5 ms·

You NEED access to journals and conferences if you are silly enough to become a research student (like I did) or even sillier and become a professional research

by ucee054 14y ago

You NEED access to journals and conferences if you are silly enough to become a research student (like I did) or even sillier and become a professional researcher. Also, there is no way on earth you can pay for it on a researcher's salary or stipend. Hence, the Universities and Laboratories are BLACKMAILED into paying for it on the researchers' behalf. (So the 50K/year thing applies to MIT, Harvard and a couple of other "customers".) However, outside of that context, J. Random Hacker might quite like to read a paper - his taxes paid for it after all, and there are like 3 good papers in existence. But JRH would never pay 50K for it. He probably CAN'T; JRH might need to take out a mortgage to pay that much. So if you want to pretend that the 50K multiplies by the potential readership as "loss due to copyright theft", you are committing a basic economic fallacy, which is normally debunked in Econ101. So I advise you to drop the whole 50K/year argument.

MichaelSalib 14y ago
You NEED access to journals and conferences And you have them, in dead tree form at every big university. Universities functioned long before JSTOR. BLACKMAILED If you think this is blackmail, you don't know much. if you want to pretend that the 50K multiplies by the potential readership as "loss due to copyright theft" I don't believe that at all. My point was just that the archive has serious commercial value. If you can license access to an archive for $50K/year, then saying it has "little or no commercial value" is obviously wrong, right? J. Random Hacker might quite like to read a paper He can always go to his nearest university library and go spelunking in the archival stacks looking for it. his taxes paid for it after all His taxes paid for JSTOR to dig up the paper journal, scan the articles, and pay data entry folk to type in metadata? Really? I don't think so. But JRH would never pay 50K for it. $50K/year is not the only price point being offered. You could always pay for individual paper downloads or you can get them free now.
- ucee054 14y ago
  Swartz's actions would have been an "attack" on a research archive, which the article classifies as having "little" commercial value (and Swartz wasn't profiting, it was civil disobedience). The Reuters news for yesterday lists the LIBOR scandal, which was an "attack" on financial data. The fine alone, for UBS alone, was $1.5Billion. Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much. Do you want to keep arguing the point or do you feel silly enough already?
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    Swartz wasn't profiting, it was civil disobedience As I've explained above, I don't think Swartz was trying to profit from this scheme. But I do think he was trying to destroy significant financial value (yes $50million/year is significant for me). And from a legal perspective, that's extremely serious. Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much. So if I rob a bank and steal $30 million, that's not a crime with serious commercial value? Interesting. Of course JSTOR was small potatoes compared to LIBOR. So what? 99% of all crimes are small potatoes compared to LIBOR. That argument proves way, way too much.
    - ucee054 14y ago
      "99% of all crimes are small potatoes compared to LIBOR" I doubt that you can show me that Swartz's "crime" was somehow doing more damage than 99% of all crimes. I doubt that you can show me that it was doing more damage than 51% of all crimes. In fact, I doubt you can show me that it was significant at all in the grand scheme of things. What Swartz allegedly wanted to do is something similar to sticking a Windows ISO on BitTorrent. If you think that's "extremely serious" or worth comparing to a bank robbery, this conversation is over.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      It seems to me you are arguing four separate points: 1. JSTOR has a commercial value of $50mil/yr. This is a fair point, if that is indeed JSTOR's revenue (though "commercial" isn't exactly the right word to describe a non-profit organization's activities). 2. Aaron's intention was to destroy JSTOR. Unless you have another source beside the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto[0] and the recent summaries posted online by those close to the case, I don't believe this at all. Aaron's intent, as expressed by the manifesto, was to increase access to knowledge. I also do not consider a federal indictment to be a reliable source for determining the frame of mind of the indicted. 3. Aaron's archive would have been a substitute for JSTOR access, and thus capable of destroying JSTOR. The other responses to your comments have disproven this claim fairly effectively. JSTOR provides legitimacy to university libraries, it provides an active, searchable index, full text search, online viewing, and a continually updated collection. Aaron's collection of PDFs would provide none of that. Furthermore, the original purpose of JSTOR was to free up space used by archived print journals, so your claim that print journals in the library stacks would substitute for JSTOR is demonstrably false. 4. Destroying a business model (of a non-profit organization, no less) is equivalent to stealing (e.g. your "if I rob a bank" analogy). Despite arguing against the idea that Aaron wanted to or was even capable of destroying JSTOR's business model, I will briefly address this point. Making a particular business model obsolete is not in itself criminal. This has been argued to death online, so just search for "buggy whip manufacturers." [0] http://pastebin.com/cefxMVAy http://pastebin.com/cefxMVAy

by ucee054 14y ago

MichaelSalib 14y ago

You NEED access to journals and conferences And you have them, in dead tree form at every big university. Universities functioned long before JSTOR. BLACKMAILED If you think this is blackmail, you don't know much. if you want to pretend that the 50K multiplies by the potential readership as "loss due to copyright theft" I don't believe that at all. My point was just that the archive has serious commercial value. If you can license access to an archive for $50K/year, then saying it has "little or no commercial value" is obviously wrong, right? J. Random Hacker might quite like to read a paper He can always go to his nearest university library and go spelunking in the archival stacks looking for it. his taxes paid for it after all His taxes paid for JSTOR to dig up the paper journal, scan the articles, and pay data entry folk to type in metadata? Really? I don't think so. But JRH would never pay 50K for it. $50K/year is not the only price point being offered. You could always pay for individual paper downloads or you can get them free now.

ucee054 14y ago
Swartz's actions would have been an "attack" on a research archive, which the article classifies as having "little" commercial value (and Swartz wasn't profiting, it was civil disobedience). The Reuters news for yesterday lists the LIBOR scandal, which was an "attack" on financial data. The fine alone, for UBS alone, was $1.5Billion. Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much. Do you want to keep arguing the point or do you feel silly enough already?
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  Swartz wasn't profiting, it was civil disobedience As I've explained above, I don't think Swartz was trying to profit from this scheme. But I do think he was trying to destroy significant financial value (yes $50million/year is significant for me). And from a legal perspective, that's extremely serious. Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much. So if I rob a bank and steal $30 million, that's not a crime with serious commercial value? Interesting. Of course JSTOR was small potatoes compared to LIBOR. So what? 99% of all crimes are small potatoes compared to LIBOR. That argument proves way, way too much.
  - ucee054 14y ago
    "99% of all crimes are small potatoes compared to LIBOR" I doubt that you can show me that Swartz's "crime" was somehow doing more damage than 99% of all crimes. I doubt that you can show me that it was doing more damage than 51% of all crimes. In fact, I doubt you can show me that it was significant at all in the grand scheme of things. What Swartz allegedly wanted to do is something similar to sticking a Windows ISO on BitTorrent. If you think that's "extremely serious" or worth comparing to a bank robbery, this conversation is over.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    It seems to me you are arguing four separate points: 1. JSTOR has a commercial value of $50mil/yr. This is a fair point, if that is indeed JSTOR's revenue (though "commercial" isn't exactly the right word to describe a non-profit organization's activities). 2. Aaron's intention was to destroy JSTOR. Unless you have another source beside the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto[0] and the recent summaries posted online by those close to the case, I don't believe this at all. Aaron's intent, as expressed by the manifesto, was to increase access to knowledge. I also do not consider a federal indictment to be a reliable source for determining the frame of mind of the indicted. 3. Aaron's archive would have been a substitute for JSTOR access, and thus capable of destroying JSTOR. The other responses to your comments have disproven this claim fairly effectively. JSTOR provides legitimacy to university libraries, it provides an active, searchable index, full text search, online viewing, and a continually updated collection. Aaron's collection of PDFs would provide none of that. Furthermore, the original purpose of JSTOR was to free up space used by archived print journals, so your claim that print journals in the library stacks would substitute for JSTOR is demonstrably false. 4. Destroying a business model (of a non-profit organization, no less) is equivalent to stealing (e.g. your "if I rob a bank" analogy). Despite arguing against the idea that Aaron wanted to or was even capable of destroying JSTOR's business model, I will briefly address this point. Making a particular business model obsolete is not in itself criminal. This has been argued to death online, so just search for "buggy whip manufacturers." [0] http://pastebin.com/cefxMVAy http://pastebin.com/cefxMVAy