geekosystem

R.I.P

Although downloading all those journals from JSTOR was wrong, I can’t help thinking that the sharing of knowledge, especially for those who can’t afford it, is a noble idea.

JSTOR is just another example of excessive greed in academia. Textbook publishers are another good example.

They’d rather ravage a human life than see an ounce of their money flow compromised.

“Facing jail time is no joke, and someone like Swartz with a penchant for freedom probably wouldn’t handle that well, but then neither would most folks.”

Facing what amounts to a lifetime in jail would weigh heavily on anyone. I’m not saying everyone would commit suicide, just that it would be hard going. I can’t even imagine it.

It’s not just JSTOR that would be harmed, it is all of the journals that people PAY to gain access to the information. Make information cheap and all you’ll have is cheap information.

Sure. But I wouldn’t lay responsibility for this on JSTOR’s door, is all I meant.

I once had a discussion with someone who used to be an investigator in the U.S. Attorney’s office and we were talking about Madoff. But in general terms he did say that in many cases a defendant facing jail time will take their own life.

Still this is very sad and tragic.

Sounds like they offed him

I at first debated whether to even bother responding to this, but I decided to at least point out that there’s a byline directly below the title.

Also, amateur.

Little harsh. Neither you nor I could sit at our keyboards debating any issue without, say, a keyboard — or computer, or electric, or internet infrastructure, heat, cooling, or the knowledge to use any of it — the list is long, if not infinite. All of that also requires, not merely presumes, the personal resources to sit here and indulge ourselves.

Academic research, writing, review, and publication don’t happen in a vacuum, either. You wanna bitch about the JSTOR business model? Go ahead. But in the absence of resources — a more highfalutin way of saying “money” — there is no peer-reviewed research and writing.

When the world of knowledge — teaching, learning, and critical thinking — devolves into everybody sharing their “knowledge” for free, do we settle for pediatric neurosurgeons who got their “medical” training on the “clusterfucknet?”

Just askin’.

Although I appreciate your train of thought, and agree with it to an extent, it reeks of capitalism,

I’m not saying capitalism is bad, just certain ideals of capitalism are bad, Like the idea that knowledge should have a price.

If you like in a developing country then you should have access to others knowledge. It makes the world a better place.

They say that with capitalism, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. The only chance that those at the bottom of the food chain have to make a better life for themselves is access to better knowledge.

Who know’s maybe those that had access to free information may go on to do something great with it.

Food for thought.

I hope his last decision brought him what he could not find during his living years.

Not critical of your honorable instincts, but don’t conflate “capitalism” with “greed.” If you want a loaf of bread and can’t bake it yourself (and you really can’t because you have to start with “first, grow some wheat”) then you have to pay somebody else to do it.

Don’t let the ease of internet travel and research mislead you into believing in spontaneous generation.

That’s pretty funny. As of late, Geekosystem has been very poor with its articles, both in writing and misleading headlines. I’m not claiming this article is one of those but I do find it pretty telling that while you insinuate eddie’s post isn’t worth responding to, you can’t resist pointing out his spelling error. You are both dimwitted trolls, the only difference is one writes and the other reads on Geekosystem.

You have to remember that “knowledge” is just not something someone knows. It takes time, research, and resources to develop knowledge. The person who found, or created a new idea, spent time and resources on that, making it no different than a product. While it seems nice to just share knowledge with everyone, there would be no incentive to future thinkers, inventors, researchers to delve into something new with no reward.

It’s official: People can’t take jokes on the Internet.

You have a wonderful day, friend.

It’s my understanding that academics are not paid for the research they carry out and receive no compensation or cut from the publishers once they are published. I can;t post weblinks here but if you google ‘do academics get paid for journal articles’, you can find more info.

When I was doing my dissertation at uni I had free access to the journals I needed, but if I did not have access to the universities resources it would have cost me in excess of £1000 to buy the 30 or so journals I read through.

Here’s what prof High Gusterson has to say about the publishers of academic journals:

“For example, anyone without access to a university library who wants to read a nine-page article I wrote (free) for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists last year will have to pay Sage $32 to get electronic access to it for one day—more than it would cost to buy and keep a printed copy of either of my most recent books. Needless to say, Sage passes none of the $32 on to me.”

Publishers charge for knowledge, and the price is out of most peoples reach (when you need extensive research). It needs to be free, or at a price that anyone, rich or poor can access.

I wonder if the goverment could have come up with some other targets to prosecute? Nah, in this day and age, there’s just no industry’s out there breaking the law and robbing the American people.

RIP

So the researchers and authors were paid. By taxpayers I agree, but they were paid. You would need to then ask why the government is allowing something they paid for to be then taken over by publishers.

yes, but it does not change the fact that knowledge or gaining of, still is a compensated task. No one is doing for free or giving it for free. It is a product nonetheless.

While I agree that the way in which these journals are handled (poorly by government I might add) all of the gathering, research, and publishing takes resources. Therefore there should be no expectation of free knowledge.

I agree that my point is off topic on what you are discussing. I only chimed in when above people were stating that knowledge should be free and accessible to all. My only point is that it is a product like anything else. I mean Apple is not going to let the world know all the knowledge they have. That is all. You also will not get an argument from me that government, while well intentioned, makes terrible decisions.

I think it would have been more professional to ignore him. Others would have found it amusing without the need for you to point it out. As it stands, it is about as amusing as someone explaining Ace Ventura: Pet Detective with an air of superiority. Let me over explain it just to make it as tedious as you would. Your comment ruins all of the humor.

Well said.

Strange that most of the suicides by hangings were done to
loners. They are easy targets for killers that want to stage a suicide. The
computer wiz most likely picked up scandalous information that was going to be
used to get lower jail time. He should have protected himself by never being
alone. Most suicide investigators are
lazy amateurs who would rather let the perfect crime be committed than attempt
to solve it. Ninety percent of suicide hangings of well-known people are
murders, it is the perfect crime.

Hah! That’s like saying nobody would produce art, or music, or create a garden or develop a recipe, unless they could count on a paycheck or research grant. Capitalism actually thwarts most genuine creativity because the human desire to create is frequently in opposition to capitalism’s harsh demands. Ask an artist! …And if you think there is a significant difference between the goals of an “artist” and the goals of a “scientist”, please think again. Both are about taking the raw materials of existence, and trying to make some sense out of it all. The passion to do so is innate within human beings. In a resource-based economy, real creativity would flourish because no innovative artists, or scientists, would have to knuckle under to capitalism and “get a REAL job” (at Walmart, say) just because their vision doesn’t happen to conform to the prevailing market. Human thinkers, inventors, researchers and delvers, all harbor the passion to do all those things without reliance on the carrots of capitalism.

I did not say no one would do it. My point is, is whatever they create is a product. And it is their product, their creation. if they wish to give it to the world, then God bless them. But no one should be vilified for wanting get something for their time, energy, work, and resources put in.

Besides, I have not met a scientist, or artist for that matter that worked for free.

You just did :)) …Seriously, I can tick off, in an instant, numerous famous individuals who created high quality works of art and science for free – with no guarantees of compensation or recognition looming within sight …Let’s see, Einstein… Picasso… Van Gogh… Audubon… it’s silly to go on; history is replete with examples of great luminaries who originally labored in obscurity until one day during their lifetime, they may, or may not, have been rewarded with fame, if not monetary support. Even more staggering are the numbers of human beings who have created, studied, researched and invented, only to have their labors go ever unrewarded and unsung. It’s human nature. Some of us are sitters and eaters… some of us think, invent and create.

please explain how it was wrong? the information is free, his only crime was taking too much ‘free’ information. He was downloading the freely available academic journals, not the copyrighted books. They didn’t like him distributing the information, because they want to control it, and got him on a technicality because he created a fake account. Its nothing more than the the government once again abusing its power.

It certainly is human nature. I am not disagreeing with that point. My issue is, we should not condemn those that understand that what they created took time, effort, and resources and no one should besmirch them for profiting from their work. They are under no obligation to just give it away. People have a choice to do what they want with their idea’s. It’s called freedom

I have not met a scientist, or artist, nor can I imagine one, who would not prefer to have their work freely available to all, if only they could live modestly while pursuing their passion. It would have to be an extremely rare bird who sets out to make big profits in art or science. Anyone who does happen to become a superstar, didn’t start out with that as the main goal. Originally, they were just following their bliss, like any other creative soul; and it just happened that their creative products clicked with the prevailing market…and probably that they also happened to excel at marketing… the profits tend to go to those who are best at self-promotion. But that’s not the point here, anyway, is it? This is about a powerful elite controlling access to our common pool of information… very comparable to having Monsanto control common access to seed, or corporate control over common access to water.

“if only they could live modestly while pursuing their passion. It
would have to be an extremely rare bird who sets out to make big profits
in art or science.”

this is where you are completely off base. You don’t think scientists make big bucks? If they really want to live modestly then why aren’t they. This is your view of the world. You are probably at best middle class and just want people who have more than you to give you some so you don’t have to expend the effort they did.

You’re a real piece of work, no? I, as a consumer of the media, not a professional blogger, mind you– criticize the writing and style of this blogged piece and then get hammered as a “troll” by all sorts of other ‘critics”, as well as being called a hypocrite because I misspelled one word due to my awkwardly typing on a mobile device. Great. As for you, you just have to have the last word, eh? Go away.

What I meant by that is that the initial impulse to pursue scientific research is the pure enjoyment of the pursuit. Those who have a passion for science, would be happy enough to pursue it while ensured of a modest living. In fact, most science careers offer middle class incomes; big bucks are outside the norm for the vast majority of scientists, as they are for artists, writers, musicians, chefs, etc. This is not to say that some might not fantasize about hitting it big and becoming a superstar in their field, complete with the financial perks that the marketplace awards to it’s chosen… but no talented young person dreams of becoming the next E. O. Wilson, because of how much money they think the guy makes! No one dreams of becoming the next Jackson Pollock based on visions of a high income – in fact, Jackson Pollock and E.O. Wilson, themselves, didn’t choose their fields of endeavor based on a guaranteed high income. You sound to me like someone with no concept of such passion – a securities trader, or probably a slave wage “job creator”, loathe to go back to making only 3 or 4 times as much as your employees, instead of the 3 or 4 hundred times as much that you currently rake in – so certain that it’s simply what you are worth? Or maybe you are just a typical American – the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire”.

Wow, you really DO equate ‘becoming something great’ with monetary income? …OK then. That pretty much says it all.

You continue to ignore my point that people with a genuine passion to research, study, invent and create would pursue THOSE things anyway, without the promise of a high income. You twist my words to mean that people actually aspire to be starving, while engaging in those pursuits. You are right… the majority of people don’t actually aspire to be starving.

You obviously cannot and will not ever understand the inborn incentive to pursue those activities as one’s life work. You cannot conceive of it, and obviously have no knowledge of the life stories of countless artists and researchers, and what originally motivated them.

Our original argument was not about what careers average kids dream about; but about whether anyone would do any scientific research, or any similar endeavor, without the promise of making a big income at it. Look to history, or ask some top scientists, “Did you go into this profession mainly because you hoped you would achieve a high income, or mainly because you were excited by the work, and even fantasized about making a notable contribution in your field?” My example of E.O. Wilson… call him up… ask him… or ask Brian Greene… “Initially, was it the fantasy of a good salary, or did you just LOVE Entomology? or Physics?, first, and foremost?”
Meh. Wasting my time. The world only works the way it does now because too many people believe the capitalist myth.

A perfect example of the pitfalls of capitalism

Educated on cheap information keeps them ignorant.