Comments on: What would happen if you hacked into a library?

By: Mek

Mek — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:22:52 +0000

Swartz is no more a thief than are the educational facilities that rob our society of progress by restricting access to knowledge to the select few and privileged. If the university’s biggest concern is that knowledge might become available to the general public and provide them with the means and opportunity to better and educate themselves, I do not see the harm. The alarming point to me is not that information was ‘stolen’ but that an educational facility would be upset. Isn’t that against an educational facility’s mission statement: educating people? Education is a market, but I humble believe there’s a difference between charging students for courses staffed by faculty and restricting distribution of knowledge.

By: Ralph Haygood

Ralph Haygood — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:55:45 +0000

Barba is correct: library costs are a significant burden for most universities, the vast majority of which are nonprofit organizations and most of which are public institutions. This isn’t even just an issue for smaller universities. As a postdoc at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, one of the foremost research universities in the country, I was among a small group of people that persuaded the library not to cancel its subscription to Theoretical Population Biology, an excellent but overpriced journal published by Elsevier; the library was trying to save money, of course. Even as a postdoc at Duke, another of the foremost research universities in the country and one of the richest, with particular strength in biomedical research, I repeatedly ran into articles I wanted in journals to which the library didn’t subscribe; with typical institutional subscriptions costing hundreds of dollars of year, even a university as rich as Duke can’t afford to subscribe to all the relevant journals.

Moreover, saying that articles are “openly available to the university community” disregards the existence of researchers doing valuable work at universities outside the wealthiest countries or outside any university at all. I’ve received dozens of requests for copies of my publications from people around the world, many in poorer countries such as China and Russia, who cannot access them behind journal paywalls. And it’s always worth remembering that much outstanding science has been done by people not working at universities. For example, Charles Darwin, arguably the greatest biologist the world has yet seen, never had a faculty job. Darwin was rich, so he could maintain his own private library. Young Albert Einstein, working for the Swiss patent office, couldn’t have done that.

Science thrives on the free exchange of information among scientists. The real costs of such exchange are now vastly lower than ever before in history, yet exchange remains hampered by an academic publishing system with financial arrangements inherited from the pre-computer era. Change is long overdue.

By: G.C.

G.C. — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:45:36 +0000

First fame, then fortune. It was a good bit of hacking, except for the fact he was caught, unless of course he wanted to be.

By: Barba

Barba — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:24:19 +0000

Even so, JSTOR e other scientific libraries charge too much for the service they provide. How can a non-profit organization charge US$ 19 for a single .pdf article even if its copyright has expired? They get public funded research results and charge money to publish them. I don´t think it is wrong to charge for it, but the prices aren’t suited for non-profit organizations that just need to organize a database.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:07:31 +0000

Thanks, Eliot — my apologies. I meant to add that credit and simply forgot. I will fix that now. Great shot, by the way :-)

By: pixlem

pixlem — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:35:45 +0000

Mathew – there is an odd meme (if the bank wants to pursue you . . . .) travelling around that the government has no role protecting private property – but of course that is one of the core purposes of government. The police protect your house and your stuff, the courts protect your rights under contracts, laws and the constitution, and the government has much more power to investigate (including through the grand jury) and enforce than do private individuals. This protection of the rule of law (including enforcement) provides us with essential freedoms – whether in planning (you know that if you put your money in a bank they have to give it back; you know someone can’t just take your car; etc.) So why should the bank have to engage it’s own private police force (or lawyers) to protect the rules? If your beef is with the rules – then advocate to change them. In principle, JSTOR should be allowed to pursue its business model of paying for its costs through user fees (it is a not-for-profit). We don’t get to legislate individually . . . we do it as part of a group. Even civil disobedience theory says that you accept the criminal penalty – but use the story to militate that the laws change.

By: Eliot

Eliot — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:08:18 +0000

Your photo credit is wrong. That’s my picture of me. http://www.flickr.com/photos/hackaday/2497817344/

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:58:51 +0000

Excellent points, Ralph — thanks for the comment.

By: txpatriot

txpatriot — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:57:25 +0000

So if I “stole” your credit card numbers but left your actual credit cards in your possession, you would be OK with that, right?

By: flynn like

flynn like — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:25:13 +0000

stealing implies somebody has lost something. no one has lost anything here. victim-less crimes have no victim