4 ms·

I don't see how requiring grant holders to spend money on the Elsevier "open access" fees is a win for the council? You can always pay more, the point of negoti

I don't see how requiring grant holders to spend money on the Elsevier "open access" fees is a win for the council? You can always pay more, the point of negotiation is to get more for less. Mandating that researchers pay the Elsevier fees seems like a clear-cut win for Elsevier... You start out with full rights to your paper. Then you hand over a exclusive "do whatever you want license" to Elsevier for free. Then the UK council requires you to further pay Elsevier so the paper is downloadable from their shitty-ass website. That is an unmitigated disaster.

sleavey 9y ago
I completely agree this is a stupid system that profits mainly Elsevier and other toxic journals. But this still seems to me to be a step in the right direction compared to before, when researchers were not obliged to public their publicly-funded research publicly. Now they are, which is the way it always should have been. It seems to me that the current peer review model is dying anyway, and new technology (especially the web) is slowly but surely killing it, especially in the fields of computing science and mathematics. I commend Germany's approach, but I don't think the UK's approach was a complete disaster.
amygdyl 9y ago
What is the most active access to the papers in question? I mean if you solve access for all those the authors hold electronic copy of, are we functional? I'm unassailable if I the author lend you a copy of my complete work. Anything less is the removal of my property, being no longer able to dispose of it myself but at mercy another. I find the last copy left, scan it, and quickly modify my torrent client to create a tracker that remaps either a key to the document or just a obfuscated essential part for reading, such that the file is not copyable in transit, and the tracker first seeks your input when you desire access, and how many people are you reading with, eg lecture reference etc. You control those viewers that read your file or the tracker pointers. This only limits time, distribution and copying. A infinite number of ways to artificially restrict reading can be imagined. But if I lend to anyone obviously a valuable asset without ready replacement (this is making it ridiculous but..) of my life work, letting just you Alice and Bob read my work, I'm not going to be liable in any way whatsoever. I really wish I could hide under a fold, the expansion of the occasional comment, because I have been in intimate contact with copyright issues, some of consequence, most prosaic, ALL MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE LITIGATION PARTIES I read the weak capitulation so often I STARTED TO BELIEVE IN THE FALSIFIED LAE THE REPORTED UNTRUTH THE PRESS TRAITOROUS YO THE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS IF LUDICROUS AND RIDICULOUSLY FAVOURABLE INTERPRETATION OF COPYRIGHT FOR BENEFIT CORPORATIONS ABD TO TIYAL SERIOS INCREDIBLE DISGUSTING THE EFT FROM THE PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUALS when will the media complicity attract charges of making demandsfl for money with menaces?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

sleavey 9y ago

I completely agree this is a stupid system that profits mainly Elsevier and other toxic journals. But this still seems to me to be a step in the right direction compared to before, when researchers were not obliged to public their publicly-funded research publicly. Now they are, which is the way it always should have been. It seems to me that the current peer review model is dying anyway, and new technology (especially the web) is slowly but surely killing it, especially in the fields of computing science and mathematics. I commend Germany's approach, but I don't think the UK's approach was a complete disaster.

amygdyl 9y ago

What is the most active access to the papers in question? I mean if you solve access for all those the authors hold electronic copy of, are we functional? I'm unassailable if I the author lend you a copy of my complete work. Anything less is the removal of my property, being no longer able to dispose of it myself but at mercy another. I find the last copy left, scan it, and quickly modify my torrent client to create a tracker that remaps either a key to the document or just a obfuscated essential part for reading, such that the file is not copyable in transit, and the tracker first seeks your input when you desire access, and how many people are you reading with, eg lecture reference etc. You control those viewers that read your file or the tracker pointers. This only limits time, distribution and copying. A infinite number of ways to artificially restrict reading can be imagined. But if I lend to anyone obviously a valuable asset without ready replacement (this is making it ridiculous but..) of my life work, letting just you Alice and Bob read my work, I'm not going to be liable in any way whatsoever. I really wish I could hide under a fold, the expansion of the occasional comment, because I have been in intimate contact with copyright issues, some of consequence, most prosaic, ALL MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE LITIGATION PARTIES I read the weak capitulation so often I STARTED TO BELIEVE IN THE FALSIFIED LAE THE REPORTED UNTRUTH THE PRESS TRAITOROUS YO THE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS IF LUDICROUS AND RIDICULOUSLY FAVOURABLE INTERPRETATION OF COPYRIGHT FOR BENEFIT CORPORATIONS ABD TO TIYAL SERIOS INCREDIBLE DISGUSTING THE EFT FROM THE PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUALS when will the media complicity attract charges of making demandsfl for money with menaces?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]