Timeline for Access to journals during pandemic
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2020 at 22:31 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | Sci-hub also has a nice telegram bot @scihubot, you just paste doi and it gives a paper. No need to look for currently not closed mirror etc. | |
| Jul 15, 2020 at 13:57 | comment | added | David White | @Makyen: I don't come on MathOverflow to argue with strangers about the law. I come here to do mathematics. I am confident that, when I own a copy of a math paper (e.g. from library download), I can freely download as many other copies of that paper as I like, from any source. When my co-author asks a question, and it's answered in a paper, I freely email him a copy of that paper, knowing that he could just as well get it at his library. Slavish fear of publishing companies should not stand in the way of research getting done. I'm done with this interaction now. Have a nice day! | |
| Jul 15, 2020 at 12:37 | comment | added | Makyen | @DavidWhite When you purchase something, you obtain ownership of it and have ownership rights in that specific copy. Making that purchase doesn't inherently grant you rights to something else, unless that was part of the purchase contract. You're asserting you automatically get a right to something else. That's the positive position. It's far easier to prove a positive, than the negative, so please find something that at least indicates you're correct for the general case, not just your one purchase. If you want a more detailed answer from from a legal POV, you could ask on Law. | |
| Jul 15, 2020 at 12:17 | comment | added | David White | @Makyen: I strongly disagree. If you want to change my mind, I'll need more than a MathOverflow comment. Perhaps you have some sources you could cite? I can dig around for the source where I learned the fact I stated in my comment. | |
| Jul 15, 2020 at 4:58 | comment | added | Makyen | @DavidWhite Unless the copyright holder has explicitly granted you the right to other versions, including an electronic version, then you most definitely do not have a right to an electronic copy just from owning a print copy of something. Publishers may give a deal where you get both a print and electronic version, but it's certainly not the default, and there's nothing inherent that grants you the right to a copy in another format. For the specific situation you describe, you may have a right to an electronic copy, but it's not something you, or anyone, should assume you/they have. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 23:41 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Also, note there is a fine line between accessing something the library already has (and so issues around legality of the copy become much less clear), and "accidentally" accessing something it doesn't have. If my library has a book in an inaccessible crate in a long-term storage facility (don't ask), and will have to fly in a copy from interstate so I can check if it is what I need, then I feel no compunctions about checking it out on LibGen. It saves money, time and CO2. If I look up something on Sci-Hub my uni does not have access to, then I feel I need to do so knowing that. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 23:35 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @TomLeinster I would guess that violating copyright millions of times is illegal in most jurisdictions, and courts have very definitely decided against Sci-Hub in the US. Some hold the position, though, that providing access to the scientific and research literature to those that cannot otherwise get it, and especially at a time of a global health crisis, is the moral thing to do, despite the law. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 22:38 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | @user161087 I do not think it is a problem. Others do, as indicated in the link. Others don't. This has been a contentious issue for a while, and I think it is important to mention that it has been. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 20:35 | comment | added | user161087 | @JoePrevidi Sorry I took their logo too literally, yes "Wikipedia" is the correct version of their name. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 19:36 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Jul 14, 2020 at 18:33 | comment | added | Tom Leinster | @PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Absolutely. Plus, let's not be too hasty in calling Sci-Hub "illegal". None of us are lawyers. Just because someone like an Elsevier spokesperson claims it's illegal, doesn't mean it is. Just because some ISPs have been pressured to block access, doesn't mean it's illegal. And just because it's illegal in your country, doesn't mean it's illegal in other people's. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 18:05 | comment | added | Joe Previdi | @user161087 why are you capitalizing the final "a" in Wikipedia? | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 17:48 | comment | added | user161087 | @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda FWIW WikipediA also links to them, why should that be a problem to SE when WikipediA already does it without any issues? (Just linking something doesn't mean one is supporting it, endorsing it, encouraging its use, ...etc) | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 16:53 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | @PeterLeFanuLumsdaine I think that's a good way to put it, and aligns with my personal view on the matter. I think the main point of contention lies in linking the sites, rather than avoiding talking about them as if they don't exist. Personally, I don't mind seeing links or discussion, but would probably like to see a disclaimer added about the ethical/legal issues surrounding it. My comment was mostly in this direction. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 16:39 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda: The mentions in comments and other answers are euphemistic and unclear; if illegal sites to be discussed at all, it seems better and more professional to do so frankly and explicitly. It’s good to consider the legal and ethical issues, as discussed in the meta question you linked, and to avoid such sites for literature links in ordinary MO questions/answers. But on a question like this one, where the question itself is “what such sites exist”, it seems pretty denialist to avoid them. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 15:49 | comment | added | nick012000 | "His university has already paid for subscriptions to the journals in question." What university? He's a graduate, so he's not affiliated with them anymore. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 14:55 | comment | added | Tom Leinster | Even when you do have paid access, Sci-Hub is usually faster. Making a publisher's website recognize your institutional subscription can be a ridiculous rigmarole. But with Sci-Hub you just paste in the DoI and up comes the PDF. Perfect. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 14:16 | comment | added | user161087 | @leomonsaingeon Thanks for mentioning that. One comment though is that it's not always possible for example when countries like Russia block individual IPs as well. I think the safest bet here is to use the Tor Browser. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 14:15 | history | edited | user161087 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 196 characters in body
|
| Jul 14, 2020 at 13:50 | comment | added | leo monsaingeon | Here is another pro tip: very often you internet provider will not let you access any of the said "pirate" websites and prompt instead an error message. To circumvent this it's enough to change your DNS server (use e.g. google's one or whichever fits you best). A quick search on internet will teach you how to do that in a very few clicks, it's really simple and a life-changer (mathematically speaking, I mean, I never have anymore to log into any "nonpirate" VPN from my current institution or whatever to access the papers I need). | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 13:14 | comment | added | David White | In this case, the OP using sci-hub would not represent a copyright violation. His university has already paid for subscriptions to the journals in question. In general, you are allowed to possess an electronic copy of a resource (book, article, journal) when you have already possessed or paid for a different copy. For example, if I have a copy of Dummit-Foote on my bookshelf in my office, I can legally download a pdf of it. I think the same applies here. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 12:37 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | Sci-Hub is already mentioned in a comment, as well as (indirectly) in Alexandre Eremenko's answer. Directly linking copyright-violating sites on MO is also quite a contentious issue. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 12:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 14, 2020 at 13:11 | |||||
| Jul 14, 2020 at 12:24 | history | answered | user161087 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |