3 ms·

I don't think so. You can support free access to knowledge through means other than IP infringement. For example, advocating for open access policies. Many publ

I don't think so. You can support free access to knowledge through means other than IP infringement. For example, advocating for open access policies. Many publishers agreements allow authors to post a version of the same publication on their personal website. Making that process easier and indexing those results to make it easier to find freely available versions of published work is another way to encourage access.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
Judging by your response, I think you misunderstood me. I asked "Is NOT [emphasis added] supporting IP infringement...". I think there are many people who believe that this knowledge should be out there regardless of potential copyright violations.
- michaelmior 3y ago
  It seems I did misunderstand. In that case, my answer would be that I think you can support both IP infringement and free and open access to scientific knowledge even if that is not my personal position.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    I don’t think anyone would argue you can’t do both. But it does seem that people in this thread are arguing that you can further free and and open access knowledge more effectively by disregarding the potential copyright infringement. If someone feels that by disregarding the potential lawlessness, they are able to do more good overall, would you consider it unreasonable for that person to support a project like scihub?
    - michaelmior 3y ago
      It's not up to me to dictate the morality of others. Although I could see such an action as reasonable even though I disagree.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        I don’t think it’s “dictating morality” in so far as “seeing the big picture”. If your goal is to spread knowledge as effectively as possible, why limit yourself by the very rules working against you? I mean I can understand self-preservation but what else? The laws in question aren’t really about morality anyway.
        michaelmior 3y ago
        > If your goal is to spread knowledge as effectively as possible, why limit yourself by the very rules working against you? This is assuming that spreading knowledge as effectively as possible is the only goal. Even if you take a utilitarian approach to ethics, I doubt anyone has this as their only goal. > The laws in question aren’t really about morality anyway. I think what is and isn't related to morality is at least somewhat subjective.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

Judging by your response, I think you misunderstood me. I asked "Is NOT [emphasis added] supporting IP infringement...". I think there are many people who believe that this knowledge should be out there regardless of potential copyright violations.

michaelmior 3y ago
It seems I did misunderstand. In that case, my answer would be that I think you can support both IP infringement and free and open access to scientific knowledge even if that is not my personal position.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  I don’t think anyone would argue you can’t do both. But it does seem that people in this thread are arguing that you can further free and and open access knowledge more effectively by disregarding the potential copyright infringement. If someone feels that by disregarding the potential lawlessness, they are able to do more good overall, would you consider it unreasonable for that person to support a project like scihub?
  - michaelmior 3y ago
    It's not up to me to dictate the morality of others. Although I could see such an action as reasonable even though I disagree.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      I don’t think it’s “dictating morality” in so far as “seeing the big picture”. If your goal is to spread knowledge as effectively as possible, why limit yourself by the very rules working against you? I mean I can understand self-preservation but what else? The laws in question aren’t really about morality anyway.
      - michaelmior 3y ago
        > If your goal is to spread knowledge as effectively as possible, why limit yourself by the very rules working against you? This is assuming that spreading knowledge as effectively as possible is the only goal. Even if you take a utilitarian approach to ethics, I doubt anyone has this as their only goal. > The laws in question aren’t really about morality anyway. I think what is and isn't related to morality is at least somewhat subjective.