4 ms·

> But if the answer is "no", I cannot see how that justifies you getting a copy without paying. Where else in life is that a valid option? "I'd love to have a s

> But if the answer is "no", I cannot see how that justifies you getting a copy without paying. Where else in life is that a valid option? "I'd love to have a snickers bar, but I don't want to pay a dollar for it, so I guess I just take it." Obviously, there are differences between that example and sci-hub but for the core of the issue, these differences are negligible in my opinion. I think the differences are definitely not negligible. There are similarities on the surface, yes, but one can distinguish between the two cases by asking "would it be OK if everyone did this?" Basically Kant's categorical imperative: > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law In the case of stealing snickers, we can imagine that if everyone did so, then making or selling snickers would no longer be a profitable business, so in the end snickers would no longer be produced, and we would all be worse for it :( On the other hand, if everyone were to pirate scientific papers, no economic harm would come to the scientists doing the research for those papers. Only the journals would risk going out of business if they don't adapt, and that would be (or could be; i'm not entirely sure) a good outcome, as it would incentivize a more open approach to science distribution and access :) So, one can conclude that, despite the surface similarities, stealing snickers is morally wrong, while pirating scientific papers is not.

kleiba 5y ago
Like I said, I'm aware of the differences. Interestingly, though, no-one who answered to my point has yet commented on the similarities. To me, no-one has yet made a convincing argument to justify why offering for free what others have the right to monetize should be considered okay.
- epidemian 5y ago
  > why offering for free what others have the right to monetize should be considered okay. Because having the possibility to monetize something doesn't make it inherently right to do so. People have monetized things that we would now consider abhorrent to do, like human lives in the form of slaves, wives as property, and countless examples of human rights violations. Heck, even today in many places of the world people monetize access to education or health care for example, prohibiting some people from accessing things that are considered basic human rights. That they have a "right" to monetize it doesn't make it okay to do so. I guess the underlying questions here is: should we consider access to scientific publications a right that anyone should be able to exercise? I personally think that yes, freedom of information is a laudable goal, and is definitely worth the inconvenience of losing some antiquated journals. If you don't agree, what do you think would be the issue with having universal access to scientific papers?
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > what others have the right to monetize Why do you believe these rent seekers have a right to monetize the work of other people? I can at least understand where the entertainment industry is coming from. I don't agree with them, I think their business model is backwards. However I understand the fact it costs a ton of money to produce films, series. These journals on the other hand are simply indefensible. They don't do research. They don't do peer review. They don't do much of anything except exploit their brand name. So it doesn't matter what the law says. We refuse to recognize it as legitimate. It doesn't matter what rights they have. We'll take them away.

kleiba 5y ago

Like I said, I'm aware of the differences. Interestingly, though, no-one who answered to my point has yet commented on the similarities. To me, no-one has yet made a convincing argument to justify why offering for free what others have the right to monetize should be considered okay.

epidemian 5y ago
> why offering for free what others have the right to monetize should be considered okay. Because having the possibility to monetize something doesn't make it inherently right to do so. People have monetized things that we would now consider abhorrent to do, like human lives in the form of slaves, wives as property, and countless examples of human rights violations. Heck, even today in many places of the world people monetize access to education or health care for example, prohibiting some people from accessing things that are considered basic human rights. That they have a "right" to monetize it doesn't make it okay to do so. I guess the underlying questions here is: should we consider access to scientific publications a right that anyone should be able to exercise? I personally think that yes, freedom of information is a laudable goal, and is definitely worth the inconvenience of losing some antiquated journals. If you don't agree, what do you think would be the issue with having universal access to scientific papers?
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> what others have the right to monetize Why do you believe these rent seekers have a right to monetize the work of other people? I can at least understand where the entertainment industry is coming from. I don't agree with them, I think their business model is backwards. However I understand the fact it costs a ton of money to produce films, series. These journals on the other hand are simply indefensible. They don't do research. They don't do peer review. They don't do much of anything except exploit their brand name. So it doesn't matter what the law says. We refuse to recognize it as legitimate. It doesn't matter what rights they have. We'll take them away.