4 ms·
Because before you set it up, you don't know there's a problem. Sure, you can say that everyone should get access to the research from the start, but when the f
by mayneack 14y ago
Because before you set it up, you don't know there's a problem. Sure, you can say that everyone should get access to the research from the start, but when the framework for federal grants started, the cost of distributing journals was tied to shipping physical copies. No one had to think about whether or not you could legally share it because you had a much higher barrier in the logistics of sharing it. Now those things are still around through organizational inertia. The companies that existed to fill the (necessary) service of printing and shipping all these things don't want to become obsolete. It's not a good reason to keep it around, but it's why you need more than zero effort to change.
- icelancer 14y agoI agree. It's not an unreasonable thing to have to bring to the government's attention considering how quickly technology allowed for these advancements to occur. It is ridiculous that the response is taking forever and that they sought time to tell people why the death star isn't going to be built.
- csense 14y ago> they sought time to tell people why the death star isn't going to be built. There is no political fallout from refusing to build a death star. The Republican Party's rapid backpedaling after publishing a memo outlining what many HN'ers consider a reasonable policy stance on copyright -- to the extent of firing the staffer who prepared it, never mind that it appears he got permission from the appropriate party channels to publish it as a policy document -- show that the copyright lobby has on its side some of the finest politicians that money can buy.