
#ICANHAZPDF Access to Academic Papers on Twitter - po
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/why-some-academics-are-sharing-their-papers-for-free/411934/?single_page=true
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424276](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424276)

------
gosub
_Derivatives of Regular Expressions_ by Brzozowski, a paper from 1964, costs
$15 from ACM digital library. I wonder how many of those $15 go to original
author.

~~~
yid
This is fairly simple to answer: $0. ACM does not pay royalties. In fact, most
publications do not -- you grant a royalty-free license in order to be
published.

------
jestinjoy1
I am a noob on copyright. Can I be sued. If I share a paper I have downloaded
with my friend over email, as what is done using twitter

~~~
marak830
(Im not a lawyer, but going from my experience and reading about this), it
doesnt matter how you acquire a work, if its copyrighted and not authorised to
share, your liable.

Just luke those mp3 services my fsther keeps getting which say their legal,
yes they are, the works you acquire via them are not.

There is no logical badis to strip ownership frim a work if its transferred.

(While in the case of scientific works im not always in agreement with how
their licensed, im not going to pretend their not covered by copyright).

~~~
buro9
> it doesnt matter how you acquire a work, if its copyrighted and not
> authorised to share, your liable

You are _only_ liable if you make a copy of the work without having the right
to do so.

If you receive/acquire, you are not liable. But if you make a copy to share,
then you are.

It is the right to make a copy. Not the right to obtain a copy.

~~~
marak830
Thats an interesting note. I guess othwrwise someone could send out a lot and
make other peole liable. Thanks :-)

