Legalise Sci-Hub
Ban copyright on scientific publications
@bgcarlisle Actually… no.
I think there should be no/way-less restrictions whatsoever in sharing knowledge/culture.
But copyright also means control on attribution, modifications, advertising/commercial stuff, …
Seriously, I don’t really care about copyrights on my things for now. But for example I do understand on why Torvalds/Linux wanted GPL-2 (only) is "modifications back".
@lanodan_tmp I'm just talking about scientific publications here, not all creative works
Like clinical trial data—the research is paid for by the public, the experiments are done on members of the public, it's analysed by researchers public institutions, peer-reviewed by other publicly-supported researchers, with publication charges paid for again by public grants, indexed by public institutions and their libraries who have to pay again to access them
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO PAY?
@lanodan_tmp There's a different discussion to be had about modern copyright as a whole (which is also crazypants and way out of control)
I agree there's definitely a place for (a much scaled down version of) copyright for creative works
And even in the case of my ideal "no copyright for scientific publications" world, correct attribution of ideas would still be necessary to ensure the integrity of the scientific literature
@bgcarlisle With public domain(~no copyright), you don’t have to attribute work.
Basically that would mean scientist (and trust me there is assholes in scientists too) can just take the work of other people without doing attribution on them, it feels very horrible for me, specially for things like science where sadly there is a competition mood in it.
@lanodan_tmp Public Domain only means that there's no legal requirement for attribution
I'm talking about it as an issue of integrity, not law
And I'm well aware of the issue of plagiarism in science:
@bgcarlisle If for you copyRIGHT isn’t a law thing, I don’t know what you’re talking about… (also could you rephrase without integrity, I only know it for crypto’)
TL;DR
> Open Access to Knowledge
Aaron Swartz (RIP)
@lanodan_tmp Oh I was just saying that there are reasons for proper attribution beyond just "the law says I have to," that can (and should) be policed through means other than law
Like, I *can* claim "To be or not to be, that is the question" is mine
And Shakespeare is in the Public Domain, so there's no one who can legally compel me to back down on that claim
But different contexts will have different, appropriate ways to police that sort of thing, without resorting to legal action
@lanodan_tmp E.g. If I submit that to a prof in a creative writing class, the prof will just fail me
If I claim that on Mastodon, people will just make fun of me
Etc.
@lanodan_tmp And in science, if you plagiarise or fail to properly attribute, you'll have your institutional integrity board breathing down your neck
And that's the way it should be, rather than relying on the blunt instrument of copyright law
@bgcarlisle Yeah, ok.
By law I mean a system of rules, a license is law content, how attribution works is too, sadly it’s often non-written.
Not just country stuff.
Also it’s why there is often an explicit copyright notice ("All Rights Reserved","Public Domain","CC-BY-SA 4.0" and Identification + Date) and often a default copyright (even if the default is non-standard).
@bgcarlisle > the research is paid for by the public
May be true for some but, my mother doesn’t and see how many crowdfunding things are made for research.
I’m NOT saying things like JSTOR are right because I think everyone should be able to access it. (like wikipedia or archive.org)
Also on money, on a space were content can be duplicated/cloned. Money should be for work done, not just digital merch(What the heck).
@bgcarlisle If science isn't shared, it's not science.