3 ms·

Funny how when Elsevier tries to enforce its copyright, HN acts like they're the devil, but when the AI training data is the subject turns into the strictest IP

Funny how when Elsevier tries to enforce its copyright, HN acts like they're the devil, but when the AI training data is the subject turns into the strictest IP rights warriors I have ever seen.

dopp0 2y ago
it's not funny when you compare "profits over other's knowledge" to "share knowledge without profits", it doesn't make sense at all. potatoes and oranges
Netcob 2y ago
That HN guy, amirite? Such an inconsistent individual.
__rito__ 2y ago
They get papers for free, that were funded by the public, or other entities. Then they charge people obscene amount of money to let them download the PDF. This is dictionary definition of "parasite". Nobody funds most artists. Buying artwork isn't funding. They produce art from their own funding. Then a company leeches them off and trains models without compensating them. I am okay at training models on arXiv papers. The authors consented to spread the knowledge publicly. With such dumb-logic comments, you make it hard to take your point-of-view seriously. Edit: The copyright of the paper _authors_ isn't being protected. They are being blood-sucked. And, before the Hub, if you emailed an author for a free PDF, if you couldn't afford it, most, if not all emailed you a free PDF. Harvard famously said that they couldn't afford Elsevier anymore. [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-univ...
bayindirh 2y ago
They are completely different things. I send my research to Elsevier for free, and surrender all my publishing rights & copyright to Elsevier to be able to publish it. When/if it's published, I have a paltry "author's copy" in return, which I have to be very diligent while giving copies of it away, otherwise Elsevier might punish me. At the end, it's a paper which bears my name, but I have none of the rights attached to it, and Elsevier gets literally millions of dollars from each country which licenses its publications. Their expenses are a mere rounding error for what they charge, and they are doing this to protect their income, not my research. Copyright infringement / ethical issues in AI is something else: Crawlers reap & providers sell my data without my consent, and I get nothing in return, except the ability to poorly imitate my writing/art style, making my work, blood, sweat and tears I shed over these years to create that style worthless. Both parties earn exorbitant amount of money with my work, for free, and suck me dry in the process. One at least gives me a paltry PDF file and maybe some recognition, and the other one threatens my livelihood while raising hype and applauding degeneration of human achievement and reducing it to a mere set of numbers. Both are cutting the tree they're living on, though.
- takinola 2y ago
  I am not familiar with the academic publishing world but it seems this should be disruptable. Why isn't there some other outfit running a WordPress site taking submissions and publishing them on much less onerous terms?
  - Staple_Diet 2y ago
    Ha. It's kind of like saying; 'Shit, why are people paying 6 figures for college degrees in US when they could just learn most of that for free'. Because no one gives a shit if you don't have the expensive piece of parchment. Academic publishing is similar. The impact factor and 'prestige' of the journal matters to your University, your peers, your grants panel, and yourself. However this results in 2 scenarios, when you publish in a top tier journal, a) the journal charges you a small fee and also pay-walls your work so your reach is lessened, then actively polices you sharing YOUR work without permission b) the journal charges an exorbitant fee (Nature wants $11,000 USD) for open-access publishing that allows wider distribution (but still has stipulations in some cases). HOWEVER, some editorial boards of big for-profit journals have flipped the table and started their own not-for-profit journals with blackjack and hookers. The big one in my field was NeuroImage board creating Imaging Neuroscience - with a public letter to the owners (Elsevier if I'm not mistaken) calling out the bullshit publishing fees.
    - casey2 2y ago
      There is a reason no one gives a shit. And it has nothing to do with publishers. If a paper actually contributed meaningfully to a field it everyone would know about it. Ironically, institutions like Elsevier justify the existence of the numerous hack academics (not scientists) that exist nowadays. Most of whom have no leg to stand on complaining about Elsevier's rent seeking when they themselves would be infinitely more useful flipping burgers.
  - __rito__ 2y ago
    > this should be disruptable This is already disrupted in AI at the highest stages. arXiv paper are the first class citizens there; people regularly cite blog posts, and even tweets in their papers. Rather than journals, people take conferences more seriously. Now, some companies like DeepMind like to publish in Nature for prestige's sake. That's a different thing.

Funny how when Elsevier tries to enforce its copyright, HN acts like they're the devil, but when the AI training data is the subject turns into the strictest IP rights warriors I have ever seen.

dopp0 2y ago

it's not funny when you compare "profits over other's knowledge" to "share knowledge without profits", it doesn't make sense at all. potatoes and oranges

Netcob 2y ago

That HN guy, amirite? Such an inconsistent individual.

__rito__ 2y ago

They get papers for free, that were funded by the public, or other entities. Then they charge people obscene amount of money to let them download the PDF. This is dictionary definition of "parasite". Nobody funds most artists. Buying artwork isn't funding. They produce art from their own funding. Then a company leeches them off and trains models without compensating them. I am okay at training models on arXiv papers. The authors consented to spread the knowledge publicly. With such dumb-logic comments, you make it hard to take your point-of-view seriously. Edit: The copyright of the paper _authors_ isn't being protected. They are being blood-sucked. And, before the Hub, if you emailed an author for a free PDF, if you couldn't afford it, most, if not all emailed you a free PDF. Harvard famously said that they couldn't afford Elsevier anymore. [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-univ...

bayindirh 2y ago

They are completely different things. I send my research to Elsevier for free, and surrender all my publishing rights & copyright to Elsevier to be able to publish it. When/if it's published, I have a paltry "author's copy" in return, which I have to be very diligent while giving copies of it away, otherwise Elsevier might punish me. At the end, it's a paper which bears my name, but I have none of the rights attached to it, and Elsevier gets literally millions of dollars from each country which licenses its publications. Their expenses are a mere rounding error for what they charge, and they are doing this to protect their income, not my research. Copyright infringement / ethical issues in AI is something else: Crawlers reap & providers sell my data without my consent, and I get nothing in return, except the ability to poorly imitate my writing/art style, making my work, blood, sweat and tears I shed over these years to create that style worthless. Both parties earn exorbitant amount of money with my work, for free, and suck me dry in the process. One at least gives me a paltry PDF file and maybe some recognition, and the other one threatens my livelihood while raising hype and applauding degeneration of human achievement and reducing it to a mere set of numbers. Both are cutting the tree they're living on, though.

takinola 2y ago
I am not familiar with the academic publishing world but it seems this should be disruptable. Why isn't there some other outfit running a WordPress site taking submissions and publishing them on much less onerous terms?
- Staple_Diet 2y ago
  Ha. It's kind of like saying; 'Shit, why are people paying 6 figures for college degrees in US when they could just learn most of that for free'. Because no one gives a shit if you don't have the expensive piece of parchment. Academic publishing is similar. The impact factor and 'prestige' of the journal matters to your University, your peers, your grants panel, and yourself. However this results in 2 scenarios, when you publish in a top tier journal, a) the journal charges you a small fee and also pay-walls your work so your reach is lessened, then actively polices you sharing YOUR work without permission b) the journal charges an exorbitant fee (Nature wants $11,000 USD) for open-access publishing that allows wider distribution (but still has stipulations in some cases). HOWEVER, some editorial boards of big for-profit journals have flipped the table and started their own not-for-profit journals with blackjack and hookers. The big one in my field was NeuroImage board creating Imaging Neuroscience - with a public letter to the owners (Elsevier if I'm not mistaken) calling out the bullshit publishing fees.
  - casey2 2y ago
    There is a reason no one gives a shit. And it has nothing to do with publishers. If a paper actually contributed meaningfully to a field it everyone would know about it. Ironically, institutions like Elsevier justify the existence of the numerous hack academics (not scientists) that exist nowadays. Most of whom have no leg to stand on complaining about Elsevier's rent seeking when they themselves would be infinitely more useful flipping burgers.
- __rito__ 2y ago
  > this should be disruptable This is already disrupted in AI at the highest stages. arXiv paper are the first class citizens there; people regularly cite blog posts, and even tweets in their papers. Rather than journals, people take conferences more seriously. Now, some companies like DeepMind like to publish in Nature for prestige's sake. That's a different thing.