←back to thread

260 points the-mitr | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.422s | source
Show context
megaloblasto ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. lotharcable ◴[] No.45052996[source]
Copyright exists to protect publishers, not the people actually doing the work.

Copyright was created for the specific purpose of censorship.

replies(1): >>45053438 #
2. kleiba ◴[] No.45053438[source]
If anything you could argue that copyright has shifted in that direction but it was certainly created originally to foster the development of art and science by protecting creators, not publishers.