3 ms·
Are you also of the opinion that copyright shouldn't exist? If not, how do you reconcile this belief with the right of scientists and publishers to sell their
by beebmam 4y ago
Are you also of the opinion that copyright shouldn't exist?
If not, how do you reconcile this belief with the right of scientists and publishers to sell their productive labor?
- imglorp 4y agoThe publishers are not paying scientists for their labor. That's the problem. They are gatekeeping middle-leeches, impeding humanity's progress by paywalling science.
- tiagod 4y ago1. Scientists usually don't see a dime of the money publishers make selling access to their research; 2. In many cases, publicly funded research is gated behind paywalls; 3. In many (most?) cases, peer reviewer are paid nothing or close to it. 4. Most researchers I know either use sci-hub, other so called illegal sources for papers, or ask the authors for a copy.
- function_seven 4y ago5. Scientific inquiry is about discovering facts about our world, universe, and selves. It’s a different category from creative endeavors like art, literature, film, etc.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoif you were concerned about incomes of scientists, then you would support copyright or patents on scientific discoveries. You would support ability to patent the law of gravity. If you do not, then you atr only concerned about publishers. They dont pay scientists. They dont pay for researchm You support parasites.
- voz_ 4y agoOdd straw man, but I guess I’ll tilt at it a bit. I don’t understand copyright existing beyond a few years after publication, and I don’t understand how a “right” to a work can be sold. It seems to be a system designed to facilitate wealth extraction rather than value creation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 8note 4y agoSpecifically for science, no. The scientists have a right to sell their labour, not to own observed facts. You can pay people to do science on an hourly basis just fine
- saenzr 4y agoCopyrights and published papers are very different. You are correct in defending their rights but scientific journals do not protect those rights.
- kerkeslager 4y agoHow do you reconcile the belief in the present system with the right of scientists (and other researchers) to sell their productive labor? The majority of academics are not meaningfully compensated for research and writing up research, instead relying on teaching for income. A lot of the papers on SciHub are uploaded by the authors, because they aren't doing the research for the paltry royalties they receive.
- Cenk 4y agoScientists don’t get paid when people buy their journal articles - that money is kept in it‘s entirety by the publishers. What Sci Hub (https://sci.hubg.org https://sci.hubg.org) does is make research that has for the most part already been paid for by tax payers available to the public. I recommend reading about Plan S if you are interested in how this is being solves on the legislative side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S
- zouhair 4y agoSure, for 5 years maximum or a certain amount of profit made, whichever comes first.
- gopiandcode 4y ago> If not, how do you reconcile this belief with the right of scientists and publishers to sell their productive labor? As many others in the thread have said - the profits from the paper paywalls go to the publishers, reviewing is done by volunteers. As an aside, it's funny how often defenders of intellectual slavery are so dug in to their beliefs while being completely unaware of the mechanisms of what they're defending. I suppose such ignorance is a necessary precondition to support such injustice.