4 ms·
> The problem is that publishers are not actual creators of these works, scientists are – they do all the work, and academic publishers simply use their positio
by crumbshot 6y ago
> The problem is that publishers are not actual creators of these works, scientists are – they do all the work, and academic publishers simply use their position of power in the Republic of Science to extract unjust profits. Sci-Hub does not enable piracy where creative people are deprived of the reward they deserve. It is a very different thing.
This has strong parallels with how the parasitic private sector, in its endless thirst for profit above all else, ruins so many other things that would be better run through public provision: housing, medical care, etc.
- juskrey 6y agoAs someone who have escaped from places with public housing and healthcare provision, I suspect you were never really experiencing that. Some place for wise regulation - maybe. That said, a parallel is very poor. Modern academia is a zero sum morally corrupt game, guilty of many sins on its own.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pizza 6y agoMaybe you should elaborate on why you think academia is a zero sum game. Like e.g. for one researcher to get a grant, another one doesn't?
- juskrey 6y agoLike you have said, this is obvious. Same with academic positions. In real life, if you think you know better, you go start your own business and don't wait until all your enemies die out.
- geomark 6y agoHaving experienced, in a couple of very different countries, the difference between public and private housing and healthcare I know which one I prefer. No experience as an insider in academia so can't comment on that.
- someguydave 6y agoTankies are now top commenters on hn?
- MrPatan 6y agoAh, yes, I remember that time when I tried to copy a house and the private sector, all parasitic-like, went on about bullshit like "labour" and "materials" and "land". Like, what's that? I have rights, you know!
- diebeforei485 6y agoI think the private sector (for the most part) does a good job on delivering new housing, and are largely limited by local rules such as zoning and set-asides. The only real criticism of them IMO is that they're cyclical with the economy. They tend to build during good times, but the most cost-effective time to build housing is during bad times (now) because construction costs are also low.
- pmiller2 6y agoNot the only criticism. How about the fact that there are incentives to hoard more housing units than one can use while others have none?
- diebeforei485 6y agoI think this should be a criticism of laws that create those incentives, and not a criticism of companies doing what they are incentivized to do.