4 ms·

yeah. why i left the "library industry" and now work 'for the man'. the library industry should have embraced open source in the 90s but they just never "got i

yeah. why i left the "library industry" and now work 'for the man'. the library industry should have embraced open source in the 90s but they just never "got it". they seem to think they just need to be involved in some hyper expensive vendor projects and somehow that will bring them validation. i worked in this tiny library with a few ten thousands books and they were paying for system that used oracle as the Database. so basically they were paying for oracle. this was 20 years ago. then there is JSTOR and the whole Aaron Swartz thing. JSTOR acted really inappropriately like i feel really bad about what has happened to libraries over the past 20 years, with funding cut to the bone. but they kind of did it to themselves by thinking that "serving the public" means shoveling the publics money to proprietary vendors for no apparent reason. like OCLC has no right to take information generated by public institutions that are almost entirely funded by local taxpayers and somehow claim ownership of that information, and act like a monopolistic for profit corporation. there are a lot of very innovating library people doing stuff like maker spaces and kids education despite all the hardships but.... this revolution has not made it to the 'library industry'.

dredmorbius 4y ago
NB: JSTOR, to its credit, Larry Lessig says "great credit" (<https://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully https://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bul...>), didn't pursue prosecution of Swartz. M.I.T., however certainly did (also noted by Lessig). From Abelson's report, commissioned by MIT: If the Review Panel is forced to highlight just one issue for reflection, we would choose to look to the MIT administration’s maintenance of a “neutral” hands-off attitude that regarded the prosecution as a legal dispute to which it was not a party. This attitude was complemented by the MIT community’s apparent lack of attention to the ruinous collision of hacker ethics, open-source ideals, questionable laws, and aggressive prosecutions that was playing out in its midst. As a case study, this is a textbook example of the very controversies where the world seeks MIT’s insight and leadership. A friend of Aaron Swartz stressed in one of our interviews that MIT will continue to be at the cutting edge in information technology and, in today’s world, challenges like those presented in Aaron Swartz’s case will arise again and again. With that realization, “Neutrality on these cases is an incoherent stance. It’s not the right choice for a tough leader or a moral leader.” <http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pdf http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pd...> pp. 100-101 And the US DoJ and courts have bloody hands. The careers of Ortiz and Heymann (DoJ) have suffered somewhat: Heymann left the DoJ, Ortiz's ambitions for higher office (reputedly she'd had interest in the Mass. governorship) were thwarted. The judge remains on the US District Court of Massachussetts.
- fatneckbeardz 4y ago
  JSTOR went apeshit internally and reported Swartz to the authorities. like they are the ones who got the ball rolling. and they didn't have to. maybe they decided to do the right thing later but it was too little too late. this is why SciHub exists.... there has never been a netflix or spotify for academic research and probably never will.

dredmorbius 4y ago

NB: JSTOR, to its credit, Larry Lessig says "great credit" (<https://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully https://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bul...>), didn't pursue prosecution of Swartz. M.I.T., however certainly did (also noted by Lessig). From Abelson's report, commissioned by MIT: If the Review Panel is forced to highlight just one issue for reflection, we would choose to look to the MIT administration’s maintenance of a “neutral” hands-off attitude that regarded the prosecution as a legal dispute to which it was not a party. This attitude was complemented by the MIT community’s apparent lack of attention to the ruinous collision of hacker ethics, open-source ideals, questionable laws, and aggressive prosecutions that was playing out in its midst. As a case study, this is a textbook example of the very controversies where the world seeks MIT’s insight and leadership. A friend of Aaron Swartz stressed in one of our interviews that MIT will continue to be at the cutting edge in information technology and, in today’s world, challenges like those presented in Aaron Swartz’s case will arise again and again. With that realization, “Neutrality on these cases is an incoherent stance. It’s not the right choice for a tough leader or a moral leader.” <http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pdf http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pd...> pp. 100-101 And the US DoJ and courts have bloody hands. The careers of Ortiz and Heymann (DoJ) have suffered somewhat: Heymann left the DoJ, Ortiz's ambitions for higher office (reputedly she'd had interest in the Mass. governorship) were thwarted. The judge remains on the US District Court of Massachussetts.

fatneckbeardz 4y ago
JSTOR went apeshit internally and reported Swartz to the authorities. like they are the ones who got the ball rolling. and they didn't have to. maybe they decided to do the right thing later but it was too little too late. this is why SciHub exists.... there has never been a netflix or spotify for academic research and probably never will.