Are you also of the opinion that copyright shouldn't exist?
If not, how do you reconcile this belief with the right of scientists and publishers to sell their productive labor?
If not, how do you reconcile this belief with the right of scientists and publishers to sell their productive labor?
If you do not, then you atr only concerned about publishers. They dont pay scientists. They dont pay for researchm You support parasites.
A lot of the papers on SciHub are uploaded by the authors, because they aren't doing the research for the paltry royalties they receive.
The scientists have a right to sell their labour, not to own observed facts.
You can pay people to do science on an hourly basis just fine
I don’t understand copyright existing beyond a few years after publication, and I don’t understand how a “right” to a work can be sold. It seems to be a system designed to facilitate wealth extraction rather than value creation.
As many others in the thread have said - the profits from the paper paywalls go to the publishers, reviewing is done by volunteers.
As an aside, it's funny how often defenders of intellectual slavery are so dug in to their beliefs while being completely unaware of the mechanisms of what they're defending. I suppose such ignorance is a necessary precondition to support such injustice.
2. In many cases, publicly funded research is gated behind paywalls;
3. In many (most?) cases, peer reviewer are paid nothing or close to it.
4. Most researchers I know either use sci-hub, other so called illegal sources for papers, or ask the authors for a copy.