4 ms·

libgen/scihub are of such monumental social/moral worth that their illegality delegitimizes the law as a whole https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/12200627408

by panic 6y ago

libgen/scihub are of such monumental social/moral worth that their illegality delegitimizes the law as a whole https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/1220062740825415689 https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/1220062740825415689

jraph 6y ago
Well, that the law is wrong on one aspect does not mean it is wrong for every thing. We should strive making the law match what is morally right, but law ≠ morally right. There are lawful things that are morally wrong and conversely. This is difficult because: - it is difficult for the law to keep up with every aspect of things - "morally right" is not universal. It is proper to each person. My take is: don't use the law as a definition of what is right and keep being critical. Breaking the law might be the right thing to do in some situations (and not breaking it, the wrong thing to do!), but be aware of the consequences of doing so. Law is also a common ground to make a society work by getting people to act under the same rules, so it makes sense to abide by it if there is not a good reason not to do so. It's not perfect and does not make sense for some things. It can also evolve for the better through civil disobedience, which is a bit paradoxical because while society relies on people following the law, breaking it in this situation may be a right thing to do (depending on your views!). (edit: I'm saying this as someone who, by default, does not much like laws and rules. I need to make sense of rules to follow them without reluctance)
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I read your whole comment, up and down, yet I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Is there a point you are trying to make?
  - jraph 6y ago
    Yeah, sorry, it is a bit confusing. When reading "libgen/scihub are of such monumental social/moral worth that their illegality delegitimizes the law as a whole", I first empathized with it, but I found it wrong on second thought. My point is: this statement feels right to someone like me but is logically wrong and there are many complicated and subtle things to say about this, that I wanted to say to people who'd be inclined to agree with this statement for the same reasons as me. If the statement felt wrong to you on first thought, then my comment might seem out of topic or pointless.
freethedata 6y ago
At Duke University, it seemed that everyone on the campus network had access to most research available online. When I left, it left a whole in my life of the wealth of human knowledge that should be available to everyone. If there were only a few things on earth that should be unrestricted, it would be good research. Today, in the public domain, there is a abhorrence and abundance of fake research, driven by misguided funding and attempts to excel in the academic community or perhaps to secure competitive employment in places in the world where ethics are lacking. I don’t stand up for hackers typically, but I support this type of ethical hacking of the last bastion of our future with the hope that humanity will see the problem in its whole and have governments that can afford it to work out a deal to somehow at arm’s length fund reputable journals and fix the scourge before we waste untold amounts of money related to basing attempts at honest and good scientific study on bad research which has evolved due to the high cost of accessing good research and attaining visibility as research that is approved and submitted for review, with each revision obvious and available, and finally take this seriously.
Gehinnn 6y ago
I wonder if sci hub (and potentially even abandoning certain copyright laws) leads to less publications due to less financial incentives. I can imagine that nobody is going to write books professionally anymore if copyright laws to protect intellectual property were abandoned.
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
  Publishers are not paying scientists for papers, they are extorting exclusive copyrights promising exposure and fame, using psychological pressure founded on the "publish or perish" mentality. They are a big part of the problem, but SciHub is not the answer. We need a free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project. The big journals would still lure with fame and sell to readers with pre-selection and garnishment, but they can not be allowed exclusive rights. See: their most important customers are not individual readers, the journals sell bulk access to the very universities they get their content from. A few generations ago they were needed to distribute knowledge, and we are thankful for that, but their technology has become outdated and ineffective. Nowadays their money engine no longer relies on providing access to scientific knowledge, but on limiting it. They need to loose that power, so society can move forward.
  - jraph 6y ago
    Yes, scientists have everything to gain from their work being as visible as possible. And many themselves rely on Sci-Hub to get papers for which their lab don't pay expensive access to. And they don't receive money when their papers are bought. The loosing ones are publishers and they kind of deserve it if you ask me. They make scientists pay with money to publish their work, and with time for unpaid reviews, and yet they make a profit out of it, which, for the record, is often paid with public money on both sides. This is quite clever when you think about it. Publishers had their use when we needed publications to be printed on papers but now their role is more arguable. Should private publishers collapse, scientists would figure out a way to publish their papers another way and that might be for the best. (edit since you added your second paragraph: hopefully using something like the "free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project" that you mention)

by panic 6y ago

jraph 6y ago

Well, that the law is wrong on one aspect does not mean it is wrong for every thing. We should strive making the law match what is morally right, but law ≠ morally right. There are lawful things that are morally wrong and conversely. This is difficult because: - it is difficult for the law to keep up with every aspect of things - "morally right" is not universal. It is proper to each person. My take is: don't use the law as a definition of what is right and keep being critical. Breaking the law might be the right thing to do in some situations (and not breaking it, the wrong thing to do!), but be aware of the consequences of doing so. Law is also a common ground to make a society work by getting people to act under the same rules, so it makes sense to abide by it if there is not a good reason not to do so. It's not perfect and does not make sense for some things. It can also evolve for the better through civil disobedience, which is a bit paradoxical because while society relies on people following the law, breaking it in this situation may be a right thing to do (depending on your views!). (edit: I'm saying this as someone who, by default, does not much like laws and rules. I need to make sense of rules to follow them without reluctance)

forgotmypw17 6y ago
I read your whole comment, up and down, yet I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Is there a point you are trying to make?
- jraph 6y ago
  Yeah, sorry, it is a bit confusing. When reading "libgen/scihub are of such monumental social/moral worth that their illegality delegitimizes the law as a whole", I first empathized with it, but I found it wrong on second thought. My point is: this statement feels right to someone like me but is logically wrong and there are many complicated and subtle things to say about this, that I wanted to say to people who'd be inclined to agree with this statement for the same reasons as me. If the statement felt wrong to you on first thought, then my comment might seem out of topic or pointless.

freethedata 6y ago

At Duke University, it seemed that everyone on the campus network had access to most research available online. When I left, it left a whole in my life of the wealth of human knowledge that should be available to everyone. If there were only a few things on earth that should be unrestricted, it would be good research. Today, in the public domain, there is a abhorrence and abundance of fake research, driven by misguided funding and attempts to excel in the academic community or perhaps to secure competitive employment in places in the world where ethics are lacking. I don’t stand up for hackers typically, but I support this type of ethical hacking of the last bastion of our future with the hope that humanity will see the problem in its whole and have governments that can afford it to work out a deal to somehow at arm’s length fund reputable journals and fix the scourge before we waste untold amounts of money related to basing attempts at honest and good scientific study on bad research which has evolved due to the high cost of accessing good research and attaining visibility as research that is approved and submitted for review, with each revision obvious and available, and finally take this seriously.

Gehinnn 6y ago

I wonder if sci hub (and potentially even abandoning certain copyright laws) leads to less publications due to less financial incentives. I can imagine that nobody is going to write books professionally anymore if copyright laws to protect intellectual property were abandoned.

Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
Publishers are not paying scientists for papers, they are extorting exclusive copyrights promising exposure and fame, using psychological pressure founded on the "publish or perish" mentality. They are a big part of the problem, but SciHub is not the answer. We need a free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project. The big journals would still lure with fame and sell to readers with pre-selection and garnishment, but they can not be allowed exclusive rights. See: their most important customers are not individual readers, the journals sell bulk access to the very universities they get their content from. A few generations ago they were needed to distribute knowledge, and we are thankful for that, but their technology has become outdated and ineffective. Nowadays their money engine no longer relies on providing access to scientific knowledge, but on limiting it. They need to loose that power, so society can move forward.
- jraph 6y ago
  Yes, scientists have everything to gain from their work being as visible as possible. And many themselves rely on Sci-Hub to get papers for which their lab don't pay expensive access to. And they don't receive money when their papers are bought. The loosing ones are publishers and they kind of deserve it if you ask me. They make scientists pay with money to publish their work, and with time for unpaid reviews, and yet they make a profit out of it, which, for the record, is often paid with public money on both sides. This is quite clever when you think about it. Publishers had their use when we needed publications to be printed on papers but now their role is more arguable. Should private publishers collapse, scientists would figure out a way to publish their papers another way and that might be for the best. (edit since you added your second paragraph: hopefully using something like the "free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project" that you mention)