Skip to main content

View Diary: Aaron Swartz' Death Is Our Legacy (262 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One way to open the system up (11+ / 0-)

    Universities might decide they've had enough of the big corporate journals fleecing their libraries with double-digital subscription rate increases every year, and start giving more recognition to freely or cheaply accessible online publishing when it comes to promoting and granting tenure.  Insisting that most publishing is done with the "major journals in the field" is part of what keeps the copyright racket alive -- and increasingly, it marginalizes the research itself by narrowing the audience.

    On another note, I think it's disgraceful that the feds went on chasing Swartz after JSTOR wanted to drop the charges.  It's symptomatic of the government's and in particular the Democratic Party's excessive coziness with content creators, and it's about time that we went back to the Founders' basics when it comes to copyright.  14 years is quite enough for anyone, but name me anything other than drug patents that's still limited to something like that.

    •  Don't call them content creators. (5+ / 0-)

      JSTOR doesn't produce content.

      Groups: Toolbox and Trolls... to preserve the best & the worst of DailyKos.

      by opendna on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:26:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Was I referring to JSTOR (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Just Bob

        NO!!!  They dropped the freakin' charges -- or at least wanted them dropped.  I'm talking about Reed-Elsevier, Hollywood, Wiley-Blackwell, Simon & Schuster, and any other publishing and producing entity that benefits from this system.

        I agree "content creators" is an overly broad brush.  After all, academic content creators generally don't get a cent for their trouble directly, and just relatively modest indirect benefits.  But the Democrats in particular are cozy with a system that involves eight-figure book royalties or fees for movie appearances for a select few, and nine and ten-figure profits for production and printing companies that get passed down to heirs of the original copyright holders that had nothing to do with the content's creation, at the expense of free competition, intellectual inquiry and fair use.  It's the same mentality that is leading the Obama Administration to support the publisher in a case (Kirtsaeng v John Wiley) that if it goes in the publisher's favor, may effectively ban individuals from reselling used items that are rightfully ours.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site