"The fees being charged are publisher fees, absolutely ridiculous fees for a minimal service that is completely obsolete in the internet age, hampers collaboration and the flow of information, slows down science, prevents underprivileged persons from accessing the research that is in the vast majority of cases publicly funded"
So we should be able to do whatever we want when we don't agree with a law? this is between publishers and researchers.
"and serves only to give money to these publishers, of which absolutely 0% goes to the researchers themselves."
This sounds like the 'all music should be shared and free' argument all over again. The last decade of Napster and Torrents have pretty much destroyed any chances of an Indy musician to make a living without the sponsorship of a big corporation.
It essentially pushed all of the Indy artists out. They actually had a chance to make a living with music before file sharing became part of our culture (and the belief that bits on a computer should somehow be free since it takes nothing to copy them).
The irony is that the exact same thing is happening with job outsourcing and now those same people are clamoring for government intervention. We somehow need to stop the free flow of information when it directly affects your job.
I worked in academia in a different life and nearly all research is conducted in some part by private entities pumping money into the University.
This won't have the desired effect and will essentially make research even more private.
I don't believe the GNU is a truly free license. If I decided to take software, use it in a proprietary app, and then sell it with no source, I would be taken to court (and people here on HN would want me sued out of existence (I've seen it many times already)).
Should I have a right to do this? Because this is exactly what is going on here. A copyright license is being broken and you believe it's justified.
Nobody is arguing what she is doing is legal in U.S. What people feel is that what she is doing is morally right despite it being illegal, regarding how publishers operate.
So we should be able to do whatever we want when we don't agree with a law? this is between publishers and researchers.
"and serves only to give money to these publishers, of which absolutely 0% goes to the researchers themselves."
This sounds like the 'all music should be shared and free' argument all over again. The last decade of Napster and Torrents have pretty much destroyed any chances of an Indy musician to make a living without the sponsorship of a big corporation.
It essentially pushed all of the Indy artists out. They actually had a chance to make a living with music before file sharing became part of our culture (and the belief that bits on a computer should somehow be free since it takes nothing to copy them).
The irony is that the exact same thing is happening with job outsourcing and now those same people are clamoring for government intervention. We somehow need to stop the free flow of information when it directly affects your job.
I worked in academia in a different life and nearly all research is conducted in some part by private entities pumping money into the University.
This won't have the desired effect and will essentially make research even more private.
I don't believe the GNU is a truly free license. If I decided to take software, use it in a proprietary app, and then sell it with no source, I would be taken to court (and people here on HN would want me sued out of existence (I've seen it many times already)).
Should I have a right to do this? Because this is exactly what is going on here. A copyright license is being broken and you believe it's justified.