3 ms·
I dont get it, how is it shaking up science. The heading is illogical. The article starts with how the film industry is being affected by piracy. Then it says
by fazkan 9y ago
I dont get it, how is it shaking up science.
The heading is illogical. The article starts with how the film industry is being affected by piracy. Then it says that a court has granted a publishing platform damages from sci hub. Then in the next few paragraphs it lists the countries with the most users of the sci hub websites. Then it ends with how the creator of sci hub will be awarded a Disobedience award by MIT, which she likely wont attend...
I was expecting a detailed analysis of how something like sci hub affects research and science, not the middleman companies that earns from the research.
- simias 9y ago>An analysis of Sci-Hub’s server logs, published in Science in 2016, found its biggest users were people in Iran, India and China. Such middle-income countries do not qualify for the subsidies big publishers provide to users in the poorest nations, but their universities nevertheless may not be able to afford subscriptions. That alone could potentially have far reaching consequences. I agree that the article is a bit light on details though.
- kefka 9y agoYeah, that may be true.. But Scihub is an onion site. That means there's not much in the way of "who", but in the way of last hop before hitting the onionsite. And I would daresay that one should probably not trust logs when going through Tor.
- pen2l 9y ago> >An analysis of Sci-Hub’s server logs, published in Science in 2016, found its biggest users were people in Iran, India and China. Such middle-income countries do not qualify for the subsidies big publishers provide to users in the poorest nations, but their universities nevertheless may not be able to afford subscriptions. How did Science get Scihub's server logs? Did scihub give them to Science? It's annoying that the economist is not linking to this supposed Science 2016 publication. If they did, I would have known how to access and read that publication (because I know this one website which would let me read it).
- MagnumOpus 9y ago> It's annoying that the economist is not linking to this supposed Science 2016 publication The Economist's usual readership is literate and can use search engines. The Science publication is literally the first result of the obvious search term.
- pen2l 9y agoThe readership of Science journal itself is literate and could use search engines. But they do the obvious task of linking to relevant references. If the Economist is in the business of distributing information, linking to a journal should sort of be one of the things they do. Even Buzzfeed and such outlets now do the common courtesy of linking to papers that they are talking about.
- chengiz 9y agoThis is very standard for the Economist. It used to be a good magazine, and occasionally still delivers a superb long form article (usually about the financial/corporate world), but its editorials are just a lazy mishmash of bullet points.