Much of what is said about Elsevier, the worst offender, is true to a lesser extent in other paywalls.
I don't believe that paywalls are Moral, Ethical, or Fair. I also believe that paywalls can be discrimatory, and deceptive. This goes along with a general critique I have of IP. Paywalls regularly use others' content, without compensating them.
In many cases, content thieves likes Elsevier take content that is funded by our tax dollars, and hide it behind paywalls, or expensive subscriptions. I paid for that. This is stealing from me.
IP is really a fake term that conflates a number of things, some of which are just ideas or math. It also regularly cheats basic things like "Right of First Sale" through BS such as licensing/bundling/etc
Paywalls regularly permit search engines to index their content, but when you go to see the content that was openly indexed, they block you, and hit you up for funding. This is a bait & switch. Some paywalls vacillate between business models intentionally to get your personal data, sell it, while using ads, then go full paywall after the sale has already been made of info.
I think there is a social contract underpinning communications, that we were always free to redistribute them. But the "Communication thieves" Paywalls don't want that through the cottage industry that grew to exploit these gaps.
If we think of the negative impacts of all these paywalls to the 3rd world and increasing digitization, talk about a horrible digital divide emerging?
> Much of what is said about Elsevier, the worst offender, is true to a lesser extent in other paywalls.
Honestly, I think it's a mistake reason about all paywalls from the example of Elsevier's paywalls. There are a lot of unique aspects to the production of academic work that are not present in other areas.
Revenue is needed to fund the creation of other kinds of work, such as news reporting, and for stuff like that, paywalls are needed because other free-access revenue models frankly didn't work.
Actually, I think most of us provide services, and it is a big mix.
> many of us are pretty brazen about our efforts to circumvent payment for others' IP.
Let me start with a link on Elsevier https://openatcuny.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2015/05/20/elsevier-e...
Much of what is said about Elsevier, the worst offender, is true to a lesser extent in other paywalls.
I don't believe that paywalls are Moral, Ethical, or Fair. I also believe that paywalls can be discrimatory, and deceptive. This goes along with a general critique I have of IP. Paywalls regularly use others' content, without compensating them.
In many cases, content thieves likes Elsevier take content that is funded by our tax dollars, and hide it behind paywalls, or expensive subscriptions. I paid for that. This is stealing from me.
IP is really a fake term that conflates a number of things, some of which are just ideas or math. It also regularly cheats basic things like "Right of First Sale" through BS such as licensing/bundling/etc
Paywalls regularly permit search engines to index their content, but when you go to see the content that was openly indexed, they block you, and hit you up for funding. This is a bait & switch. Some paywalls vacillate between business models intentionally to get your personal data, sell it, while using ads, then go full paywall after the sale has already been made of info.
I think there is a social contract underpinning communications, that we were always free to redistribute them. But the "Communication thieves" Paywalls don't want that through the cottage industry that grew to exploit these gaps.
If we think of the negative impacts of all these paywalls to the 3rd world and increasing digitization, talk about a horrible digital divide emerging?
Signed,
Militant Anti-Paywall Revolutionary