5 ms·

Source?

by luke2m 5y ago

Source?

rasengan 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites Keep in mind, they classify, for example 'scihub' as a piracy site [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16618874/court-pirate-science-site-sci-hub-shut-down https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16618874/court-pirate-sci...
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Which it is, surely? Don't get me wrong, sites like it are on my most-visited list on every device, but they are for pirating papers, no?
  - rasengan 5y ago
    If you consider articles and research that the public paid for and suddenly don't have access to, to be piracy, then sure. To be clear, people have given their life for this cause.
    - retrac 5y ago
      So have some people who campaign for the Pirate Party in various countries. It's not necessarily even a pejorative.
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      It's not all publicly funded, to be clear. Lots and lots of finance stuff is written by people in industry for example. It's a gift to mankind but it is still technically illegal (which I would vote to change every single second of the day, but still).
      - rasengan 5y ago
        It could be illegal in the US, but not in all the jurisdictions where they overstepped their bounds.
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      I feel like you're trying to argue that piracy is ethical, which is different than something not being piracy.
      - rasengan 5y ago
        I think it's possible it could be considered piracy in the US, but not all countries follow these same rules nor schools of thought. The issue is that the jurisdiction bleeds into others' jurisdictions that might have different rules on these types of things, but the US doesn't really care since it has absolute power and exercises its authority over those outside of its jurisdiction.
      - elmomle 5y ago
        The words we use are important, because public opinion tends to matter quite a bit with these things, and public opinion is shaped immensely by words and their connotations (remember death panels?). If sci-hub is said to aid in the pirating of papers, it is doomed. If instead its purpose is said to be to make publicly-funded research accessible to the public for the benefit of all, then there's at least a slightly better chance of its surviving.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      > people have given their life for this cause I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease). Is there someone else you're referring to that I haven't heard of?
      - rasengan 5y ago
        > I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease). You have described someone as having a weakness and committed suicide where others didn't. For you to know what was going on in whoever you speak of's mind is interesting to me to say the least. That said, I don't know anyone like that; so I wasn't referring to the same person as you probably. Sorry!
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        Who were you referring to?
        rasengan 5y ago
        Every single man and woman who has given their life to ensure that knowledge was available to all and not in the hands of a select few. There are too many to count and far too many to name. Who were you referring to?
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        Ah, I follow. Since the topic was Sci-Hub, I assumed you were referring to Aaron Swartz specifically; I'm aware of nobody else whom anyone has claimed has given their life to the cause of open access to partially publicly-funded research. Carry on.

Source?

by luke2m 5y ago

Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites Keep in mind, they classify, for example 'scihub' as a piracy site [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16618874/court-pirate-science-site-sci-hub-shut-down https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16618874/court-pirate-sci...

mhh__ 5y ago
Which it is, surely? Don't get me wrong, sites like it are on my most-visited list on every device, but they are for pirating papers, no?
- rasengan 5y ago
  If you consider articles and research that the public paid for and suddenly don't have access to, to be piracy, then sure. To be clear, people have given their life for this cause.
  - retrac 5y ago
    So have some people who campaign for the Pirate Party in various countries. It's not necessarily even a pejorative.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    It's not all publicly funded, to be clear. Lots and lots of finance stuff is written by people in industry for example. It's a gift to mankind but it is still technically illegal (which I would vote to change every single second of the day, but still).
    - rasengan 5y ago
      It could be illegal in the US, but not in all the jurisdictions where they overstepped their bounds.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    I feel like you're trying to argue that piracy is ethical, which is different than something not being piracy.
    - rasengan 5y ago
      I think it's possible it could be considered piracy in the US, but not all countries follow these same rules nor schools of thought. The issue is that the jurisdiction bleeds into others' jurisdictions that might have different rules on these types of things, but the US doesn't really care since it has absolute power and exercises its authority over those outside of its jurisdiction.
    - elmomle 5y ago
      The words we use are important, because public opinion tends to matter quite a bit with these things, and public opinion is shaped immensely by words and their connotations (remember death panels?). If sci-hub is said to aid in the pirating of papers, it is doomed. If instead its purpose is said to be to make publicly-funded research accessible to the public for the benefit of all, then there's at least a slightly better chance of its surviving.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    > people have given their life for this cause I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease). Is there someone else you're referring to that I haven't heard of?
    - rasengan 5y ago
      > I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease). You have described someone as having a weakness and committed suicide where others didn't. For you to know what was going on in whoever you speak of's mind is interesting to me to say the least. That said, I don't know anyone like that; so I wasn't referring to the same person as you probably. Sorry!
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        Who were you referring to?
        rasengan 5y ago
        Every single man and woman who has given their life to ensure that knowledge was available to all and not in the hands of a select few. There are too many to count and far too many to name. Who were you referring to?
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        Ah, I follow. Since the topic was Sci-Hub, I assumed you were referring to Aaron Swartz specifically; I'm aware of nobody else whom anyone has claimed has given their life to the cause of open access to partially publicly-funded research. Carry on.