4 ms·

The non-profit status doesn't automagically make an organization "good". The executives of the institution still get paid and have an interest in perpetuating a

The non-profit status doesn't automagically make an organization "good". The executives of the institution still get paid and have an interest in perpetuating and growing the organization, even if it goes against public interest I don't know much about JSTOR, but I know the IEEE (for example) can be a good bunch of sharks. In the past, they forced you to hand them your copyright for the privilege of publishing your work in their journals, and proceeded to go after you if you committed the cardinal sin of distributing your own papers through your research website. They also put your work behind a 30$ paywall without, of course, giving you a dime.

anoncow 14y ago
Exactly, being a non profit only means that they distribute all their profit amongst themselves as salaries or investments. The data would be much better at the hands of an entity that keeps the data accessible and gives the authors a right to reproduce their works elsewhere. A startup which does this would be excellent.
- Permit 14y ago
  You guys are vastly oversimplifying this whole thing. The only reason JSTOR gets access to these documents in the first place is because of licensing agreements with the publishers. You can try and a start a company that gives it all away for free, but you're not going to be given access to any documents or you'll be sued for releasing the ones you don't have rights to. This is not as simple as "Just throw that stuff up on a Torrent and we're good to go".
  - joelthelion 14y ago
    >This is not as simple as "Just throw that stuff up on a Torrent and we're good to go". As a scientist, that would pretty much solve my access problems, and help me do a better job.
- rprasad 14y ago
  If that were the case, they would not be a non-profit. The IRS zealously audits nonprofits (except for the religious ones) to make sure that their resources are not going to the benefit of insiders. Penalties for such situations are...extreme.
Permit 14y ago
>The executives of the institution still get paid... God forbid. I hear they even pay their other employees. >I don't know much about JSTOR, but I know the IEEE (for example) can be a good bunch of sharks. In the past, they forced you to hand them your copyright for the privilege of publishing your work in their journals, and proceeded to go after you if you committed the cardinal sin of distributing your own papers through your research website. They also put your work behind a 30$ paywall without, of course, giving you a dime. I have yet to hear about a similar story with JSTOR, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.
jrochkind1 14y ago
JStor is not a publisher, so they don't have the same relationship to authors that IEEE does, it's not possible for them to do what you're talking about. All JStor does is get scholarly output from those who do hold the copyright or publishing rights (for which they pay these rightsholders), aggregate it on their own platform (which has a much better UI than most of their for-profit competiters), and then resell access to others. Their prices are largely determined by those set by the actual rights holders they have to pay for the content. Whether or not JStor is doing enough to increase public access to scholarly content (I think nobody in the industry really is), they are doing _more_ than most of their peers in the industry, and are _far_ from the worst, the most greedy, or the most venal in the industry. I'm not saying don't pirate JStor content, pirate whatever scholarly content you want as far as I'm concerned, no skin off my back. But if you're looking for a target as the worst or the most evil or the most responsible for inequity in and high cost of access to scholarly output, you're looking in the wrong place if you're looking at JStor -- I'd look at the publishers (not aggregators) and for-profit ones rather than non-profit ones. Google "most profitable scholarly publishers" and see what companies you are led to by following links (it won't be JStor).

anoncow 14y ago

Exactly, being a non profit only means that they distribute all their profit amongst themselves as salaries or investments. The data would be much better at the hands of an entity that keeps the data accessible and gives the authors a right to reproduce their works elsewhere. A startup which does this would be excellent.

Permit 14y ago
You guys are vastly oversimplifying this whole thing. The only reason JSTOR gets access to these documents in the first place is because of licensing agreements with the publishers. You can try and a start a company that gives it all away for free, but you're not going to be given access to any documents or you'll be sued for releasing the ones you don't have rights to. This is not as simple as "Just throw that stuff up on a Torrent and we're good to go".
- joelthelion 14y ago
  >This is not as simple as "Just throw that stuff up on a Torrent and we're good to go". As a scientist, that would pretty much solve my access problems, and help me do a better job.
rprasad 14y ago
If that were the case, they would not be a non-profit. The IRS zealously audits nonprofits (except for the religious ones) to make sure that their resources are not going to the benefit of insiders. Penalties for such situations are...extreme.

Permit 14y ago

>The executives of the institution still get paid... God forbid. I hear they even pay their other employees. >I don't know much about JSTOR, but I know the IEEE (for example) can be a good bunch of sharks. In the past, they forced you to hand them your copyright for the privilege of publishing your work in their journals, and proceeded to go after you if you committed the cardinal sin of distributing your own papers through your research website. They also put your work behind a 30$ paywall without, of course, giving you a dime. I have yet to hear about a similar story with JSTOR, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

jrochkind1 14y ago

JStor is not a publisher, so they don't have the same relationship to authors that IEEE does, it's not possible for them to do what you're talking about. All JStor does is get scholarly output from those who do hold the copyright or publishing rights (for which they pay these rightsholders), aggregate it on their own platform (which has a much better UI than most of their for-profit competiters), and then resell access to others. Their prices are largely determined by those set by the actual rights holders they have to pay for the content. Whether or not JStor is doing enough to increase public access to scholarly content (I think nobody in the industry really is), they are doing _more_ than most of their peers in the industry, and are _far_ from the worst, the most greedy, or the most venal in the industry. I'm not saying don't pirate JStor content, pirate whatever scholarly content you want as far as I'm concerned, no skin off my back. But if you're looking for a target as the worst or the most evil or the most responsible for inequity in and high cost of access to scholarly output, you're looking in the wrong place if you're looking at JStor -- I'd look at the publishers (not aggregators) and for-profit ones rather than non-profit ones. Google "most profitable scholarly publishers" and see what companies you are led to by following links (it won't be JStor).