Nearly 20,000 academic articles up on Piratebay

Almost 20,000 articles previously behind a pay-wall have been posted on Piratebay in protest at academic publishing.

Submitted by Choccy on July 23, 2011

I've written about the problems of academic publishing before, and lots of users have asked for access on here to paywall articles. Conveniently, someone has uploaded a torrent with 18,592 scientific articles to PirateBay.org, "in what appears to be a protest directed both at the recent indictment of programmer Aaron Swartz for data theft as well as the scientific publishing model in general."

Comments

Wellclose Square

13 years 3 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wellclose Square on July 23, 2011

This is very good news - I'll have to see if there's anything I can use.

Steven.

13 years 3 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on July 23, 2011

Yeah, this is great. Good on the guy.

He has done it with his real name as well so that the bloke already arrested for this wasn't blamed for it.

It's outrageous that this copyright-free material, much of which is publicly funded research, is unavailable to the public without paying exorbitant fees.

Choccy

12 years 7 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Choccy on April 9, 2012

Wellcome Trust have just joined the voices wanting open and free access to publicly funded research. Apparently they're setting up a new free science journal called eLife, and are aiming to compete with the likes of Nature and Science but theirs will be freely available to the public

Choccy

11 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Choccy on January 13, 2013

Very depressing to read the news that Aaron Swartz took his own life on Friday.

"The family of celebrated internet activist Aaron Swartz has accused prosecutors and MIT officials of being complicit in his death, blaming the apparent suicide on the pursuit of a young man over "an alleged crime that had no victims".
In a statement released late Saturday, Swartz's parents, Robert and Susan, siblings Noah and Ben and partner Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman said the Redditt builder's demise was not just a "personal tragedy" but "the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach".
They also attacked the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for not supporting the internet activist in his legal battles and refusing to stand up for "its own community's most cherished principles".
The comments came a day after the 26-year-old killed himself in his Brooklyn apartment on Friday night."

no1

11 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by no1 on January 13, 2013

After government increased the number of felony counts against him from 4 to 13, he was looking at 35 years in prison and a fine up to $1 million.

The register have a decent article about how this is basically a case of a politically motivated activist hounded to his death, and the growign collective anger :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/13/anger_death_aaron_swartz/

On the positive side, his death has sparked spontaneous collective direct action by academics who are tweeting links where their papers can be downloaded in breach of copyright (#pdftribute).

http://neuroconscience.com/2013/01/13/researchers-begin-posting-article-pdfs-to-twitter-in-pdftribute-to-aaron-swartz/

Choccy

11 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Choccy on January 13, 2013

Cheers for that, hadn't seen the pdftribute thing!

Ed

11 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ed on January 14, 2013

This is unbelievably sad news.. poor guy, poor family.. :(

no1

11 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by no1 on January 14, 2013

came across this, from 2008:

Aaron Swartz

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable.

"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's already being done: we can fight back.

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.

Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.

With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

Aaron Swartz

July 2008, Eremo, Italy