3 ms·

I think the title is kind of wrong. The torrent author says: "I've had these files for a long time, but I've been afraid that if I published them I would be su

by meow 15y ago

I think the title is kind of wrong. The torrent author says: "I've had these files for a long time, but I've been afraid that if I published them I would be subject to unjust legal harassment by those who profit from controlling access to these works." So he clearly says its not in public domain but from a moral point of view they should be available to all the masses. The description of the torrent is very interesting. Definitely worth taking a look even if not willing to download the actual torrent.

microarchitect 15y ago
The portion of the collection included in this archive, ones published prior to 1923 and therefore obviously in the public domain, total some 18,592 papers and 33 gigabytes of data. I think this statement means that the documents are indeed in the public domain. I also think equark makes a valid point about the scans. Further, I don't understand why these guys are going after JSTOR, a non-profit organization. I'd be more understanding of their methods if they went after somebody like Elsevier.
- beefman 15y ago
  What do profits have to do with it?
- meow 15y ago
  You are correct. This portion appears to be in public domain (though not publicly available). Non-profit or not, the fact remains that most of these documents remain behind pay-walls while still being considered to be in public domain. You have a valid point though. The access to these documents seem to be governed by agreements between various publishers with aim to share the published content among various institutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR). So there is no point blaming JSTOR for the lack of access.
bryanlarsen 15y ago
You missed the word "unjust" in your reading. He very clearly claims elsewhere in his manifesto that the documents are public domain. The statement you elided would then be in conflict with that, but only if you remove the word "unjust".
- Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
  They are in the public domain in a printed copy. You can copy from them, reprint them, make books of them and charge for it. You can scan them and put them online, the whole millions of them. Yet that does take work and who should pay for this work? Is it not a great service to mankind that these documents are being made available from the comfort of your home? I do not understand one simle thing. JSTOR is not for profit. Are people therefore saying that it is making a profit? If yes, the action is understandable, but if not, as much as I am and was anoyed to face a JSTOR paywall and as much as there is an argument to make such paywall means tested, what are people actually saying? That this non profit organisation should not be able to existantially support itself? Yes, government should support it rather than spend money on wars, but, I simply do not understand why anyone would want to kill off a non profit organisation. How many of you are going to read these articles? How many of the general population would want to read these articles? Save for the professors and students how many would seek to even attempt to go through a journal article. It just seems, frankly, that a self interested ideology of disdain for copyrights has sprung roots in Hacker News and man has stoped considering long term effects, focusing instead on their temorary pleasure of the now.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    >They are in the public domain in a printed copy. You can copy from them, reprint them, make books of them and charge for it. You can scan them and put them online, the whole millions of them. Yet that does take work and who should pay for this work? Whoever wants to. But doing so does not give you copyright over the content. >I do not understand one simle thing. JSTOR is not for profit. Are people therefore saying that it is making a profit? If yes, the action is understandable, but if not, as much as I am and was anoyed to face a JSTOR paywall and as much as there is an argument to make such paywall means tested, what are people actually saying? That this non profit organisation should not be able to existantially support itself? $19 per copy is extremely expensive, considering their expenses after the document is scanned are close to 0 (and as we can see, hundreds of people are willing to do it for free).

by meow 15y ago

microarchitect 15y ago

The portion of the collection included in this archive, ones published prior to 1923 and therefore obviously in the public domain, total some 18,592 papers and 33 gigabytes of data. I think this statement means that the documents are indeed in the public domain. I also think equark makes a valid point about the scans. Further, I don't understand why these guys are going after JSTOR, a non-profit organization. I'd be more understanding of their methods if they went after somebody like Elsevier.

beefman 15y ago
What do profits have to do with it?
meow 15y ago
You are correct. This portion appears to be in public domain (though not publicly available). Non-profit or not, the fact remains that most of these documents remain behind pay-walls while still being considered to be in public domain. You have a valid point though. The access to these documents seem to be governed by agreements between various publishers with aim to share the published content among various institutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR). So there is no point blaming JSTOR for the lack of access.

bryanlarsen 15y ago

You missed the word "unjust" in your reading. He very clearly claims elsewhere in his manifesto that the documents are public domain. The statement you elided would then be in conflict with that, but only if you remove the word "unjust".

Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
They are in the public domain in a printed copy. You can copy from them, reprint them, make books of them and charge for it. You can scan them and put them online, the whole millions of them. Yet that does take work and who should pay for this work? Is it not a great service to mankind that these documents are being made available from the comfort of your home? I do not understand one simle thing. JSTOR is not for profit. Are people therefore saying that it is making a profit? If yes, the action is understandable, but if not, as much as I am and was anoyed to face a JSTOR paywall and as much as there is an argument to make such paywall means tested, what are people actually saying? That this non profit organisation should not be able to existantially support itself? Yes, government should support it rather than spend money on wars, but, I simply do not understand why anyone would want to kill off a non profit organisation. How many of you are going to read these articles? How many of the general population would want to read these articles? Save for the professors and students how many would seek to even attempt to go through a journal article. It just seems, frankly, that a self interested ideology of disdain for copyrights has sprung roots in Hacker News and man has stoped considering long term effects, focusing instead on their temorary pleasure of the now.
- icebraining 15y ago
  >They are in the public domain in a printed copy. You can copy from them, reprint them, make books of them and charge for it. You can scan them and put them online, the whole millions of them. Yet that does take work and who should pay for this work? Whoever wants to. But doing so does not give you copyright over the content. >I do not understand one simle thing. JSTOR is not for profit. Are people therefore saying that it is making a profit? If yes, the action is understandable, but if not, as much as I am and was anoyed to face a JSTOR paywall and as much as there is an argument to make such paywall means tested, what are people actually saying? That this non profit organisation should not be able to existantially support itself? $19 per copy is extremely expensive, considering their expenses after the document is scanned are close to 0 (and as we can see, hundreds of people are willing to do it for free).