Slashdot - Le dan po obtožbi Aarona Swartza zaradi domnevnega vdora v JSTOR na MIT-u in nepooblaščenega dostopa do petih milijonov znanstvenih člankov so njegovi podporniki odgovorili. Na splet so priobčili kopico znanstvenih člankov, ki je sedaj dostopna prek protokola torrent. Datoteke se najdejo na običajnih mestih na internetu.
Gre za članke iz revije Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, ki so že tako stari, da so že v javni lasti. Revija sama izhaja od leta 1665, vsi objavljeni članki pa so izpred leta 1923 -- skupno 18.592 člankov, ki tehtajo 33 GB. Kljub poteku avtorskih pravic so bili doslej dostopni le proti plačilu 19 dolarjev na članek ali prek naročnine na JSTOR. Na splet jih je postavil Greg Maxwell, ki je povedal, da jih je pridobil že pred leti, a se jih doslej ni upal javno objaviti. Obtožbe proti Swartzu so ga tako razjarile, da je spremenil svoje mnenje.
Poudarja, da avtorji člankov zanje niso plačali (to je res, saj so plačani na projekte, članek pa je zgolj logičen sestavni del projekta), prav tako običajno tudi recenzentje ne dobijo nobenega nadomestila. Da celo v času elektronskih komunikacij, ko revije skorajda nimajo stroškov z distribucijo, zanje računajo celo premoženje, se mu zdi oderuško. S polnim imenom se je podpisal, da ne bi kdo za objavo obtožil Swartza, je še dodal.
Ta torrent po mojem mnenju ne vsebuje gradiva, ki bi kršilo avtorske pravice in ne vidim razloga, zakaj ne bi smel biti objavljen na Slo-techu. Je v isti kategoriji kot npr. torrent kake linux distribucije, ipd.
All articles in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London can be purchased individually. To purchase an article, please note its details and follow the on-screen instructions.
Cost of pay-per-view per article: EU (not UK): €6 plus VAT where applicable UK & ROW: ?5 plus VAT where applicable USA & Canada: $7.50
Da celo v času elektronskih komunikacij, ko revije skorajda nimajo stroškov z distribucijo, zanje računajo celo premoženje, se mu zdi oderuško.
Am ... sej ne, da je kar precejnjihovega arhivadostopnega zađabe žeod prej... Da nihče pojma nima, da je to že gor, pove veliko o tem, kako močno si ljudje želijo dostopat do/uporabljat to znanje. (HINT: They don't.)
All articles in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London can be purchased individually. To purchase an article, please note its details and follow the on-screen instructions.
Cost of pay-per-view per article: EU (not UK): €6 plus VAT where applicable UK & ROW: ?5 plus VAT where applicable USA & Canada: $7.50
Ta novica ni natančna. V originalu gre besedilo tako: Limited access to the documents here is typically sold for $19 USD per article, though some of the older ones are available as cheaply as $8. Purchasing access to this collection one article at a time would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Seveda, da ponujajo "večino svojega arhiva na netsih", vendar proti plačilu!
Nekatere članke iz tega arhiva je mogoče dobiti brez plačila nekatere pa le proti plačilu. Nisem vseh probal, tako da točnih številk ne vem. Dejstvo pa je, da niso vsi članki (tudi tisti starejši iz 19. stoletja) brez plačila, če si na to namigoval.
Da celo v času elektronskih komunikacij, ko revije skorajda nimajo stroškov z distribucijo, zanje računajo celo premoženje, se mu zdi oderuško.
Am ... sej ne, da je kar precejnjihovega arhivadostopnega zađabe žeod prej... Da nihče pojma nima, da je to že gor, pove veliko o tem, kako močno si ljudje želijo dostopat do/uporabljat to znanje. (HINT: They don't.)
Te tvoje povezave ne dajo želenih rezultatov. Nekateri članki so dostopni, nekateri niso, pri nekaterih imaš na vpogled le nekaj strani itd...
Sredi spečih in nepazljivih je modrec buden in pazljiv -
po poti gre kot hiter konj, ki je prehitel šibko kljuse.
Taprvi ni dal gor dokumentov samo v javni domeni, AFAIK.
Dejstvo pa je, da niso vsi članki (tudi tisti starejši iz 19. stoletja) brez plačila, če si na to namigoval.
Dejstvo je tudi, da niso vsi članki s plačilom, kakor namiguje novica.
Te tvoje povezave ne dajo želenih rezultatov. Nekateri članki so dostopni, nekateri niso, pri nekaterih imaš na vpogled le nekaj strani itd...
A to pa ni zadost za širjenje idej? Kot sem rekel - folku se jebe za razširjanje znanja/brezplačno znanje. Še poiskat ga nočejo, pa ga imajo na dosegu roke!
Novica govori o tem, da je nekdo objavil veliko količino člankov, ki so večina plačljivi in omejeni z avtorskimi pravicami. Vsi od teh člankov segajo do leta 1923.
Zato, ker so po uradni poti plačljivi in starejšega datuma jih je objavil.
Te tvoje povezave ne dajo želenih rezultatov. Nekateri članki so dostopni, nekateri niso, pri nekaterih imaš na vpogled le nekaj strani itd...
A to pa ni zadost za širjenje idej? Kot sem rekel - folku se jebe za razširjanje znanja/brezplačno znanje. Še poiskat ga nočejo, pa ga imajo na dosegu roke!
Kot ponavadi se vlečeš ven in apriori napadaš.
Ljudem je mar brezplačno znanje in znajo ga poiskati. Ne držiš se teme.
Tvoji zaključki koristijo le tvojim egoističnim prepričanjem in sovraštvu do ljudi, kot je ta, ki je objavil vse te članke.
Sredi spečih in nepazljivih je modrec buden in pazljiv -
po poti gre kot hiter konj, ki je prehitel šibko kljuse.
V povzetku - to je tisto, kar je ponavadi pri omejenem dostopu prvo vidno - je ponavadi povzeta celotna ideja članka. Kaj boljšega je za brezmejno širjenje idej?
Ljudem je mar brezplačno znanje in znajo ga poiskati. Ne držiš se teme.
Ne, ljudje so debili. Oni rabjo muzke & filme pa pir ob petkih. Za znanje jih boli kurac. Tisti, ki malodane malikuje 300 let (za)star(el)o znanje mora bit IMHO precej usekan.
Tvoji zaključki koristijo le tvojim egoističnim prepričanjem in sovraštvu do ljudi, kot je ta, ki je objavil vse te članke.
Ne, sovražim ljudi, ki so tako fuknjeni, da sploh ne vidijo, da je veliko materiala že dostopnega, pa se še vedno gredo neke egoistične križarje v dobro sveta & world peace & shit. Prekleta banda komunajzarska!
Taprvi ni dal gor dokumentov samo v javni domeni, AFAIK.
Nisi razumel vprašanja. Zakaj so potem prvega tožili, če so (po tvojem mnenju) ljudje debili in nočejo tega znanja. Posledično nebo nobeden tega bral in posledično se zaradi tega ni naredila nobena škoda.
@Pax_Man Daj si preberi, kaj je smisel objave teh znanstvenih člankov. S svojimi neumnostmi zgoraj si zbijaš kredibilnost na forumu.
This archive contains 18,592 scientific publications totaling 33GiB, all from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and which should be available to everyone at no cost, but most have previously only been made available at high prices through paywall gatekeepers like JSTOR.
Limited access to the documents here is typically sold for $19 USD per article, though some of the older ones are available as cheaply as $8. Purchasing access to this collection one article at a time would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Also included is the basic factual metadata allowing you to locate works by title, author, or publication date, and a checksum file to allow you to check for corruption.
I've had these files for a long time, but I've been afraid that if I published them I would be subject to unjust legal harassment by those who profit from controlling access to these works.
I now feel that I've been making the wrong decision.
On July 19th 2011, Aaron Swartz was criminally charged by the US Attorney General's office for, effectively, downloading too many academic papers from JSTOR.
Academic publishing is an odd systemΓΓé¼ΓÇŽthe authors are not paid for their writing, nor are the peer reviewers (they're just more unpaid academics), and in some fields even the journal editors are unpaid. Sometimes the authors must even pay the publishers.
And yet scientific publications are some of the most outrageously expensive pieces of literature you can buy. In the past, the high access fees supported the costly mechanical reproduction of niche paper journals, but online distribution has mostly made this function obsolete.
As far as I can tell, the money paid for access today serves little significant purpose except to perpetuate dead business models. The "publish or perish" pressure in academia gives the authors an impossibly weak negotiating position, and the existing system has enormous inertia.
Those with the most power to change the system--the long-tenured luminary scholars whose works give legitimacy and prestige to the journals, rather than the other way around--are the least impacted by its failures. They are supported by institutions who invisibly provide access to all of the resources they need. And as the journals depend on them, they may ask for alterations to the standard contract without risking their career on the loss of a publication offer. Many don't even realize the extent to which academic work is inaccessible to the general public, nor do they realize what sort of work is being done outside universities that would benefit by it.
Large publishers are now able to purchase the political clout needed to abuse the narrow commercial scope of copyright protection, extending it to completely inapplicable areas: slavish reproductions of historic documents and art, for example, and exploiting the labors of unpaid scientists. They're even able to make the taxpayers pay for their attacks on free society by pursuing criminal prosecution (copyright has classically been a civil matter) and by burdening public institutions with outrageous subscription fees.
Copyright is a legal fiction representing a narrow compromise: we give up some of our natural right to exchange information in exchange for creating an economic incentive to author, so that we may all enjoy more works. When publishers abuse the system to prop up their existence, when they misrepresent the extent of copyright coverage, when they use threats of frivolous litigation to suppress the dissemination of publicly owned works, they are stealing from everyone else.
Several years ago I came into possession, through rather boring and lawful means, of a large collection of JSTOR documents.
These particular documents are the historic back archives of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal SocietyΓΓé¼ΓÇŽa prestigious scientific journal with a history extending back to the 1600s.
The portion of the collection included in this archive, ones published prior to 1923 and therefore obviously in the public domain, total some 18,592 papers and 33 gigabytes of data.
The documents are part of the shared heritage of all mankind, and are rightfully in the public domain, but they are not available freely. Instead the articles are available at $19 each--for one month's viewing, by one person, on one computer. It's a steal. From you.
When I received these documents I had grand plans of uploading them to Wikipedia's sister site for reference works, WikisourceΓΓé¼ΓÇŽ where they could be tightly interlinked with Wikipedia, providing interesting historical context to the encyclopedia articles. For example, Uranus was discovered in 1781 by William Herschel; why not take a look at the paper where he originally disclosed his discovery? (Or one of the several follow on publications about its satellites, or the dozens of other papers he authored?)
But I soon found the reality of the situation to be less than appealing: publishing the documents freely was likely to bring frivolous litigation from the publishers.
As in many other cases, I could expect them to claim that their slavish reproductionΓΓé¼ΓÇŽscanning the documentsΓΓé¼ΓÇŽ created a new copyright interest. Or that distributing the documents complete with the trivial watermarks they added constituted unlawful copying of that mark. They might even pursue strawman criminal charges claiming that whoever obtained the files must have violated some kind of anti-hacking laws.
In my discreet inquiry, I was unable to find anyone willing to cover the potentially unbounded legal costs I risked, even though the only unlawful action here is the fraudulent misuse of copyright by JSTOR and the Royal Society to withhold access from the public to that which is legally and morally everyone's property.
In the meantime, and to great fanfare as part of their 350th anniversary, the RSOL opened up "free" access to their historic archivesΓΓé¼ΓÇŽbut "free" only meant "with many odious terms", and access was limited to about 100 articles.
All too often journals, galleries, and museums are becoming not disseminators of knowledgeΓΓé¼ΓÇŽas their lofty mission statements suggestΓΓé¼ΓÇŽbut censors of knowledge, because censoring is the one thing they do better than the Internet does. Stewardship and curation are valuable functions, but their value is negative when there is only one steward and one curator, whose judgment reigns supreme as the final word on what everyone else sees and knows. If their recommendations have value they can be heeded without the coercive abuse of copyright to silence competition.
The liberal dissemination of knowledge is essential to scientific inquiry. More than in any other area, the application of restrictive copyright is inappropriate for academic works: there is no sticky question of how to pay authors or reviewers, as the publishers are already not paying them. And unlike 'mere' works of entertainment, liberal access to scientific work impacts the well-being of all mankind. Our continued survival may even depend on it.
If I can remove even one dollar of ill-gained income from a poisonous industry which acts to suppress scientific and historic understanding, then whatever personal cost I suffer will be justifiedΓΓé¼ΓÇŽit will be one less dollar spent in the war against knowledge. One less dollar spent lobbying for laws that make downloading too many scientific papers a crime.
I had considered releasing this collection anonymously, but others pointed out that the obviously overzealous prosecutors of Aaron Swartz would probably accuse him of it and add it to their growing list of ridiculous charges. This didn't sit well with my conscience, and I generally believe that anything worth doing is worth attaching your name to.
I'm interested in hearing about any enjoyable discoveries or even useful applications which come of this archive.
- ---- Greg Maxwell - July 20th 2011
Sredi spečih in nepazljivih je modrec buden in pazljiv -
po poti gre kot hiter konj, ki je prehitel šibko kljuse.
In zakaj je važno koliko ljudi bo to bralo? Način pridobitve je protizakonit. Pika. Kazen sledi v kratkem. Ke komu ni kaj prav se naj pritoži svojemu senatorju oz. v Sloveniji županu. Moving on...
Daj si preberi, kaj je smisel objave teh znanstvenih člankov. S svojimi neumnostmi zgoraj si zbijaš kredibilnost na forumu.
tl;dr Pač še en usekanec, ki govori iz riti, da bi dobil svojih 5 minut EPP kurbanja. Naj mu verjamem, da je v imenu
liberal dissemination of knowledge [...] liberal access to scientific work impacts the well-being of all mankind. Our continued survival may even depend on it. [yadayadayada]
takole ogromno skladovnico znanja & idej & whatthefuckever to več let ... skrival samo in le zase? Pfft. Čisti egoistični pizdun je, ki je videl samo in le svoje dobro. Sej ne, da je kej od tega imel (glej spodaj).
I'm interested in hearing about any enjoyable discoveries or even useful applications which come of this archive.
A hoče slučajno povedat, da med 18.592 članki ni našel niti enega uporabnega, pa jih ima že več let? I LOL'd. Hard.
99.991% of over-25 population has tried kissing.
If you're one of the 0.009% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your Signature.
Intel i3-12100f gtx 3050 Pismo smo stari v bozjo mater. Recesija generacija
Nikogar ne zanima. Nihče ne bo šel brati tega. Važna je ideja. Kao. Saj veš, tako kot tista štorija, da si zelen, to je bilo nekaj časa popularno. Sedaj je pa to. Čez 14 dni bo pa kaj drugega.
Ampak ima deloma prav. Če pogledaš malo širše vidiš, da je Urša Čepin in kmetija tisto kar ljudje potrebujejo. Ne pa nekega znanja ali pomembnih pogovorov. Par velikih još, ki jih šlata pijanec, nekje na skednju, to je zmaga za slovenski narod. In to je scary, ne pa pax man :)
Ja ne, ane. Napisal si, da le uporaba(branje) pomeni škodo; torej: neuporaba = ni škode. Kaj je ukraden predmet potemtakem nima veze.
1. Jaz tega nisem napisal, se pa s trditvijo strinjam. 2. Seveda ima vezo. Če mi ukradeš avto in ga parkiraš na svoje dvorišče, moram jaz hoditi peš, čeprav sem lastnik avtomobila. Če si narediš kopijo vsega mojega avtorskega dela in disk z njo odložiš na polico, pa nisem utrpel prav nobene škode.
Po mojem mnenju ne. Jaz imam še vedno svojo kopijo vsebin, ti pa od mojega dela, če ti stoji na disku na polici, nimaš nič; niti konkurence mi ne moreš delat s tem, niti črpat navdiha iz mojega dela - nič ...
Po mojem mnenju ne. Jaz imam še vedno svojo kopijo vsebin, ti pa od mojega dela, če ti stoji na disku na polici, nimaš nič; niti konkurence mi ne moreš delat s tem, niti črpat navdiha iz mojega dela - nič ...
Lahko ga objavim na torentu. Še vedno mi čepi na disku, še vedno ti ne delam konkurence, niti ne črpam navdiha iz tvojega dela.
Samo če iz telih številk na hitro izračunam, koliko je težkih onih 4,8 milijona člankov, pride dobrih 8 TB. To je pa ena markantna cifra. Ne bo šlo na pirate bay...
Nikogar ne zanima. Nihče ne bo šel brati tega. Važna je ideja. Kao. Saj veš, tako kot tista štorija, da si zelen, to je bilo nekaj časa popularno. Sedaj je pa to. Čez 14 dni bo pa kaj drugega.
Nič "kao". Ne gre za nekaj kar bi bilo popularno, gre za potrebo po spremembah, ker sedanje stanje je kot stara koža, ki jo je treba menjati.
Ideološki boji so se dogajali od nekdaj. Danes ni nič drugače.
Nekateri pišejo mnenja, kot bi hoteli, da je tako, kot mislijo, da je najboljše. Težko sprejmejo spremembo. Ta pa je neizbežna.
Sredi spečih in nepazljivih je modrec buden in pazljiv -
po poti gre kot hiter konj, ki je prehitel šibko kljuse.
Samo če iz telih številk na hitro izračunam, koliko je težkih onih 4,8 milijona člankov, pride dobrih 8 TB. To je pa ena markantna cifra. Ne bo šlo na pirate bay...
Kaj ima TPB omejitev velikosti? Sicer po moje je 33GB vse skup, ne pa vsak članek. (kaj pa ima not? video posnetek celotnega pisanja članka?)
Zdej pa, če resno vzdržuješ tak arhiv. Moraš imeti še nek indeks pa full text search. Kompleksna spletna stran. Pa pasovna širina. Pa backupi. Pa licence za bazo zadaj. Če to vzameš v obzir, je čisto mogoče tistih $5-19 na članek še malo.
Pasovne širine verjetno ne rabiš tako velike, ker verjetno tako ne prenašajo vsi uporabniki naenkrat. Licenco za bazo pa lahko odmisliš, če uporabljajo kakšno odprtokodno verzijo.
Zakaj me to spominja na novico kako kitajski ting ponuja glasbo praktično zastonj... Očitno si pirati(arrr) želijo prav takega sistema. Pirati pa se spet kažejo v taki luči: če daš preveliko ceno(ali ceno sploh), bom pač uporabljal brez plačat, dokler se avtor ne bo prilagodil na "sodobne prodajne kanale" in ponudil delo skoraj zastonj.
off-topic:zdaj sem na slo-techu sigurno označen za sovražnik št.2(težko premagat digitalčka)
.
