3 ms·
The fundamental problem is that we use the wrong tool to solve the problem of academic publication: We use the free market, which limits distribution to those
by forapurpose 9y ago
The fundamental problem is that we use the wrong tool to solve the problem of academic publication:
We use the free market, which limits distribution to those who can pay the most in order to maximize profit - that's how the tool is intended to work. That's great for some things, such as laptops, but it works against the mission of scientific research, for which the mission is to advance knowledge, advance the world, and solve important problems.
Unfortunately, our society now dogmatically applies the free market hammer to almost every problem, nail, screw, wheel, or fragile crystal vase. If only Einstein had thought of it - how much could he have sold the theories of special and general relativity for? How much could Watson and Crick cashed in for? Tim Berrners-Lee?
- rvern 9y agoA free market is a “market in which trade is unregulated by government; an economic system free from government intervention.”[1] Copyright is a monopoly enforced by the government on the use and distribution of an original work.[2] The tool we use for academic publications is copyright, not the free market. The free market outcome is Sci-Hub. The monopoly-enforced-by-the-government outcome is Elsevier, the RIAA, the MPAA, rent-seeking by the aforementioned organizations, proprietary software, and DRM. The fundamental problem is indeed that we use the wrong tool to solve the problem of academic publication. We should use the free market, instead of government-enforced regulation. [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free_market https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free_market [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right