3 ms·

Underground Railroad: people risking their lives to help slaves fleeing slavery, rape, beatings, murder, and the wholesale destruction of their families. Aaron

by rprasad 14y ago

Underground Railroad: people risking their lives to help slaves fleeing slavery, rape, beatings, murder, and the wholesale destruction of their families. Aaron Swartz: releasing academic articles that are already available for free or a low cost simply by visiting your local university and acquiring a guest access card. Not even remotely comparable.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Permit 14y ago
Especially considering JSTOR is a non-profit that has to employ many people with similar occupations to those of HN. They digitize documents that wouldn't have otherwise been available at all before. It's incredible how if they hadn't digitized the works, no one would be outraged. But when they ask for a fee to cover the costs of such things, everyone paints them as villains who try and lock information away from the masses.
- derekp7 14y ago
  Isn't Google digitizing all printed works they can get their hands on?
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Google has ridiculous amounts of capitol. They aren't digitizing printed works out of some sort of sense of social service. Street View is much the same way. They aren't doing it to be nice, and they aren't giving you access for free out of the goodness of their hearts. Everything they do that isn't funded by ad revenue or working towards greater ad revenue is a speculative exploration into future markets that will one day be monetized, but is not currently by virtue of their tremendously deep pockets. I've been wondering recently- I think companies like Google have started warping expectations beyond the realistic, and I'm both curious and apprehensive where that will take us.
  - Permit 14y ago
    Many of Google's digital works aren't freely available, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
    - derekp7 14y ago
      The original argument was that JSTOR is doing the service of digitizing many papers that are out of copyright, but otherwise not available in electronic form. And if it wasn't for them charging access for this, then the work wouldn't be done. I was pointing out that Google is doing the same thing, and NOT charging for access where possible (i.e., the out-of-copyright works).
      - rprasad 14y ago
        Google has several billions in free cash lying around to do stuff like this, and many billions more coming in from its various income sources. JSTOR does not many billions in cash, nor any income sources other than access fees. Ergo, JSTOR must continue to charge an access fee so that it can continue to perform its function of archiving articles and providing access to those articles.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
joelthelion 14y ago
>academic articles that are already available for free or a low cost simply by visiting your local university and acquiring a guest access card. Haha, try that outside of the US. Also, be aware that your local university pays unbelievably high fees for this access, money that could be better used, by funding scientists for example.

by rprasad 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Permit 14y ago

Especially considering JSTOR is a non-profit that has to employ many people with similar occupations to those of HN. They digitize documents that wouldn't have otherwise been available at all before. It's incredible how if they hadn't digitized the works, no one would be outraged. But when they ask for a fee to cover the costs of such things, everyone paints them as villains who try and lock information away from the masses.

derekp7 14y ago
Isn't Google digitizing all printed works they can get their hands on?
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Google has ridiculous amounts of capitol. They aren't digitizing printed works out of some sort of sense of social service. Street View is much the same way. They aren't doing it to be nice, and they aren't giving you access for free out of the goodness of their hearts. Everything they do that isn't funded by ad revenue or working towards greater ad revenue is a speculative exploration into future markets that will one day be monetized, but is not currently by virtue of their tremendously deep pockets. I've been wondering recently- I think companies like Google have started warping expectations beyond the realistic, and I'm both curious and apprehensive where that will take us.
- Permit 14y ago
  Many of Google's digital works aren't freely available, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
  - derekp7 14y ago
    The original argument was that JSTOR is doing the service of digitizing many papers that are out of copyright, but otherwise not available in electronic form. And if it wasn't for them charging access for this, then the work wouldn't be done. I was pointing out that Google is doing the same thing, and NOT charging for access where possible (i.e., the out-of-copyright works).
    - rprasad 14y ago
      Google has several billions in free cash lying around to do stuff like this, and many billions more coming in from its various income sources. JSTOR does not many billions in cash, nor any income sources other than access fees. Ergo, JSTOR must continue to charge an access fee so that it can continue to perform its function of archiving articles and providing access to those articles.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

joelthelion 14y ago

>academic articles that are already available for free or a low cost simply by visiting your local university and acquiring a guest access card. Haha, try that outside of the US. Also, be aware that your local university pays unbelievably high fees for this access, money that could be better used, by funding scientists for example.