4 ms·

Comparing sci hub to napster is a bit misleading. Elseviers customers are not individual scientists, they're university libraries who pay huge sums to get massi

by rmchugh 10y ago

Comparing sci hub to napster is a bit misleading. Elseviers customers are not individual scientists, they're university libraries who pay huge sums to get massive bundles of journal licenses. I have an extremely hard time imagining university libraries cancelling their deals with Elsevier and instead telling their users to check SciHub. What it might result in is slowed growth as new customers feel less pressure from their users to purchase licenses as those users can already access the articles. So, a problem for Elsevier, but very unlikely to be its death knell or a cause for it to change its business model.

pervycreeper 10y ago
If there are nonetheless economic consequences for the publishers, the end result will be the trimming of some fat.
- wernercd 10y ago
  Or, god forbid, creating value that isn't available elsewhere. You know... competition. Why use netflix, when you can get TV Shows/Movies for free? Why use Pandora/Spotify when you can get music for free? Why use Steam when you can get games for free? Dropbox? Microsoft Office? Because those service(s)/product(s) offer something that the free version(s) doesn't... If Elsavior is losing customers because of Sci-Hub, they need to look at why they are losing customers... and what they can do to get them back... or if they can (maybe other countries where their services aren't available).
  - csydas 10y ago
    The problem with this is that currently, as best as anyone knows, Sci-hub works via proxying using legitimate logins. At a University level, usually there is some server running that acts as a proxy so that students and instructors on the campus can access (all calls get proxied), or students can access off campus using their federated student logins, which then creates a quick web-proxy. Since it's just a login/access to proxied logins, Sci-hub has a third option which they will most definitely double-down on: try to "fix" the log in problem they have. As important as I do think piracy is for situations just like this, the problem with trying to understand piracy in a market environment is that piracy doesn't really follow the same rules as other market elements. While there may be some economic value to pirates, for the most part, they can compete on cost and free of the trappings of business deals. They don't have to worry about making a profit, and as such are not influenced by the responses from other elements, such as those they're pirating from. This isn't "oh woe to the publishers"; I do think they've been bending us over forever. But to expect them to respond to piracy as they would another business is unrealistic in my mind, especially when they can just regulate and sue their way to their goals. What hopefully happens as a result of Sci-hub is that it will change the way that researchers and their institutions look towards paper publication in the future, once they realize that there's no longer a need for Elsevier and its kin. That is change I hope happens. But to expect Elsevier et. al. to do anything but try to return to their status quo is kind of absurd.
    - wernercd 10y ago
      While I agree on some of the major points - the business will try to maintain status quo especially and reacting to pirates is different than reacting to businesses - I think that, as someone on the outside without a big care either way, this can't help be have the same issues as IAA vs Pirates. At the end of the days, now that the IAA has moved towards models that meet the needs that were unmet years ago (streaming, large catalogs at high fidelity, etc) they are able to gasp make money again. They were afraid to leave the "old media" but once forced (kicking and screaming every step of the way) they were able to realize new ways that met demands. People pay for music again. Not all things are the same between the two (Academic papers and Music/MP3s) obviously, but the fact is Elsevier can only stick to the "old way" at it's own peril. Closing "Napster" didn't solve it - in fact it just created a whack-a-mole game. Attacking Sci-Hub won't solve the problem that Elsavier obviously isn't meeting market needs in an ever changing technology landscape.
    - wongarsu 10y ago
      >for the most part, they can compete on cost and free of the trappings of business deals. Pirate sites are usually also run by small teams, don't have dedicated user interface experts, can't easily offer apps, etc. Users are willing to pay for convienience, there's lots of room for big companies to be competitive with pirates. And yet, according to the article about 15% of SciHub users use SciHub because it's more convienient to use than the alternatives. If the pirates are cheaper and have the better user experience, why would anybody not use the pirate platform? Of course building a product that's competitive with pirate offers doesn't prevent you from legally challenging them. A war can be fought on multiple fronts at once.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    This issue of geographically dividing markets doesn't make any sense for products that are essentially information products that are distributed by the Internet. Measures like geoblocking just drive people in markets who are blocked from accessing content, or who are charged higher prices, to just pirate the material. Or alternatively they bypass the geoblocks. Even now people are starting to ignore the various mechanisms used to bypass geoblocks as its getting harder to achieve, but before publishers start congratulating themselves they should consider that those people who bypassed their geoblocks were willing to pay what they consider a far price for that content. The fact is, in most cases they bypass the geoblocks because the pricing is not fair. I'm not sure these publishers can legitimately claim how unfair it is that people steal their content when they are literally discriminating against people by charging them higher prices based on their nationality. There may be an ethical weight you can assign to stealing and a lower ethical weight you can assign to price gouging, but they are both unethical. I often find it interesting when I bring up the fact that there is a fundamental unfairness to geoblocking that people immediately chime in to state that stealing is wrong, but they don't consider that a case can also be made that price gouging is really a form of theft of a consumers limited resources.
    - wernercd 10y ago
      Geoblocking goes beyond simple greed... different countries have different laws, supply, demand, etc. Some countries may outlaw certain things. Others may have a much lower amount of money per person/family/gdp. While I agree on the base level (Why should county a pay more than country b... like Australia routinely pays more for software), just saying "it's not fair" or "its unethical" is too simplistic.
      - chris_wot 10y ago
        If certain countries outlaw certain things then it is not up to the country who allows that same material to block supply.
        ricksplat 10y ago
        But if they have a (eg trade) agreement with the other country then they may do it as a favour.
  - return0 10y ago
    Elsevier does not control the product (because they are not making it). They leech off the rents that they gained decades ago. There is no future for them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pristinenoise 10y ago
I worked for a top ten academic research library, and even with budgets in the millions to low ten of millions, there were still plenty of journals we were not buying. Other than the big bundles, often times it was pressure from professors that would force a specific big-ticket journal to be acquired. If sci-hub.io stops those professors from making requests to the library, then there won't be as much pressure to pick up every last journal.
return0 10y ago
To add, its not like napster because none of the "artists" (scientists) will go after scihub, if anything almost everyone cheers them.
jasonshen 10y ago
OP here. Like most analogies, this one isn't perfect. Napster and Sci-Hub are similar in that they are underground yet widely used platforms for acquiring digital content that would otherwise cost money to purchase, but unlike CD's or actual printed journals, cost nothing to replicate. Many academics are specifically downloading papers they otherwise wouldn't have access to via their institution because it is too expensive. And libraries will eventually look for ways to cut expenses and if people aren't clamoring for more subscriptions (because they know they can already get them for free) over time, Elsevier's revenues will decline. There is no need for a death knell. Record companies aren't extinct, but they had to reshape dramatically in part because of the prevalence of pirated music via platforms like Napster.

by rmchugh 10y ago

pervycreeper 10y ago

If there are nonetheless economic consequences for the publishers, the end result will be the trimming of some fat.

wernercd 10y ago
Or, god forbid, creating value that isn't available elsewhere. You know... competition. Why use netflix, when you can get TV Shows/Movies for free? Why use Pandora/Spotify when you can get music for free? Why use Steam when you can get games for free? Dropbox? Microsoft Office? Because those service(s)/product(s) offer something that the free version(s) doesn't... If Elsavior is losing customers because of Sci-Hub, they need to look at why they are losing customers... and what they can do to get them back... or if they can (maybe other countries where their services aren't available).
- csydas 10y ago
  The problem with this is that currently, as best as anyone knows, Sci-hub works via proxying using legitimate logins. At a University level, usually there is some server running that acts as a proxy so that students and instructors on the campus can access (all calls get proxied), or students can access off campus using their federated student logins, which then creates a quick web-proxy. Since it's just a login/access to proxied logins, Sci-hub has a third option which they will most definitely double-down on: try to "fix" the log in problem they have. As important as I do think piracy is for situations just like this, the problem with trying to understand piracy in a market environment is that piracy doesn't really follow the same rules as other market elements. While there may be some economic value to pirates, for the most part, they can compete on cost and free of the trappings of business deals. They don't have to worry about making a profit, and as such are not influenced by the responses from other elements, such as those they're pirating from. This isn't "oh woe to the publishers"; I do think they've been bending us over forever. But to expect them to respond to piracy as they would another business is unrealistic in my mind, especially when they can just regulate and sue their way to their goals. What hopefully happens as a result of Sci-hub is that it will change the way that researchers and their institutions look towards paper publication in the future, once they realize that there's no longer a need for Elsevier and its kin. That is change I hope happens. But to expect Elsevier et. al. to do anything but try to return to their status quo is kind of absurd.
  - wernercd 10y ago
    While I agree on some of the major points - the business will try to maintain status quo especially and reacting to pirates is different than reacting to businesses - I think that, as someone on the outside without a big care either way, this can't help be have the same issues as IAA vs Pirates. At the end of the days, now that the IAA has moved towards models that meet the needs that were unmet years ago (streaming, large catalogs at high fidelity, etc) they are able to gasp make money again. They were afraid to leave the "old media" but once forced (kicking and screaming every step of the way) they were able to realize new ways that met demands. People pay for music again. Not all things are the same between the two (Academic papers and Music/MP3s) obviously, but the fact is Elsevier can only stick to the "old way" at it's own peril. Closing "Napster" didn't solve it - in fact it just created a whack-a-mole game. Attacking Sci-Hub won't solve the problem that Elsavier obviously isn't meeting market needs in an ever changing technology landscape.
  - wongarsu 10y ago
    >for the most part, they can compete on cost and free of the trappings of business deals. Pirate sites are usually also run by small teams, don't have dedicated user interface experts, can't easily offer apps, etc. Users are willing to pay for convienience, there's lots of room for big companies to be competitive with pirates. And yet, according to the article about 15% of SciHub users use SciHub because it's more convienient to use than the alternatives. If the pirates are cheaper and have the better user experience, why would anybody not use the pirate platform? Of course building a product that's competitive with pirate offers doesn't prevent you from legally challenging them. A war can be fought on multiple fronts at once.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  This issue of geographically dividing markets doesn't make any sense for products that are essentially information products that are distributed by the Internet. Measures like geoblocking just drive people in markets who are blocked from accessing content, or who are charged higher prices, to just pirate the material. Or alternatively they bypass the geoblocks. Even now people are starting to ignore the various mechanisms used to bypass geoblocks as its getting harder to achieve, but before publishers start congratulating themselves they should consider that those people who bypassed their geoblocks were willing to pay what they consider a far price for that content. The fact is, in most cases they bypass the geoblocks because the pricing is not fair. I'm not sure these publishers can legitimately claim how unfair it is that people steal their content when they are literally discriminating against people by charging them higher prices based on their nationality. There may be an ethical weight you can assign to stealing and a lower ethical weight you can assign to price gouging, but they are both unethical. I often find it interesting when I bring up the fact that there is a fundamental unfairness to geoblocking that people immediately chime in to state that stealing is wrong, but they don't consider that a case can also be made that price gouging is really a form of theft of a consumers limited resources.
  - wernercd 10y ago
    Geoblocking goes beyond simple greed... different countries have different laws, supply, demand, etc. Some countries may outlaw certain things. Others may have a much lower amount of money per person/family/gdp. While I agree on the base level (Why should county a pay more than country b... like Australia routinely pays more for software), just saying "it's not fair" or "its unethical" is too simplistic.
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      If certain countries outlaw certain things then it is not up to the country who allows that same material to block supply.
      - ricksplat 10y ago
        But if they have a (eg trade) agreement with the other country then they may do it as a favour.
- return0 10y ago
  Elsevier does not control the product (because they are not making it). They leech off the rents that they gained decades ago. There is no future for them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pristinenoise 10y ago

I worked for a top ten academic research library, and even with budgets in the millions to low ten of millions, there were still plenty of journals we were not buying. Other than the big bundles, often times it was pressure from professors that would force a specific big-ticket journal to be acquired. If sci-hub.io stops those professors from making requests to the library, then there won't be as much pressure to pick up every last journal.

return0 10y ago

To add, its not like napster because none of the "artists" (scientists) will go after scihub, if anything almost everyone cheers them.

jasonshen 10y ago

OP here. Like most analogies, this one isn't perfect. Napster and Sci-Hub are similar in that they are underground yet widely used platforms for acquiring digital content that would otherwise cost money to purchase, but unlike CD's or actual printed journals, cost nothing to replicate. Many academics are specifically downloading papers they otherwise wouldn't have access to via their institution because it is too expensive. And libraries will eventually look for ways to cut expenses and if people aren't clamoring for more subscriptions (because they know they can already get them for free) over time, Elsevier's revenues will decline. There is no need for a death knell. Record companies aren't extinct, but they had to reshape dramatically in part because of the prevalence of pirated music via platforms like Napster.