30.06.2017-0:14:23 :: Something smarter than us is going to emerge


node:	30.06.2017-0:14:23
template:	4
parent:	Copyright? Intellectual Property?? COPYFUCK!!
owner:	niekt0
viewed by:
created:	30.06.2017 - 00:14:23

cwbe coordinatez:
809096
1483077
8363462

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/scientific-research-piracy-site-hit-with-15-million-fine/

00809096014830770836346208364112

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place.

Over the next year, however, most libraries backed down and committed to Elsevier’s contracts, and governments largely failed to push an alternative model for disseminating research. In 2012 and 2013, Elsevier posted profit margins of more than 40%. The following year, Aspesi reversed his recommendation to sell. “He listened to us too closely, and he got a bit burned,” David Prosser, the head of Research Libraries UK, and a prominent voice for reforming the publishing industry, told me recently. Elsevier was here to stay.

tu sa krasne ukazuje ako funguje sucasny kapitalizmus stat to cele drzi pokope a vedci sa nechaju cucat ako najvytazenejsi robosi v manchestri

00809096014830770836346208363641

vzdy je uzasne ako sa to hodi na zleho jednotlivca napr shkreli alebo firmu ako tuto ale so systemom nic netreba robit

0080909601483077083634620836364108363719

jj nic sa nerobi
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/dramatic-statement-european-leaders-call-immediate-open-access-all-scientific-papers
https://www.openaire.eu/oa-france#law
...

008090960148307708363462083636410836371908363767

008090960148307708363462083636410836371908363730

malo

00809096014830770836346208363641083637190836373008363753

http://www.alltrials.net/petition/

0080909601483077083634620836364108363719083637300836375308363756

ze to ludi serie na roznych urovniach chapem ale chce to markatnejsie upravy ako spomenute
cely ten koncept ako je je bulsit aj s patentami

008090960148307708363462083636410836371908363730083637530836375608363801

Oh, naozaj? Vdaka ze o tom kecas (ako keby to nebolo jasne) a nic s tym nerobis.

00809096014830770836346208363641083637190836373008363753083637560836380108363803

jakoze nie? piratim co to da

0080909601483077083634620836364108363712

ono su podla mna zodpovedni predovsetkym vedci, ktori svoje diela v takychto vydavatelstvach publikuju; neviem, ci im nejak financuju experimenty (to ako student neprirodzenych vied nemozem pochopit) alebo co, no kto im brani hodit vysledky na academia.edu ci na blog? vlastna nenazranost

008090960148307708363462083636410836371208363769

v akych vydavatelstvach, ako elsevier? nic v zlom, ale to co si napisal je tak out of touch ze nemozem uverit tomu, co citam.

008090960148307708363462083636410836371208363718

hladat zodpovednost na urovni jednotlivca je fail ci uz na jednej alebo druhej strane
vzdelanie sa komodifikuje a takto to potom vyzera

00809096014830770836346208363641083637120836371808363773

jednak jednotlivci naozaj (spolu-)zodpovedni su, a po druhe presne to, na co sa stazujes, ze so sytemom 'sa nic nerobi' je tiez dosledok rozhodnuti niekolko malo jednotlivcov.

0080909601483077083634620836364108363712083637180836377308363782

robia len to co im system umoznuje sledujuc popritom najlepsie svoje zaujmy
jasne ze su na nejakej urovni zodpovedni za svoje ciny ale na inej sa riadia len najlepsimi zaujmami
lepsie je sa na to pozerat ako na systemovu vec a nie ako na to ze nejaki bakani shkrelliovia robia zle

00809096014830770836346208363641083637120836371808363724

podla mna je vzdelanie sposob individualneho rozvoja, a komodifikacia vychadza prave z toho, ze sa zdoraznuje jeho spolocenska funkcia, kvoli comu sa tiez standardizuje, institucionalizuje, digitalizuje

ale veda nie je to iste co vzdelanie - to je o sebe kolektivna cinnost, v ktorej bud pracujes s kymkolvek, alebo len s tymi, ktorych si vyberies podla kriterii typu kolko clankov mas v karentovanom casopise; elitizacia vedy nie je to iste co komodifikacia vzdelania

0080909601483077083634620836364108363712083637180836372408363776

komodifikacia vzdelania je zapricinena v prvom rade tlakom na 'samo'financovanie, a az potom, daleko daleko za tym, cimkolvek inym.

0080909601483077083634620836364108363712083637180836372408363751

kriteria moze nastavovat nejaka autorita ale ked uz su hotove tak je tam urcita logika ktora sa da casom vysledovat
elitizacia nevylucuje komodifikaciu moze to byt jeden z jej znakov

00809096014830770836346208363553

si koleduju o dalsi bojkot imho

00809096014830770836346208363466

http://custodians.online/