4 ms·

Exactly how is .12c/gb going to fund an operation that provides full text searches of academic journals which saw 74 million downloads in 2010? Does anyone chi

Exactly how is .12c/gb going to fund an operation that provides full text searches of academic journals which saw 74 million downloads in 2010? Does anyone chiming in who claims this info must be available for pennies per article actually have any evidence than an operation of this scale can be funded this cheaply? The costs to provide this service are not this simple and as cheap as you think.

duaneb 14y ago
> The costs to provide this service are not this simple and as cheap as you think. Exactly. I can't believe bandwidth is jstor's limiting costs.
politician 14y ago
Ah, yeah, I think you've misunderstood the implications of what I've suggested; from your tone, I think you'll find a corrected interpretation both more and less radical. JSTOR sends messages into the marketplace that they are a faithful steward of the public domain, but knows that its TOS a) prevents unrestricted access to the public domain, and b) knows that a US Attorney will prosecute violations of that TOS as felonies requiring several years in prison; I argue that their speech does not match their actions and that this is dishonest. Aggravating this, the extreme negative consequences of taking them at their word (as Aaron did) is why I've selected to say that their actions probe the depths of intellectual dishonesty. Full-text search, like printing, is a value-added service. There is no reason to keep public domain works hostage by the threat of sending people like Aaron to jail for decades just so that they can offer FTS. If JSTOR wants to offer FTS or other services on the corpus of public domain works, let them charge for access to those services. An existence proof: arXiv offers bulk download access to the works in their repository (~490GiB) via Amazon S3 Requester-Pays buckets [1]. The requester is paying Amazon, not arXiv; so, arXiv doesn't earn "pennies per article", it earns nothing. Incidentally, arXiv also provides full-text search [3]. Let's talk about capacity planning. Let's guess that average size of a digitized journal article is 5 MiB, that comes out to ~361 TB, or $44,400 to stream from S3. The at-rest cost of those articles is far lower because there are far fewer articles than downloads (I don't have a number, but would you argue otherwise?). My proposal: JSTOR removes its watermarks and puts all public domain works and associated metadata into S3 Requestor-Pays buckets. They finance their operations by selling non-public-domain works and value-added services like FTS at a price the market will bear. Earnings made by restricting bulk access to public domain works is blood money. Watermarking these documents is confusing - no one seems to have answered my questions about whether they are claiming a new copyright. [1] http://arxiv.org/help/bulk_data_s3 http://arxiv.org/help/bulk_data_s3 [2] https://forums.aws.amazon.com/ann.jspa?annID=386 https://forums.aws.amazon.com/ann.jspa?annID=386 [3] http://arxiv.org/find http://arxiv.org/find
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  aXriv is funded by Cornell. How will JSTO be a "good faith steward" if they give all of their content away and make it available for free? They have to pay their bills to maintain the infrastructure to support all of this and pay their employees to do so. Charging for article access is how this is accomplished and how the company behind this allows the service to continue. There is a lot more money behind the operation that just copying pdf's to an s3 bucket.
  - politician 14y ago
    There is a difference between public domain works, non-public-domain works, and value-added services. I've made this distinction clear in my arguments.
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      My point: They have to charge what they do to continue doing what they do.
      - politician 14y ago
        We agree that to operate a business one needs revenues. We agree that sales of non-public-domain works and value-added services are appropriate avenues for improving revenues. Where we differ in opinion seems to be that I do not believe that a company can take a public domain work, wave a magic terms of service, and then sell it back to the public.
        res0nat0r 14y ago
        This actually happens all of the time, see the copies of Shakespeare and Beethoven on sale at your local bookstore. The content is being repackaged and sold, but that doesn't negate the fact that the works are still available for free somewhere else because they are public domain.

duaneb 14y ago

> The costs to provide this service are not this simple and as cheap as you think. Exactly. I can't believe bandwidth is jstor's limiting costs.

politician 14y ago

Ah, yeah, I think you've misunderstood the implications of what I've suggested; from your tone, I think you'll find a corrected interpretation both more and less radical. JSTOR sends messages into the marketplace that they are a faithful steward of the public domain, but knows that its TOS a) prevents unrestricted access to the public domain, and b) knows that a US Attorney will prosecute violations of that TOS as felonies requiring several years in prison; I argue that their speech does not match their actions and that this is dishonest. Aggravating this, the extreme negative consequences of taking them at their word (as Aaron did) is why I've selected to say that their actions probe the depths of intellectual dishonesty. Full-text search, like printing, is a value-added service. There is no reason to keep public domain works hostage by the threat of sending people like Aaron to jail for decades just so that they can offer FTS. If JSTOR wants to offer FTS or other services on the corpus of public domain works, let them charge for access to those services. An existence proof: arXiv offers bulk download access to the works in their repository (~490GiB) via Amazon S3 Requester-Pays buckets [1]. The requester is paying Amazon, not arXiv; so, arXiv doesn't earn "pennies per article", it earns nothing. Incidentally, arXiv also provides full-text search [3]. Let's talk about capacity planning. Let's guess that average size of a digitized journal article is 5 MiB, that comes out to ~361 TB, or $44,400 to stream from S3. The at-rest cost of those articles is far lower because there are far fewer articles than downloads (I don't have a number, but would you argue otherwise?). My proposal: JSTOR removes its watermarks and puts all public domain works and associated metadata into S3 Requestor-Pays buckets. They finance their operations by selling non-public-domain works and value-added services like FTS at a price the market will bear. Earnings made by restricting bulk access to public domain works is blood money. Watermarking these documents is confusing - no one seems to have answered my questions about whether they are claiming a new copyright. [1] http://arxiv.org/help/bulk_data_s3 http://arxiv.org/help/bulk_data_s3 [2] https://forums.aws.amazon.com/ann.jspa?annID=386 https://forums.aws.amazon.com/ann.jspa?annID=386 [3] http://arxiv.org/find http://arxiv.org/find

res0nat0r 14y ago
aXriv is funded by Cornell. How will JSTO be a "good faith steward" if they give all of their content away and make it available for free? They have to pay their bills to maintain the infrastructure to support all of this and pay their employees to do so. Charging for article access is how this is accomplished and how the company behind this allows the service to continue. There is a lot more money behind the operation that just copying pdf's to an s3 bucket.
- politician 14y ago
  There is a difference between public domain works, non-public-domain works, and value-added services. I've made this distinction clear in my arguments.
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    My point: They have to charge what they do to continue doing what they do.
    - politician 14y ago
      We agree that to operate a business one needs revenues. We agree that sales of non-public-domain works and value-added services are appropriate avenues for improving revenues. Where we differ in opinion seems to be that I do not believe that a company can take a public domain work, wave a magic terms of service, and then sell it back to the public.
      - res0nat0r 14y ago
        This actually happens all of the time, see the copies of Shakespeare and Beethoven on sale at your local bookstore. The content is being repackaged and sold, but that doesn't negate the fact that the works are still available for free somewhere else because they are public domain.