4 ms·

Also, JSTOR does NOT get those documents for free. They may have to pay the publisher to host them on their server. Academic publishing is a bitch and there is

Also, JSTOR does NOT get those documents for free. They may have to pay the publisher to host them on their server. Academic publishing is a bitch and there is a lot going on lately towards a common, world wide reform. However, JSTOR is not really the bad guy here. Other publishers (e.g. Elsevier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier) make billions by publishing mainly work payed with tax payer money.

Vivtek 15y ago
They may have to pay the publisher to host them on their server. Not in this case, apparently; they're public domain. Although JSTOR did foot the bill for the scanning. I'll take your other point, though: if there's real evil in the academic publishing world, it's Elsevier.
- bhickey 15y ago
  Good thing that reproducing something, no matter how laborious the process, is not considered a creative act in the US.
  - pyre 15y ago
    No, but (IIRC) compilations that take serious effort to produce have a copyright on them, e.g. the phone book.
    - ahlatimer 15y ago
      The content doesn't, actually. I'll look up the specific case when I get home, but phone book publishers most definitely do not have any copyright claims to the phone number or addresses. They do have copyright claims to the font choice, layout, etc., so you can't copy the phone book wholesale, but you can take the phone numbers, rearrange them, and set them in a different typeface and you'd be in the clear. I don't believe there's any part of copyright that takes the amount of effort into account. There was a case (again, I'll look it up when I get home) where a copy of a work that was in the public domain was granted its own copyright because it had a few errors in it. The errors were unintentional, but copyright was given. In the phone book case, the court specifically mentioned that even though there was no doubt a significant amount of work required to produce the phone book, that didn't give the publisher copyright.
      - carussell 15y ago
        > I'll look up the specific case when I get home, but phone book publishers most definitely do not have any copyright claims to the phone number or addresses. Feist v. Rural
        ahlatimer 15y ago
        Yep, that's the one. The other one I was thinking of was Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      No, the phone book most specifically doesn't - which is why you get five phone books nowadays as competing companies try to sell ads all at once.
- ristretto 15y ago
  What about Springer or Nature publishing? Unfortunately, the real evil is rooted in a system that measures excellence based on publishing records and not scientific impact. Until there's a replacement for that, life scientists will keep sheepishly bowing to the publishers. That replacement could be an idea for a startup.
  - shadowfox 15y ago
    > Unfortunately, the real evil is rooted in a system that measures excellence based on publishing records and not scientific impact Can you clarify this a bit? How do you get to have impact without first publishing it somewhere (at least mildly reputable) and having other people actually read it/review it/run with it?
    - ristretto 15y ago
      My ideal system would be a global open system where scientists would publish their results, not papers. Other scientists would be able to review, confirm and reuse your results transparently and third parties would be able to assess your position from your record and the feedback that you get from fellow scientists. That could involve many more signals rather than just the (journal+number of citations) that everyone uses now.
- crocowhile 15y ago
  The point is that this action and aaronsw's action make JSTOR look like the villain while JSTOR are rather sitting on the good side of the battle. (On the other hand, these actions do contribute to create public awareness so I still haven't decided if they are good or not)
  - SDADASDA 15y ago
    it seems JSTOR is not pressing charges.
gwern 15y ago
JSTOR does not get them for free, but it gets them for a lot less than you think and they make a lot more than you think they do. Here are two analyses of their finances based on their mandatory IRS filings: - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-July/109234.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-July/1092... - http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your-money-go/ http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your... Summary: they take in >53m USD. Publishers get 8m of that. Their IT infrastructure costs 4m. All the new material and scanning old material cost 5m. (Notice how many millions are left over. They all go to staff, travel, and other goodies like that. The management is generously compensated.)
- crocowhile 15y ago
  Interesting figures. Something to think about. Thanks.

Vivtek 15y ago

They may have to pay the publisher to host them on their server. Not in this case, apparently; they're public domain. Although JSTOR did foot the bill for the scanning. I'll take your other point, though: if there's real evil in the academic publishing world, it's Elsevier.

bhickey 15y ago
Good thing that reproducing something, no matter how laborious the process, is not considered a creative act in the US.
- pyre 15y ago
  No, but (IIRC) compilations that take serious effort to produce have a copyright on them, e.g. the phone book.
  - ahlatimer 15y ago
    The content doesn't, actually. I'll look up the specific case when I get home, but phone book publishers most definitely do not have any copyright claims to the phone number or addresses. They do have copyright claims to the font choice, layout, etc., so you can't copy the phone book wholesale, but you can take the phone numbers, rearrange them, and set them in a different typeface and you'd be in the clear. I don't believe there's any part of copyright that takes the amount of effort into account. There was a case (again, I'll look it up when I get home) where a copy of a work that was in the public domain was granted its own copyright because it had a few errors in it. The errors were unintentional, but copyright was given. In the phone book case, the court specifically mentioned that even though there was no doubt a significant amount of work required to produce the phone book, that didn't give the publisher copyright.
    - carussell 15y ago
      > I'll look up the specific case when I get home, but phone book publishers most definitely do not have any copyright claims to the phone number or addresses. Feist v. Rural
      - ahlatimer 15y ago
        Yep, that's the one. The other one I was thinking of was Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    No, the phone book most specifically doesn't - which is why you get five phone books nowadays as competing companies try to sell ads all at once.
ristretto 15y ago
What about Springer or Nature publishing? Unfortunately, the real evil is rooted in a system that measures excellence based on publishing records and not scientific impact. Until there's a replacement for that, life scientists will keep sheepishly bowing to the publishers. That replacement could be an idea for a startup.
- shadowfox 15y ago
  > Unfortunately, the real evil is rooted in a system that measures excellence based on publishing records and not scientific impact Can you clarify this a bit? How do you get to have impact without first publishing it somewhere (at least mildly reputable) and having other people actually read it/review it/run with it?
  - ristretto 15y ago
    My ideal system would be a global open system where scientists would publish their results, not papers. Other scientists would be able to review, confirm and reuse your results transparently and third parties would be able to assess your position from your record and the feedback that you get from fellow scientists. That could involve many more signals rather than just the (journal+number of citations) that everyone uses now.
crocowhile 15y ago
The point is that this action and aaronsw's action make JSTOR look like the villain while JSTOR are rather sitting on the good side of the battle. (On the other hand, these actions do contribute to create public awareness so I still haven't decided if they are good or not)
- SDADASDA 15y ago
  it seems JSTOR is not pressing charges.

gwern 15y ago

JSTOR does not get them for free, but it gets them for a lot less than you think and they make a lot more than you think they do. Here are two analyses of their finances based on their mandatory IRS filings: - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-July/109234.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-July/1092... - http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your-money-go/ http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your... Summary: they take in >53m USD. Publishers get 8m of that. Their IT infrastructure costs 4m. All the new material and scanning old material cost 5m. (Notice how many millions are left over. They all go to staff, travel, and other goodies like that. The management is generously compensated.)

crocowhile 15y ago
Interesting figures. Something to think about. Thanks.