWS hacker is right. (To address the two obvious rebuttals, viz 1. Marginal cost and 2. Sci hub is getting data from those who have a subscription, merely in violation of ToS: 1. Marginal cost for AWS is likely low, if there's any unused CPU time. 2. Change the scenario slightly to someone signing up for a bunch of free AWS accounts and handing those out. )

cubano 11y ago
My "argument", if I was even making one, was that the cost to Elsevier to provide an API, is a tiny fraction of $40k/yr, and thus their business practices and model is all about rent-seeking and not about saving peoples lives, which I personally find disgusting.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If hypothetically, Amazon was making 80% margins on AWS, would that make them disgusting? Edit: note that Elsevier's margins are around 30-40%; I don't know if the particular API you wanted has higher margins.
  - cubano 11y ago
    In general, no, unless of course they were using that margin in a way that endangered low-income people's health. I mean really...I can't believe I have to defend this position. There is obviously certain types of data that should be provided as a public service to all of society...is this even to be debated?
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      The example I gave above was where you needed the processing power to run your medical startup. >There is obviously certain types of data that should be provided as a public service to all of society "Should" what's meant by that? If you want data to be open, you need to fund that, or develop your own and release that freely. Statements of the kind "everyone deserves scarce resource X" really mean "we should tax rich people in order to subsidize X for poor people". Which is a fine thing to argue for, but don't present it as a universal right.
    - whiddershins 11y ago
      This. It is part of the fabric of scientific research that findings are shared. Science is overtly collaborative. Every scientists specifically builds on the knowledge of others, and shares what they discover with the world. Governments and a variety of organizations fund research with the express purpose of discovering new knowledge that ultimately benefits everyone. That's the WHOLE POINT of publishing a paper. At a fundamental level, scientific publishing is about trying to share the results of your research with the scientific community. The funding is tied to the act of publishing, having nothing to do with how people consume the papers. Charging people above cost to read the published research is antithetical to the whole idea of how the world does science.
  - whiddershins 11y ago
    Fundamentally Elsevier's content is not funded or created by them. But they have a monopoly on it because most studies cannot be published in multiple places. In the case of AWS market forces could undercut their margins. That sort of copyright monopoly was granted by our legal system to encourage people to create intellectual property, but it is being twisted in this situation, as the creators are being funded by a mechanism completely irrelevant to Elsevier's costs. In this case what they are doing is more similar in a sense to patent trolls.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Fundamentally Elsevier's content is not funded or created by them. They pay publication and editing costs, and in return get copyright signed over to them. >market forces could undercut their margins. And market forces can open new open access journals as well. To date, this hasn't solved it, perhaps because their margins weren't so high to begin with. >patent trolls Generally this refers to patents that should not have been issued, or that don't apply to the defending companies' product. It's not applicable here.
- ig1 11y ago
  You realize that an API fronting service like Mashery alone would cost them several hundred thousand dollars ? It's not something you hacked up in a weekend in your basement. It's something that requires project managers, business analysts, engineers, sales people, etc. These people require salaries, pensions, healthcare, etc. You can of course build a competitor if you think you can build something for a fraction of the cost.
return0 11y ago
What? no. Elsevier does not make any science, they just put a stamp on it and sell it. They would be more likely to make you pay $40/y for using their linux in someone else's server. Because you have to have "elsevier linux" to get grants these days.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  They bought the rights from the author (each side gets consideration: author gets free publication, Elsevier gets copyright signed over to them). That publication costs them, they have expenses, etc. Why is it fundamentally different from buying servers?
  - return0 11y ago
    > They bought the rights No elsevier does not pay authors, in fact: > author gets free publication If author wants his paper to be open access (something that is often required by their funding grants), they have to pay a high publication fee. Other journals charge paper submission (for consideration) fees as well. But the error in your argument is at the start. You assume that the market is free and scientists have an alternative to publishing in elsevier. If scientists want their work public, there are tons of free options, preprint archives etc. The problem is that funding sources require high impact (i.e. elsevier) publications to give you grants. There is a self-perpetuating cycle between funding sources <-> (elsevier, NPG etc.; talking about biology). This is a racket. PS. How it is different from buying servers? It would be comparable if , say, the US army had a requirement that all soldiers must do a yearly internship in amazon (paid by the army), thus amazon didnt need to pay any salaries, yet could charge as much as the competitors. It would all be legal, but grossly immoral.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      We're not talking about open access here. I don't see why you brought it in. From what I understand, most journals that charge for access offer free publication. Even if fees are charged, they don't cover costs. >This is a racket. Maybe if they were bribing grant committees to require Elsevier publication. If those committees decide that of their own free will, then they think the benefits of Elsevier are worth the costs. If they really were just extracting rent, I'd expect to see far higher margins, at least above 50%.
dredmorbius 11y ago
AWS time is rivalrous. PDF redistribution is not. Strawman / false analogy.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I addressed this specifically. If AWS is not running at full capacity, additional computing power has little marginal cost. We can change the scenario to only use AWS when they aren't at full capacity (e.g. check when spot market prices are at a low).

by ikeboy 11y ago

cubano 11y ago

My "argument", if I was even making one, was that the cost to Elsevier to provide an API, is a tiny fraction of $40k/yr, and thus their business practices and model is all about rent-seeking and not about saving peoples lives, which I personally find disgusting.

ikeboy 11y ago
If hypothetically, Amazon was making 80% margins on AWS, would that make them disgusting? Edit: note that Elsevier's margins are around 30-40%; I don't know if the particular API you wanted has higher margins.
- cubano 11y ago
  In general, no, unless of course they were using that margin in a way that endangered low-income people's health. I mean really...I can't believe I have to defend this position. There is obviously certain types of data that should be provided as a public service to all of society...is this even to be debated?
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    The example I gave above was where you needed the processing power to run your medical startup. >There is obviously certain types of data that should be provided as a public service to all of society "Should" what's meant by that? If you want data to be open, you need to fund that, or develop your own and release that freely. Statements of the kind "everyone deserves scarce resource X" really mean "we should tax rich people in order to subsidize X for poor people". Which is a fine thing to argue for, but don't present it as a universal right.
  - whiddershins 11y ago
    This. It is part of the fabric of scientific research that findings are shared. Science is overtly collaborative. Every scientists specifically builds on the knowledge of others, and shares what they discover with the world. Governments and a variety of organizations fund research with the express purpose of discovering new knowledge that ultimately benefits everyone. That's the WHOLE POINT of publishing a paper. At a fundamental level, scientific publishing is about trying to share the results of your research with the scientific community. The funding is tied to the act of publishing, having nothing to do with how people consume the papers. Charging people above cost to read the published research is antithetical to the whole idea of how the world does science.
- whiddershins 11y ago
  Fundamentally Elsevier's content is not funded or created by them. But they have a monopoly on it because most studies cannot be published in multiple places. In the case of AWS market forces could undercut their margins. That sort of copyright monopoly was granted by our legal system to encourage people to create intellectual property, but it is being twisted in this situation, as the creators are being funded by a mechanism completely irrelevant to Elsevier's costs. In this case what they are doing is more similar in a sense to patent trolls.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >Fundamentally Elsevier's content is not funded or created by them. They pay publication and editing costs, and in return get copyright signed over to them. >market forces could undercut their margins. And market forces can open new open access journals as well. To date, this hasn't solved it, perhaps because their margins weren't so high to begin with. >patent trolls Generally this refers to patents that should not have been issued, or that don't apply to the defending companies' product. It's not applicable here.
ig1 11y ago
You realize that an API fronting service like Mashery alone would cost them several hundred thousand dollars ? It's not something you hacked up in a weekend in your basement. It's something that requires project managers, business analysts, engineers, sales people, etc. These people require salaries, pensions, healthcare, etc. You can of course build a competitor if you think you can build something for a fraction of the cost.

return0 11y ago

What? no. Elsevier does not make any science, they just put a stamp on it and sell it. They would be more likely to make you pay $40/y for using their linux in someone else's server. Because you have to have "elsevier linux" to get grants these days.

ikeboy 11y ago
They bought the rights from the author (each side gets consideration: author gets free publication, Elsevier gets copyright signed over to them). That publication costs them, they have expenses, etc. Why is it fundamentally different from buying servers?
- return0 11y ago
  > They bought the rights No elsevier does not pay authors, in fact: > author gets free publication If author wants his paper to be open access (something that is often required by their funding grants), they have to pay a high publication fee. Other journals charge paper submission (for consideration) fees as well. But the error in your argument is at the start. You assume that the market is free and scientists have an alternative to publishing in elsevier. If scientists want their work public, there are tons of free options, preprint archives etc. The problem is that funding sources require high impact (i.e. elsevier) publications to give you grants. There is a self-perpetuating cycle between funding sources <-> (elsevier, NPG etc.; talking about biology). This is a racket. PS. How it is different from buying servers? It would be comparable if , say, the US army had a requirement that all soldiers must do a yearly internship in amazon (paid by the army), thus amazon didnt need to pay any salaries, yet could charge as much as the competitors. It would all be legal, but grossly immoral.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    We're not talking about open access here. I don't see why you brought it in. From what I understand, most journals that charge for access offer free publication. Even if fees are charged, they don't cover costs. >This is a racket. Maybe if they were bribing grant committees to require Elsevier publication. If those committees decide that of their own free will, then they think the benefits of Elsevier are worth the costs. If they really were just extracting rent, I'd expect to see far higher margins, at least above 50%.

dredmorbius 11y ago

AWS time is rivalrous. PDF redistribution is not. Strawman / false analogy.

ikeboy 11y ago
I addressed this specifically. If AWS is not running at full capacity, additional computing power has little marginal cost. We can change the scenario to only use AWS when they aren't at full capacity (e.g. check when spot market prices are at a low).