Copyright

This page collects recent items on Copyright.

Copyright is killing music

2018-06-16 Article 13

Continuing from my previous discussion of copyright madness...

Don’t force platforms to replace communities with algorithms (Wikimedia): «As policymakers increasingly suggest technological solutions to fight illegal and controversial content online, we ask them to consider the rights of internet users and to leave room for the human side of content moderation.» An Interesting Wiki perspective: «Once flagged by ORES, review and removal of content is handled entirely though community processes. This relationship acknowledges the limitations of machine learning while harnessing its strengths.»

So ein Quatschgesetz (Sascha Lobo) «Mit dem Leistungsschutzrecht wollen sich manche Verleger von der Politik eine digitale Gelddruckmaschine schenken lassen - bald auch auf EU-Ebene. Wie konnte es so weit kommen?»

Save Code Share (FSFE) «Current EU Copyright Review threatens Free and Open Source Software. Take action now to preserve the ability to collaboratively build software online!»

Megathread collected by David Ross: «I can not express enough how important this action is for the health of the Internet. The EU have a Directive going to the vote on June 20, and if you do any of the following it would impact YOU»

Europe's New Copyright Rules Are Like YouTube's Content ID System—for the Entire Internet (Cory Doctorow): «The European Union wants to take the upload filters that make no one happy and apply them to all content on the internet.»

What’s really behind the EU law that would “ban memes” – and how to stop it before June 20 (Julia Reda): «With two weeks to go until the crucial vote in the European Parliament, more and more people are becoming aware of the looming plans for “censorship machines” and a “link tax” in the EU. […] Article 13 of the Copyright Directive will force internet platforms (social networks, video sites, image hosts, etc.) to install upload filters to monitor all user uploads for copyrighted content, including in images […].»

And Julia Reda on the same blog post: «But it’s important to me to underscore that the solution to bad legal proposals and unbalanced lobbying is not to curse or even advocate leaving the EU. (In fact, it’s Anti-EU, Euro-skeptic and right-wing parties that are responsible for giving these proposals majority support in the Committee! Don’t let Eurosceptic politicians get away with voting in favour of breaking the Internet and then blaming the EU for it later!)»

☠️ ☠️ ☠️

With Article 11 and Article 13 passing today, I’m starting to get the feeling that I can’t cheer the copyright industry into their graves fast enough. Sink, all ye ships of publishing houses! Sink, ye newspapers, TV makers and whatever you call yourselves! I’m hoping your industry goes down, your money runs dry, your wealth is squandered at court, your patience is tried, your reputation ruined — may your intellectual property turn to dust into your hands, and may you choke on it.

☠️ ☠️ ☠️

Tags:

Comments on 2018-06-16 Article 13

@Senficon posted:

Great success: Your protests have worked! The European Parliament has sent the copyright law back to the drawing board. All MEPs will get to vote on #uploadfilters and the #linktax September 10–13. Now let’s keep up the pressure to make sure we #SaveYourInternet!

@rysiek says publishers sent the following to all the MEPs:

In light of the vote on the mandate on the copyright file taking place tomorrow morning on 5 June, the four European associations representing press publishers across Europe, EMMA (European Magazine Media Association), ENPA (European Newspaper Publishers’ Association), EPC (European Publishers Council) and NME (News Media Europe) would like to express their concerns regarding the insidious means used by platforms to prevent this reform which would push them to obtain licenses with rightsholders for the use of the protected works they display. In particular, Wikipedia has been encouraging its users since yesterday to contact their MEPs to prevent to “disrupt the open internet” and even black outed access to its pages in some cases stating that “it may be impossible to share a newspaper article on social networks or find it on a search engine. Wikipedia itself would risk to close.” Furthermore, there is proof of the backhanded collaborative lobbying of the platforms, as Wikipedia UK shows a black banner on top of the its main page in which the reader is redirected towards Mozilla’s anti-copyright campaign page. The well-orchestrated campaign provides step by step instructions on how users can contact Members of the European Parliament to express their opposition with regards the copyright reform. The fact is: the report that will soon be voted upon establishes a right to press publishers (article 11.1a) which* specifically excludes uses by individuals and hyperlinks from the scope of the right. As for Wikipedia’s “risk to close”, the report (Art. 2.4.a) specifically states that online encyclopedia are not covered by the directive. This is therefore another purely bad-faith attempt to discredit a proposed directive aiming at re-balancing a digital ecosystem dominated by platforms.

@rysiek also tooted the following:

If anyone wonders what could be put in the Copyright Directive to make it better, read these: https://www.communia-association.org/2018/05/29/alternative-version-artcile-13-european-parliament-support/ https://juliareda.eu/2018/06/the-internet-after-axel-voss/

And as far as broader fixes for copyright in the EU are concerned, read this: https://www.communia-association.org/recommendations/ https://www.communia-association.org/policy-papers/

This is the hash tag to look for: #SaveYourInternet.

– Alex Schroeder 2018-07-06 20:11 UTC

Add Comment

2018-05-24 Copyright Directive

Are you angry about copyright? Angry about the USA? Angry about attempts at copyright extensions in the USA? If not, you can read US Congress mulls expanding copyright yet again – to 144 years. Or How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It), which is a continuation of Of Course The RIAA Would Find A Way To Screw Over The Public In 'Modernizing' Copyright.

Well, the Mourning Goose blog post is here to tell you that you can be angry about the European Union and copyright, too.

More about the Copyright Directive on Wikipedia. When I see the words “technological protection measures” my eyes glaze over and in my mind I see a burning pentagram of Mammon worshipping grey men waiting to suck me dry and smoke my life.

But remember, this is about the proposed changes to the Copyright Directive. Here’s another angry person: The EU's Proposed Copyright Directive Is Likely To Be A Wonderful Gift -- For US Internet Giants, Which is a continuation of EU Announces Absolutely Ridiculous Copyright Proposal That Will Chill Innovation, Harm Creativity. Or how about Forget The GDPR, The EU's New Copyright Proposal Will Be A Complete And Utter Disaster For The Internet.

I will need to drink a lot of green tea tonight after reading all that. 🍵

More links...

Forget The GDPR, The EU's New Copyright Proposal Will Be A Complete And Utter Disaster For The Internet

Julia Reda has an update: «Update from May 25th 2018, 13:37: Member State governments have today adopted their position on the copyright reform, with no significant changes to the upload filters and link tax provisions. It is now up to Parliament to stop them.»

Whenever I read about political decision making in parliaments where there are more than just two parties I want to know what parties acted against my best interest and who fought for it. Regarding the stupid new copyright proposal, check the section “Where the parties stand” in Julia Rede’s blog post.

Where the parties stand

Tags:

Add Comment

2018-04-25 Against Intellectual Monopoly

As recommended by Ed Morbius on Google+:

It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty....

Downloadable PDF book

Tags:

Add Comment

2017-12-15 Make stuff

Mastodon is ablaze with net neutrality posts.

I really liked this blog post: DIY Media: “When we buy stuff from major corporations, we transfer money (and therefore power) out of our local communities, and in to the pockets of CEOs and shareholders. When we make stuff, or buy stuff from our communties, that wealth (and power) stays within our communities.” (via Mastodon)

And it fits right in with the ideas of DIY D&D.

And DIY also has a more important role to play: it is something positive and rewarding to aim for. It’s like singing in choir, playing an instrument in a band or with friends. The shared experience is important.

This is the feeling we need on the political stage, too. Nate Cull wrote about it on Mastodon and I said: “Similar problem in France, Austria and increasingly elsewhere: if decent parties are only united against the fascists, then people vote because of fear, not because they hope that things will improve. And then they don’t. We need positive visions of the things we can do. The things we will do. The positive things that are happening right now.”

DIY is political.

Tags:

Add Comment

2017-11-28 DRM

DRM's Dead Canary: How We Just Lost the Web, What We Learned from It, and What We Need to Do Next. How DRM is used to squash the competition, silence security researchers, make sure movie are only available in certain region, who gets to fix your car, who gets to supply the toner for your printer. And then the article pivots to the W3C, Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), and browsers.

And this is why I support the EFF: “EFF is suing the US government to overturn Section 1201 of the DMCA.”

There is a a report by εxodus listing of Android apps and the trackers found within and the permissions they require. Consider using a mobile website instead. Mastodon apps, for example: no trackers for Tusky, one tracker for Twidere, two trackers for Tootdon; but Amaroq isn’t listed because it’s iPhone only.

Why is that? Cory Doctorow links it back to DRM: “But iOS is DRM-locked and it’s a felony – punishable by a 5-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine for a first offense in the USA under DMCA 1201, and similar provisions of Article 6 of the EUCD in France where Exodus is located – to distribute tools that bypass this DRM, even for the essential work of discovering whether billions of people are at risk due to covert spying from the platform.”

Tags:

Add Comment

2017-06-25 Against Intellectual Monopoly

Edward Morbius linked to Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine (last blog posts from 2015)

I am reminded of me picking up Piracy by Adrian Johns back in 2014.

I want to read it all, but I don’t know when to do it. Something for this summer?

I just heard the Thinking Allowed episode Rentier capitalism - Protest camps and they talked about The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work does not Pay by Guy Standing. He says that intellectual property is a form of rent and if 40% of your economy depends on it, no wonder that labor is not worth much. The review of the book in the Guardian provides some context.

We are terrible stewards of history. “Copyright plays a pretty large role in the destruction of our cultural history.” Truth!

Tags:

Add Comment

2016-06-01 Rules

Court rules in favor of cloned tabletop game – No protection under US copyright law: «The court points out that “Unlike a book or movie plot, the rules and procedures, including the winning conditions, that make up a card-game system of play do not themselves produce the artistic or literary content that is the hallmark of protectable expression.” They note that past game copyright victories were won by parties based on infringement of visual appearance or other protectable elements.»

Tags:

Add Comment

2016-05-22 Running

I’m trying to start training for a longer running project: I want to run the 300km Jura-Höhenweg (national trail #5). If I want to run two or three days in a row, I need to be able to run 10 to 20 km for three days in a row. Time to start practicing!

I’ve created a log file (a simple text file using Org mode for Emacs), I’m uploading data to the site tied to my wife’s watch (a Polar 3RC GPS), polarpersonaltrainer.com. I really don’t like all this proprietary stuff. What if they close it down? What if their WebSync app no longer works? (If you run into the problem that WebSync won’t install on your Mac because it is the product of an unidentified developer, you might be interested in learning more about Gatekeeper and ways around it.)

So, here’s what I did: I exported the GPX data from the Polar site and imported it to OpenStreetMap. Yay! The OpenStreetMap copyright page has some information about the license. But... I was unable to find a display of my trace with the map in the background. No way to create a useful screenshot for this blog.

And so I returned to the Polar site, which uses Google. And studied their terms of use, and clicked through to their permissions page and more about naming. I think I should be fine if I keep their copyright statement at the bottom, as far as I can tell.

https://alexschroeder.ch/pics/running/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-22%20at%2021.39.28.png

Today I found this question in the FAQ: How can I display a GPS trace on a real map? Apparently, a quick way to do it is to open the trace in the map editor. They hope that you’ll use the trace to improve the map, of course. Let’s see whether I’ll be joining the mapping community. :)

https://alexschroeder.ch/pics/running/Altstetten%20to%20Bonstetten.png
© OpenStreetMap contributors

Tags:

Add Comment

2016-04-25 Urheberrecht

Cory Doctorow: Das Ding mit dem Copyright – eine Übersetzung des Vorwortes, welches Cory Doctorow für Little Brother geschrieben hat, von Ste­fan Holz­hauer, als Reaktion auf einen Artikel von Felix Münter unter dem Titel Diebstahl bleibt Diebstahl – Egal, um was es geht.

Da gäbe es so viel zu sagen! Aber das wurde ja schon alles gesagt.

  • Urheberrecht haben wir selber aufgestellt und das können wir auch ändern. Es ist kein “natürliches” Recht, welches sich wie selbstverständlich aus unserer Existenz als Menschen ergibt
  • Wir stellen manchmal Gesetze auf, um Geschäftsmodelle zu schützen, die uns schützenswert erscheinen; diese Einschätzung kann sich aber im Laufe der Zeit auch ändern
  • Da physische Dinge nicht kopiert werden können, kann man den Diebstahl von einem Ding und dem Anfertigen einer Kopie nicht automatisch gleichsetzen

Ich empfehle das Buch Free Culture von Lawrence Lessig.

Diskussion auch auf Google+.

Tags:

Comments on 2016-04-25 Urheberrecht

Aus der G+ Diskussion, mein Kommentar zum Artikel von Felix Münter:

Der Artikel suggeriert die moralische Gleichsetzung von Diebstahl und dem Anfertigen von digitalen Kopien. Wenn allerdings eine grosse Anzahl Menschen ständig das Recht verletzen, dann stellt sich auch die Frage, ob es denn wohl reformbedürftig sei. Und falls ja, in welchem Sinne: ob die Taten, welche im Moment verboten sind und Diebstahl genannt werden, nicht einfach erlaubt werden sollten und die Gesellschaft neue Geschäftsmodelle ersinnen müsste, weil wir ja die Gesetze für uns alle und nicht zur Stütze gewisser Geschäftsmodelle erlassen.

Mein Argument, dass ein Gesetz der Reform bedürfe, wenn sich ein grosser Teil der Bevölkerung nicht daran hält, wurde von Reinhard J. Wagner mit dem Hinweis angegriffen, dass wir ja auch Morden straffrei machen wollen, nur weil es viele Mörder gibt.

Klar, übertreiben kann man jedes Argument. Aber genau das ist ja auch das Argument, was uns zur Reform bringt. Wenn alle Alkohol trinken, dann ist die Prohibition vielleicht keine gute Idee gewesen. Wenn so viele junge Leute Drogen nehmen, dann ist die Repression vielleicht nicht das geeignete Mittel, um dagegen anzugehen. Und natürlich ist es egal, wie viele Mörder es gibt, das wollen wir nicht legalisieren. Mich stört vor allem die absolute Formulierung: “Diebstahl bleibt Diebstahl.” Seid Napster befinden wir uns in einer grossen Diskussion über die Grenzen des Urheberrechts und ich bin nicht bereit, in einer Diskussion, wo es um die ständig stattfindenden Urheberrechtsverletzungen geht, diese Diskussion unter den Tisch zu kehren und mich auf die Formel “Diebstahl bleibt Diebstahl” zurück zu ziehen. Nein, eben genau diese Diskussion will ich führen.

Reinhard J. Wagner wiederholte seinen Punkt nochmal und meinte, dass für ihn die Tatsache, dass es sowieso alle machen, ein schwaches Argument sei.

Nun ja. Dann gehen wir von den Grundsätzen aus: Warum haben wir überhaupt Gesetze? Um das Zusammenleben zu reglementieren, für den Streitfall, damit nicht der Stärkere gewinnt, vielleicht. Welcher Art sind dann die Gesetze, die wir wollen? Wir haben natürlich Ziele: körperliche Unversehrtheit, materieller Wohlstand, siehe Grundgesetz, Menschenrechte, Verfassung, und so weiter. Daraus ergibt sich, dass die Gesetze Legitimationsbedarf haben, der über ihre blosse Existenz hinausweist. Bei den Amis ist die Argumentation ja einfach: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” [1] Somit kann man für jede Gesetzesänderung im Urheberrechtsbereich anfangen, über den Zielerfüllungsgrad zu reden. Und über die Alternativen.

Leider haben wir in Europa ja nur die Geschichte, welche von der Statue of Anne ausgeht [2], und deswegen eigentlich ein Gesetz, welches die Verwertung der Werke schützt, und zwar über die Verleger untereinander. Die Geschichte führt dann weiter bis zu TRIPS. Und nun, dank Internet, Desktop Publishing, Print on Demand, sind wir plötzlich alle von einem Urheberrecht betroffen, welches vielleicht für den Alltag immer unbrauchbarer wird. Wo erfahren wir diese Unbrauchbarkeit? Zum Beispiel daran, dass ein Urheberrecht so schwer zu erklären ist, für viele kaum einzusehen ist, und schlussendlich von vielen auch nicht beachtet wird. Ergo der Reformbedarf.

– Alex Schroeder 2016-04-25 14:11 UTC


Aus aktuellem Anlass eine Standortbestimmung, die meine (tiefen) Erwartungen übertrifft. Urheberrecht: Die digitale Urheberrechtsreform versackt im Fiasko.

– Alex Schroeder 2016-04-28 06:10 UTC


Bundestag dehnt Buchpreisbindung auf E-Books aus.

– Alex Schroeder 2016-04-28 22:05 UTC


Urheberrecht: USA setzen Schweiz auf «Watch List».

Im Zentrum der amerikanischen Kritik an der Schweiz steht die «Piraterie» im Internet und das so genannte Logistep-Urteil des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts (BGE 136 II 508): In diesem Urteil hatte das höchste Gericht in der Schweiz den Eidgenössischen Datenschutz- und Öffentlichkeitsbeauftragten (EDÖB) darin bestätigt, dass die damalige Internet-Überwachung für urheberrechtliche Massenabmahnungen gegen Filesharer in der Schweiz das Datenschutzrecht verletzte.

Zusammenfassung:

Letztlich ist den amerikanischen Forderungen gemeinsam, dass im Urheberrecht die üblichen rechtsstaatlichen Mittel und Wege ausgehebelt werden sollen, wie es teilweise auch die laufende URG-Revision vorsieht.

Das Ganze bezieht sich auf die anstehende Urheberrechtsrevision. Urheberrecht: Massenabmahnungen und Netzsperren für ein «sauberes Internet» in der Schweiz. Wenn man dort weiter liest, wird einem sowieso nur schlecht.

Der Bundesrat befürwortet die Einführung von Netzsperren, Selbstjustiz und Überwachung im Sinn der umstrittenen Empfehlungen der einseitig zusammengesetzten Arbeitsgruppe zur Optimierung der kollektiven Verwertung von Urheberrechten und verwandten Schutzrechten (AGUR12) sowie nach Wünschen der amerikanischen Unterhaltungsindustrie und ihren reichlich subventionierten Verbündeten in der Schweiz.

Widerlich!

– Alex Schroeder 2016-04-29 10:11 UTC


Die neue Fassung des Buchpreisbindungsgesetzes – ein Kommentar von Stefan Holzhauer:

Die Ar­gu­men­ta­tion, dass die Buch­preis­bin­dung auch Ni­schen­pro­dukte er­mög­li­che, ist oh­ne­hin eine Lä­cher­li­che, wenn man sich ansieht, was die Pu­bli­kums­ver­lage so an bil­li­gem und mies lek­t­o­rier­tem Mas­sen­müll auf den Markt pum­pen. Auch der Hin­weis auf kul­tu­relle Viel­falt zieht mei­ner An­sicht nach nicht im Ge­rings­ten. Wenn dem so wäre, müsste es auch Preis­bin­dungs­ge­setze für Mu­sik, Filme oder Com­pu­ter­spiele ge­ben. Die gibt es aber nicht und man kann nicht sa­gen, dass es bei die­sen Me­dien keine Viel­falt gäbe – so­gar ganz im Ge­gen­teil.[...] Dass die Self­pu­blis­her da­von aus­ge­nom­men wur­den, er­freut mich dann aber doch – das kann man fast pro­gres­siv nen­nen, auch wenn es mit gro­ßer Wahr­schein­lich­keit nur ein Ver­se­hen war.

– Alex Schroeder 2016-05-01 11:34 UTC


The Sad Story Behind A Dead PC Game That Can't Come Back. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. And Copyright.

– Alex Schroeder 2016-05-24 17:19 UTC

Add Comment

2016-02-15 With Regards from Russia

Thank you, Alexandra Elbakyan!

Pirate Bay of Science? “A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 million journal articles - almost every single peer-reviewed paper every published - freely available online.”

Some radical thoughts about Sci-Hub: “Instead we should focus on what the law is intended to accomplish, where and why it fails in its purpose, and how we can make it more adaptable for the digital age.”

This renowned mathematician is bent on proving academic journals can cost nothing: “So the new journal will work like this: Researchers can submit a paper to the ArXiv, where the article is posted online for commenting. They can then go to the Discrete Analysis website and simply paste the URL for the ArXiv pre-print, add their contact details, and submit. The journal will then coordinate peer review (using Scholastica software) and if a paper is accepted, ask the authors to produce a revision of their article to respond to any comments. Once it’s in good shape, the article will get posted to the Discrete Analysis website and the authors can post the final version to the ArXiv, says Gowers.”

Edward Morbius introduces Pamela Samuelson: “Open Access (OA) is an excellent goal. I applaud it. But it’s the tip of the iceberg.” And Pamela Samuelson: Aaron Swartz: Opening access to knowledge, back in 2013. “There was a time when access to knowledge was promoted through grants of copyrights to authors who typically transferred them to publishers. Now copyright has become the single most serious impediment to access to knowledge.”

Paul J. Heald, How Copyright Keeps Works Disappeared. “A random sample of new books for sale on Amazon.com shows more books for sale from the 1880’s than the 1980’s. Why? This paper presents new data on how copyright stifles the reappearance of works. First, a random sample of more than 2000 new books for sale on Amazon.com is analyzed along with a random sample of almost 2000 songs available on new DVD’s. Copyright status correlates highly with absence from the Amazon shelf. Together with publishing business models, copyright law seems to deter distribution and diminish access.”

A spiritual successor to Aaron Swartz is angering publishers all over again: Meet accused hacker and copyright infringer Alexandra Elbakyan, by David Kravets. Interview questions, comparisons between the two, recent developments, on the importance of fighting back.

Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone. “For Elbakyan herself, the future is even more uncertain. Elsevier is not only charging her with copyright infringement but with illegal hacking under the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. ’There is the possibility to be suddenly arrested for hacking,’ Elbakyan admits. Others who ran afoul of this law have been extradited to the United States while traveling. And she is fully aware that another computer prodigy–turned-advocate, Aaron Swartz, was arrested on similar charges in 2011 after mass-downloading academic papers. Facing devastating financial penalties and jail time, Swartz hanged himself.”

A short argumentation by Edward Morbius on Google+.

Piracy site for academic journals playing game of domain-name Whac-A-Mole. “Elsevier is the same New York publisher that the late Aaron Swartz had noted in his “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” that told academics and researchers they had a “duty” to free the knowledge they were privileged to read behind Elsevier’s paywall.” Or, as Edward Morbius put it on Google+: “Have you found it curious how Elsevier hasn’t made the case that all those hardworking researchers are being denied fruits of their labour? Because they’re not.”

SSRN has been captured by the enemy of open knowledge. “For example, one of the more egregious of their yearly subscription rates is the Journal of Nuclear Materials, which will cost libraries $7,442.14 for an electronic subscription, or $11,164.00 for a print subscription. [...] Of course, as an author, you can always choose to make your paper open access. The fee for doing so? $3,500.”

All European scientific articles to be freely accessible by 2020. “Open access means that scientific publications on the results of research supported by public and public-private funds must be freely accessible to everyone. That is not yet the case. The results of publicly funded research are currently not accessible to people outside universities and knowledge institutions. As a result, teachers, doctors and entrepreneurs do not have access to the latest scientific insights that are so relevant to their work, and universities have to take out expensive subscriptions with publishers to gain access to publications.”

We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach. “Yet, while we have been bickering about the true path to open access nirvana, the pirates have crept up on us, especially in the form of Sci-Hub, which is self-reporting more than 60 million articles freely available (Sci-Hub, 2017) and could have harvested nearly all scholarly literature (Himmelstein, Romeo, McLaughlin, Greshake, & Greene, 2017) – if true, Sci-Hub has single-handedly won the race to make all journal articles open access.” For some context, see John Baez on G+.

Tags:

Comments on 2016-02-15 With Regards from Russia

I am interested in an article. It costs $41.

Here’s a preprint by somebody else: Pace and Critical Gradient for Hill Runners: An Analysis of Race Records.

– Alex Schroeder 2016-05-23 20:33 UTC


I’m not sure if I get it. You’ve just mentioned sci-hub, and then you’re saying that you cannot access some article?

Hm?

By the way, even though I have access to most of the articles through my university, I still use sci-hub all the time. There’s just no reason not to.

– AlexDaniel 2016-05-24 08:12 UTC


I’m collecting sci-hub links because I’m interested in copyright in the context of scientific journals, but since I’m no longer actively researching anything, I haven’t actually used it. And when I was faced with that price tag, it seemed easier to simply google for the paper title and see what comes up instead of figuring out how sci-hub actually works.

Good to know that it’s simple to use, though. :)

– Alex Schroeder 2016-05-24 12:32 UTC

Add Comment

More...

Comments


Please make sure you contribute only your own work, or work licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Note: in order to facilitate peer review and fight vandalism, we will store your IP number for a number of days. See Privacy Policy for more information. See Info for text formatting rules. You can edit the comment page if you need to fix typos. You can subscribe to new comments by email without leaving a comment.

To save this page you must answer this question:

Please say HELLO.