←back to thread

Sci-Hub has been blocked in India

(sci-hub.se)
259 points the-mitr | 4 comments | 28 Aug 25 04:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
megaloblasto ◴[28 Aug 25 12:10 UTC] No.45051186[source]▶
I have to read a lot of papers for work. Sometimes 2 or 3 a day. Often when I find one I'm interested in, they want $60 to read the one paper. If I have to read one paper a day, that's about $20,000 a year just to stay up to date with the science.

That's ridiculous. Thankfully someone is breaking down these barriers to science.

replies(6): >>45051247 #>>45051473 #>>45051583 #>>45052008 #>>45053224 #>>45053294 #
kleiba ◴[28 Aug 25 12:53 UTC] No.45051583[source]▶
Replace "paper" with anything else you consume in your everyday life. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but to me, if there's something offered to you for a certain price, and you're not ready to pay that price, the alternative should be to either get something comparable that's cheaper (hardly possible with scientific papers) or, unfortunately, abstain from getting that thing at all.

I don't see how "what they're charging is ridiculous, and the money isn't even going to the authors, so it's okay for me to get the papers through sci-hub" is morally justified.

Independent of the above: if it's for work, your employer should pay for the paper access (unless you're self-employed, of course).

replies(7): >>45051702 #>>45051710 #>>45051736 #>>45051786 #>>45052011 #>>45052524 #>>45052996 #
1. ahoka ◴[28 Aug 25 13:07 UTC] No.45051702[source]▶
Science brings humanity forward, your Netflix subscription does not. Simple as that. The former should not be the subject of economic rent.
replies(2): >>45051870 #>>45053328 #
2. SkyBelow ◴[28 Aug 25 13:24 UTC] No.45051870[source]▶
Calling this economic rent, if anything, underplays the issue. The economics in play appear worse than what rent normally covers. The science is funded by other sources, often from the groups which want access, the scientists are not paid and many have to pay to publish. Reviewers are rarely if ever paid. Public ability to peruse science, something that is already limited by the difficulty of understanding the papers, is made far worse by the price tag. The value provided seems to mainly be some name recognition that has fed a publish or perish model that is arguably detrimental to science research at scale.

All considered, calling it economic rent appears too charitable an interpretation.

3. kleiba ◴[28 Aug 25 15:20 UTC] No.45053328[source]▶
It does not matter if it should or shouldn't. Since someone else brought up insulin before, you could also argue that all medication should be free - alas it isn't.

It is totally fine to object the status quo of certain aspects of life or society. But in a democracy, the right way to go about changing them is not to just simply take what you can.

replies(1): >>45053775 #
4. mistercheph ◴[28 Aug 25 15:56 UTC] No.45053775[source]▶
In a democracy that has been captured by massive commercial interests? Do you see any politicians ranting against the copyright system? Have a guess why?

They wield power unapologetically, Disney execs would actually kill people if they had to to get copyright terms extended, using dark libraries is a sensible response to the current state of affairs.