Archiv für Juli 2011

33 GB wissenschaftlicher Daten in der Pirate Bay

Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2011

In der Pirate Bay wurde ein Archiv in der Größenordnung von 33 GB an wissenschaftlichen Artikeln der Royal Society von einem Greg Maxwell hochgeladen, die zwar in der Public Domain stehen, aber noch immer durch Barrieren der wissenschaftlichen Verlage – in diesem Fall wohl JSTOR – nicht umsonst an die Öffentlichkeit gelangen. Im entsprechenden Torrent erklärt Maxwell sein Vorgehen:

This archive contains 18,592 scientific publications totaling 33GiB, all from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and which should be available to everyone at no cost, but most have previously only been made available at high prices through paywall gatekeepers like JSTOR. Limited access to the documents here is typically sold for $19 USD per article, though some of the older ones are available as cheaply as $8. Purchasing access to this collection one article at a time would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also included is the basic factual metadata allowing you to locate works by title, author, or publication date, and a checksum file to allow you to check for corruption….I’ve had these files for a long time, but I’ve been afraid that if I published them I would be subject to unjust legal harassment by those who profit from controlling access to these works. I now feel that I’ve been making the wrong decision. On July 19th 2011, Aaron Swartz was criminally charged by the US Attorney General’s office for, effectively, downloading too many academic papers from JSTOR. Academic publishing is an odd systemΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥the authors are not paid for their writing, nor are the peer reviewers (they’re just more unpaid academics), and in some fields even the journal editors are unpaid. Sometimes the authors must even pay the publishers. And yet scientific publications are some of the most outrageously expensive pieces of literature you can buy. In the past, the high access fees supported the costly mechanical reproduction of niche paper journals, but online distribution has mostly made this function obsolete. As far as I can tell, the money paid for access today serves little significant purpose except to perpetuate dead business models. The „publish or perish“ pressure in academia gives the authors an impossibly weak negotiating position, and the existing system has enormous inertia. Those with the most power to change the system–the long-tenured luminary scholars whose works give legitimacy and prestige to the journals, rather than the other way around–are the least impacted by its failures. They are supported by institutions who invisibly provide access to all of the resources they need. And as the journals depend on them, they may ask for alterations to the standard contract without risking their career on the loss of a publication offer. Many don’t even realize the extent to which academic work is inaccessible to the general public, nor do they realize what sort of work is being done outside universities that would benefit by it. Large publishers are now able to purchase the political clout needed to abuse the narrow commercial scope of copyright protection, extending it to completely inapplicable areas: slavish reproductions of historic documents and art, for example, and exploiting the labors of unpaid scientists. They’re even able to make the taxpayers pay for their attacks on free society by pursuing criminal prosecution (copyright has classically been a civil matter) and by burdening public institutions with outrageous subscription fees. Copyright is a legal fiction representing a narrow compromise: we give up some of our natural right to exchange information in exchange for creating an economic incentive to author, so that we may all enjoy more works. When publishers abuse the system to prop up their existence, when they misrepresent the extent of copyright coverage, when they use threats of frivolous litigation to suppress the dissemination of publicly owned works, they are stealing from everyone else. Several years ago I came into possession, through rather boring and lawful means, of a large collection of JSTOR documents. These particular documents are the historic back archives of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal SocietyΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥a prestigious scientific journal with a history extending back to the 1600s. The portion of the collection included in this archive, ones published prior to 1923 and therefore obviously in the public domain, total some 18,592 papers and 33 gigabytes of data. The documents are part of the shared heritage of all mankind, and are rightfully in the public domain, but they are not available freely. Instead the articles are available at $19 each–for one month’s viewing, by one person, on one computer. It’s a steal. From you. When I received these documents I had grand plans of uploading them to Wikipedia’s sister site for reference works, WikisourceΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥ where they could be tightly interlinked with Wikipedia, providing interesting historical context to the encyclopedia articles. For example, Uranus was discovered in 1781 by William Herschel; why not take a look at the paper where he originally disclosed his discovery? (Or one of the several follow on publications about its satellites, or the dozens of other papers he authored?) But I soon found the reality of the situation to be less than appealing: publishing the documents freely was likely to bring frivolous litigation from the publishers. As in many other cases, I could expect them to claim that their slavish reproductionΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥scanning the documentsΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥ created a new copyright interest. Or that distributing the documents complete with the trivial watermarks they added constituted unlawful copying of that mark. They might even pursue strawman criminal charges claiming that whoever obtained the files must have violated some kind of anti-hacking laws. In my discreet inquiry, I was unable to find anyone willing to cover the potentially unbounded legal costs I risked, even though the only unlawful action here is the fraudulent misuse of copyright by JSTOR and the Royal Society to withhold access from the public to that which is legally and morally everyone’s property. In the meantime, and to great fanfare as part of their 350th anniversary, the RSOL opened up „free“ access to their historic archivesΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥but „free“ only meant „with many odious terms“, and access was limited to about 100 articles. All too often journals, galleries, and museums are becoming not disseminators of knowledgeΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥as their lofty mission statements suggestΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥but censors of knowledge, because censoring is the one thing they do better than the Internet does. Stewardship and curation are valuable functions, but their value is negative when there is only one steward and one curator, whose judgment reigns supreme as the final word on what everyone else sees and knows. If their recommendations have value they can be heeded without the coercive abuse of copyright to silence competition. The liberal dissemination of knowledge is essential to scientific inquiry. More than in any other area, the application of restrictive copyright is inappropriate for academic works: there is no sticky question of how to pay authors or reviewers, as the publishers are already not paying them. And unlike ‚mere‘ works of entertainment, liberal access to scientific work impacts the well-being of all mankind. Our continued survival may even depend on it. If I can remove even one dollar of ill-gained income from a poisonous industry which acts to suppress scientific and historic understanding, then whatever personal cost I suffer will be justifiedΓΓé¼ΓÇ¥it will be one less dollar spent in the war against knowledge. One less dollar spent lobbying for laws that make downloading too many scientific papers a crime. I had considered releasing this collection anonymously, but others pointed out that the obviously overzealous prosecutors of Aaron Swartz would probably accuse him of it and add it to their growing list of ridiculous charges. This didn’t sit well with my conscience, and I generally believe that anything worth doing is worth attaching your name to. I’m interested in hearing about any enjoyable discoveries or even useful applications which come of this archive.


Wie SpOn die Plagiatsaffären handhabt

Dienstag, 19. Juli 2011

Zunächst einmal: Ich finde es ganz lobenswert, dass die großen Medien – und auch SpOn – sich intensiv mit dem Thema Dissertationsplagiate befassen. Endlich ist mal eine Debatte zum Thema Plagiat im Raum, die nicht von den Grabenkämpfen Digital Natives vs. Rechteinhaber beherrscht wird (klar: Das lag und liegt noch immer auch an den medienwirksamen Opfern der Plattform VroniPlag).

In letzter Zeit allerdings bin ich doch zunehmend verstimmt, wie dieses Thema von SpOn gehandhabt wird. Denn das Thema ist leider vom Politik-Ressort  zum „Uni-/Schulspiegel“ gewandert.

Zunächst stellt sich die Frage: Ist der Uni-Spiegel überhaupt Teil des Spiegels bzw. Spiegel Online? Oder eines der obskuren Nebenprojekte der Seite (s.a. „Eines Tages“)? Für die Beantwortung dieser Frage fehlt mir augenblicklich die Zeit, und es ist auch egal. Fakt ist: Die ganze Plagiatsdebatte, wie etwa der aktuelle Beitrag zu Sylvana Koch-Mehrin, die unlängst ankündigte, Klage zu erheben, ist bei SpOn offensichtlich im journalistischen Limbo gelandet. Natürlich lässt sich argumentieren, das Thema Dissertation sei doch in diesem Ressort gut aufgehoben. Freilich hat der Uni-Spiegel sonst selten etwas interessantes zu berichten, so dass man auf diese Weise vielleicht Aufmerksamkeit auf das Ressort zu lenken versucht.

Aber ganz ehrlich: Worum geht es denn eigentlich? Geht es wirklich um Zitatregeln, um die zehn besten Tipps, sich nicht beim Schummeln erwischen zu lassen, geht es um studentische Arbeitsleistung? Nein, es geht um die Glaubwürdigkeit bedeutender Politiker unseres Landes und um die Frage, wie wissenschaftliches Arbeiten in diesem Land funktioniert und wie es gewürdigt wird. Zuletzt stellt sich im Rahmen dieser Affäre natürlich immer dringender die Frage nach dem Filz, der zwischen Hochschulen und Politik existiert und ob dieser im Zusammenhang mit gewissen Doktortiteln steht oder nicht. Es geht natürlich auch um die Frage, was ein Plagiat eigentlich ist und was es für unsere Gesellschaft bedeutet. Es geht, kurz, um viele interessante Fragen, die sich in den Ressorts Politik, Feuilleton oder Wissenschaft korrekt aufgehoben wären. Das ganze Thema aber in den Uni-Spiegel zu verschieben gleicht dem Verhalten Dr. Merkels, die Guttenberg nicht „als wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter“ angestellt haben will. Genau dieses Abschieben der Diskussion in irgendeine vermeintlich obskure Hochschulwelt ist das, was keinesfalls passieren darf, wenn führende Politiker meinen, die Arbeit Anderer zu ihren Zwecken missbrauchen zu können. So nicht, lieber Spiegel Online. Nimm Dir lieber ein Beispiel an, dort wird das ganz richtig gemacht.

PS: macht es leider auch nicht viel besser, wenn sie Teile des Diskurses in ihren Karriere-Teil auslagert.