2 ms·

>Your work is based upon the work of others, isn't it? I'm sure your work is filled with citations of other works that were taxpayer funded. Are you claiming o

>Your work is based upon the work of others, isn't it? I'm sure your work is filled with citations of other works that were taxpayer funded. Are you claiming one cannot get paid for their work if it build on the works of anything taxpayer funded? Are you claiming anything taxpayer funded must be open access to all? Both of these seem too shortsighted to be reasonable, in which case there is some middle ground. Sci hub taking things because it's popular is not going to be a good model for pretty much any future.

markdown 6y ago
> Are you claiming one cannot get paid for their work if it build on the works of anything taxpayer funded? No. > Are you claiming anything taxpayer funded must be open access to all? Absolutely. > Sci hub taking things because it's popular is not going to be a good model for pretty much any future. Why they're taking things is irrelevant. The fact is that them doing so is a net positive for humanity. There are billions (BILLIONS) of people who can now access knowledge that's been locked away. That's a net positive. There's only a tiny fraction of that that is self-funded, and those folk can just stop publishing, or find another business model.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >> Are you claiming one cannot get paid for their work if it build on the works of anything taxpayer funded? >No. >> Are you claiming anything taxpayer funded must be open access to all? > Absolutely. Ok, then good. In many, if not most, fields, the vast majority of academic papers are not completely taxpayer funded, and in many cases they are privately funded. For example, in CS, big company R&D researchers did the work. In medicine, a significant amount of papers are from Pharma companies, and a lot of academic work is partially funded by companies. The same is in every field. Sample a top CS journal and you'll see how much of it is not from taxpayer funding - MS, Google, FB, etc., researchers likely constitute the majority of top CS publications for some time now. So, given that it's now clear that a significant amount of the papers sci hub copies were not taxpayer funded, and probably the majority are not totally taxpayer funded, care to drop the claim it's ok for sci hub to copy these because you thought they were paid for by taxpayers? Because it, like make things people claim here with no understanding of the complexity or bothering to even look, is wrong.

markdown 6y ago

> Are you claiming one cannot get paid for their work if it build on the works of anything taxpayer funded? No. > Are you claiming anything taxpayer funded must be open access to all? Absolutely. > Sci hub taking things because it's popular is not going to be a good model for pretty much any future. Why they're taking things is irrelevant. The fact is that them doing so is a net positive for humanity. There are billions (BILLIONS) of people who can now access knowledge that's been locked away. That's a net positive. There's only a tiny fraction of that that is self-funded, and those folk can just stop publishing, or find another business model.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
>> Are you claiming one cannot get paid for their work if it build on the works of anything taxpayer funded? >No. >> Are you claiming anything taxpayer funded must be open access to all? > Absolutely. Ok, then good. In many, if not most, fields, the vast majority of academic papers are not completely taxpayer funded, and in many cases they are privately funded. For example, in CS, big company R&D researchers did the work. In medicine, a significant amount of papers are from Pharma companies, and a lot of academic work is partially funded by companies. The same is in every field. Sample a top CS journal and you'll see how much of it is not from taxpayer funding - MS, Google, FB, etc., researchers likely constitute the majority of top CS publications for some time now. So, given that it's now clear that a significant amount of the papers sci hub copies were not taxpayer funded, and probably the majority are not totally taxpayer funded, care to drop the claim it's ok for sci hub to copy these because you thought they were paid for by taxpayers? Because it, like make things people claim here with no understanding of the complexity or bothering to even look, is wrong.