3 ms·
Maybe not academics but publishers absolutely do in many academic fields. It's the reason Sci-Hub exists at all. Besides, whether you make a profit is hardly r
by soraminazuki 5y ago
Maybe not academics but publishers absolutely do in many academic fields. It's the reason Sci-Hub exists at all.
Besides, whether you make a profit is hardly relevant to this topic. You could make no profit at all and still be accused of copyright infringement.
- cblconfederate 5y agoI don't see how this is related. Academics get enough tanglible benefit from being cited so they are more than ok with being cited and quoted. News publishers don't make enough and are not happy about it. Copyright infringment is usually not litigated unless someone loses money.
- soraminazuki 5y ago> I don't see how this is related. Well, I said what if "academics had to pay publishers a fee for each citation they make." In this situation, publishers like Elsevier would be able to extort even more money from academics, and ultimately from taxpayers. I'm sure publishers would be very happy about that while making everyone else miserable. > Copyright infringment is usually not litigated unless someone loses money. Partly true. Copyright infringement is litigated when the one suing believes there is money to be made. It doesn't matter where "the money lost" actually belongs to, as evident by court cases ruling in copyright troll's favor. It also doesn't matter whether the one being sued made any money too. But the most absurd assumption here is that linking has to benefit the creator of the content. If that is the case, no one would have the freedom to criticize the works of others online, or risk being sued of copyright violation. That's not even remotely close to what copyright was supposed to be all about.