5 ms·

Title: We Can’t Trust the Market with Scientific Knowledge First claim: The publisher rakes in 100 percent of the subscription fees, and access to what is mean

Title: We Can’t Trust the Market with Scientific Knowledge First claim: The publisher rakes in 100 percent of the subscription fees, and access to what is meant to be a public good is restricted thanks to intellectual property laws. This is the exact same issue with the "right to repair crowd." Step 1. There's something wrong with the market. Step 2: Analysis: because of IP law. Why isn't the argument made against the actual cause? Bad intellectual property law has been a major issue in the US for decades now. Indefinite copyright, extortionate liabilities, patent trolling, and the farce of the DMCA. It seems to me that "the market" isn't even getting a chance here.

lumost 5y ago
In this case the two are tied by what some would call “political economy”. The IP laws are broken because IP holders pay for them to be broken. Civil activism in the IP space is inneffective as its both an esoteric topic and one with long duration. The IP holder needs just one bill to pass in their favor while activists need to block hundreds of bills over decades.
qsort 5y ago
> Why isn't the argument made against the actual cause? Practicality. Personally, I advocate for the complete abolition of both copyright and patents, but realistically it's not something that's going to happen before I'm six feet underground. Reforming access to scientific papers is still going to improve the situation, and there's a realistic chance of that happening.
Guthur 5y ago
And source of bad law is the government. It's appalling how often people scream for the government to come save them from a situation created by said government.
- inetknght 5y ago
  Source of bad government is certain members of government acting in bad faith. It's appalling how often certain members of government scream for one thing while doing another.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- erellsworth 5y ago
  Bad laws are created by the government at the behest of the wealthy, who can purchase all the access to, and by extension influence over, members of the government who make all the decisions. All that aside, who would you suggest people turn to for a solution? Replacing bad laws with good ones requires government. Replacing bad laws with no laws at all, also requires government. Who should we be screaming at? Industry? Good luck with that.
- kwk1 5y ago
  In logic terms, the government in this scenario is sufficient but not necessary for these outcomes.
tda 5y ago
Perhaps because laws and regulation are part of the market. And unfortunately even in democracies, small but vocal minorities have proven to be very able to bend the laws i their favor. I bet there is no democratic majority to support DMCA and indefinite copyright. Still there is no way to turn back these laws, as a few well organized people with a lot of financial interests are for these laws, a and a large part of the general population is (I suspect) somewhat against but mostly indifferent. For most people copyright reform is just one of the many things they would applaud, but not really fight for. Same with climate issues, tobacco industry, opioid crisis... A small, vocal, well organized minority can have it their way and the rest of us stand by and suffer. I would love to hear of a better way, but as it stands, you cannot see this mechanism as a failure of politics alone, and not market, as it are market forces that push the above mentioned minorities to influence the law.
- nosianu 5y ago
  > Perhaps because laws and regulation are part of the market. To be more precise, there would not even be a market without regulation. Since IP can just be copied, only when "ownership" is artificially enforced by some sufficiently mighty entity with the power to do so is there anything to trade in the first place. While enforcement of ownership needs to exist for everything, as the basis for markets, for these intangible things it is far more important. Defining copying as "stealing" sure is a cultural and arbitrary decision, not something the universe demands of us. The effort necessary to track and enforce ownership for IP is huge and itself not part of the "market". It's much easier for tangible assets. The effort required to create a "market" for IP is on another level.
  - indrax 5y ago
    >only when "ownership" is artificially enforced by some sufficiently mighty entity with the power to do so is there anything to trade in the first place. Every instance of funding open software and free content disproves this. The valuable thing is the creation of IP. If you want IP pay for its creation. The market can do that.
    - 5y ago

lumost 5y ago

In this case the two are tied by what some would call “political economy”. The IP laws are broken because IP holders pay for them to be broken. Civil activism in the IP space is inneffective as its both an esoteric topic and one with long duration. The IP holder needs just one bill to pass in their favor while activists need to block hundreds of bills over decades.

qsort 5y ago

> Why isn't the argument made against the actual cause? Practicality. Personally, I advocate for the complete abolition of both copyright and patents, but realistically it's not something that's going to happen before I'm six feet underground. Reforming access to scientific papers is still going to improve the situation, and there's a realistic chance of that happening.

Guthur 5y ago

And source of bad law is the government. It's appalling how often people scream for the government to come save them from a situation created by said government.

inetknght 5y ago
Source of bad government is certain members of government acting in bad faith. It's appalling how often certain members of government scream for one thing while doing another.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
erellsworth 5y ago
Bad laws are created by the government at the behest of the wealthy, who can purchase all the access to, and by extension influence over, members of the government who make all the decisions. All that aside, who would you suggest people turn to for a solution? Replacing bad laws with good ones requires government. Replacing bad laws with no laws at all, also requires government. Who should we be screaming at? Industry? Good luck with that.
kwk1 5y ago
In logic terms, the government in this scenario is sufficient but not necessary for these outcomes.

tda 5y ago

Perhaps because laws and regulation are part of the market. And unfortunately even in democracies, small but vocal minorities have proven to be very able to bend the laws i their favor. I bet there is no democratic majority to support DMCA and indefinite copyright. Still there is no way to turn back these laws, as a few well organized people with a lot of financial interests are for these laws, a and a large part of the general population is (I suspect) somewhat against but mostly indifferent. For most people copyright reform is just one of the many things they would applaud, but not really fight for. Same with climate issues, tobacco industry, opioid crisis... A small, vocal, well organized minority can have it their way and the rest of us stand by and suffer. I would love to hear of a better way, but as it stands, you cannot see this mechanism as a failure of politics alone, and not market, as it are market forces that push the above mentioned minorities to influence the law.

nosianu 5y ago
> Perhaps because laws and regulation are part of the market. To be more precise, there would not even be a market without regulation. Since IP can just be copied, only when "ownership" is artificially enforced by some sufficiently mighty entity with the power to do so is there anything to trade in the first place. While enforcement of ownership needs to exist for everything, as the basis for markets, for these intangible things it is far more important. Defining copying as "stealing" sure is a cultural and arbitrary decision, not something the universe demands of us. The effort necessary to track and enforce ownership for IP is huge and itself not part of the "market". It's much easier for tangible assets. The effort required to create a "market" for IP is on another level.
- indrax 5y ago
  >only when "ownership" is artificially enforced by some sufficiently mighty entity with the power to do so is there anything to trade in the first place. Every instance of funding open software and free content disproves this. The valuable thing is the creation of IP. If you want IP pay for its creation. The market can do that.
  - 5y ago