3 ms·

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

by 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.

by kleiba 5y ago

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.