Copyright Scares University Researchers From Sharing Their Findings

copyright-brandedA few weeks ago I spotted the abstract of an article that had just been published in an academic journal.

The article was relevant to the topics we cover here at TorrentFreak, but unfortunately it was hidden behind a paywall, like most scientific articles are.

To bypass this hurdle I usually ask the author for a review copy. Not to publish it online, but to get a better picture of the findings and perhaps cover them in a news piece.

In this case the author in question was kind enough to respond, although not with a copy of the paper. Instead, he encouraged me to contact the publisher noting that they now control the rights.

“We no longer own the copyright of our work,” the author wrote back.

This certainly wasn’t the first time that a researcher has shown reluctance to share work, so I didn’t complain and gave the publisher a call. The publisher, one of the largest in the world, then informed me that the person responsible for these matters was not available.

A bit frustrated, I decided to reach out to the author of the article again. Instead of requesting a copy of the paper I sent over a few questions regarding the methodology and results of the study, which would be enough to begin a piece.

But, instead of commenting on the findings the author asked if the publisher had given permission to discuss the matter, fearing that it would otherwise lead to “trouble.”

Baffled by what had happened I lost all interest in writing an article and decided to move on to something else.

While the above is an extreme example, it does signal a problem that many scientists face. They are literally scared they’ll get into trouble if they share their own papers with the rest of the world.

The author above was a junior researcher with little experience, but even established researchers encounter similar problems. For example, we previously reported that the American Society of Civil Engineers cracked down on researchers who posted their articles on their personal websites.

So where is this coming from?

Well, in order to get published in subscription based journals researchers have to sign away their copyrights. A typical “copyright transfer” agreement (pdf) prohibits them from sharing the final article in public, even on their own websites.

transfercopyright

Accepted articles are separately sold for dozens of dollars per piece, so if the researchers shared these for free the publishers could lose income. It’s a commercial decision.

That said, most publishers do allow authors to talk about their work, so the author in our example had no real reason to be worried. Similarly, it’s often permitted to share pre-print copies in public without restrictions.

Still, the reluctance among researchers and the restrictions they face are not helping knowledge to spread, which is a key goal of science.

So why aren’t a few bright minds starting a non-profit publishing outlet then?

Well, these already exist and there are several initiatives to promote “open access” publications, where everyone can read the articles freely. However, in many research fields the most prominent (high impact) journals are controlled by commercial publishers and placed behind paywalls.

Journals get a high impact rating if they publish a lot of frequently cited articles so it’s hard for new ones to gain ground.

And since researchers are often evaluated based on the impact factor of the journals they publish in, “open access” doesn’t appeal to a wide audience yet. In a way, science is trapped in a copyright stranglehold controlled by a few large publishers.

It’s an absurd situation in which universities pay researchers to write articles, the copyrights to which are signed over to publishers. Those publishers then demand a licensing fee from the same universities to access the articles written by their own employees.

Please read the paragraph above once more, and keep in mind that some researchers are actually scared to share their work…

Meanwhile, Elsevier enjoys a net income of more than $1 billion per year, while suing websites that dare to infringe on the copyrights that researchers are ‘forced’ sign over.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak

Are Users to Blame When Pirate Site Admins Go to Jail?

jailTo even get off the ground, file-sharing type sites need competent people behind them. A minority learn ‘on the job’ while others already have experience in parallel web projects. Either way, technical experience is an absolute must.

In one way or another, site operators also need to be able to handle finances. Sites don’t run on fresh air, so whether the aim is to operate a hobby-type platform or an ad-supported behemoth, keeping control of the purse strings is paramount.

But successfully bringing together the technical and financial aspects requires a third element, an element so important that a site may as well not exist without out it. Like other ‘AFK’ businesses – whether for or non-profit – sites need customers, or ‘users’ as they’re more commonly known.

In most torrent site environments (particularly in the public scene), these are the real powerhouses behind the site. Sure, the site admin and his staff provide and maintain the platform, but the majority of content is provided by the users and it is their bandwidth that provides the virtual infrastructure for the distribution. After all, an ant-hill without ants is just a pile of dirt.

To put it into perspective, many of the top torrent sites have a few staff but many millions of users. One such site, The Pirate Bay, grew so huge that it attracted the attention of authorities in every corner of the world. It’s worth repeating that the size of the target on the site’s back was directly linked to the number of users it had, not the size of its management team.

If TPB had just a couple of thousand users, few anti-piracy outfits would be interested – there are bigger fish to fry. But since millions of people decided to jump on board it meant that the site’s operators got the blame for everything those people did. And in the end they all went to jail, largely for crimes they personally didn’t commit.

So who is to blame for their incarceration? Arguments against copyright law aside, were Gottfrid, Fredrik and Peter the criminals for providing the platform? Or were their millions of law-breaking users, who insisted on sharing copyrighted content, the ones that should be shouldering the responsibility?

In a Finnish interview this week, Peter Sunde provided a small inkling of how he was perceived during his recent prison sentence. His comments are quite revealing in respect of how prison staff viewed his crime through the prism of what appears to be their own contributions to the infamous torrent site.

“The people who worked there called me Jesus, because I sat there for their sins,” Sunde said.

“It was totally sick. One is locked up in a room while signing autographs for those who lock one in. I do not think many people have experienced this situation,” he added.

It’s a curious situation indeed. There can be few hardcore file-sharing fans who wouldn’t grab an autograph, ‘selfie’ or two minutes lively discussion with Peter, Gottfrid or Fredrik if they had the chance, and few that wouldn’t sympathize with the jail sentences they received.

But how many of those same users sit around thinking, “I was partly responsible for those huge numbers cited by Hollywood during the trial. I contributed to the swarms, rampant sharing, and alleged industry losses. It was our crimes, the users, that put the admins in jail.”

Rest assured, in the case of Pirate Bay the founders wouldn’t place a second’s blame on any user, but it is food for thought. In most cases file-sharers go about their daily business without a care in the world, although some probably pause occasionally to scowl at the latest admin arrest.

It’s a fact that thanks to the millions of others in a similar position, torrent users remain largely safe, even though it is their actions that contribute most to the distribution of copyright content. That said, someone has to pay. Someone has to have their head stuffed on the end of a pike. Most are simply glad that the head isn’t theirs.

Likening Peter Sunde to a religious icon is going a bit far, but there’s little doubt that without the actions of the millions he aimed to serve, his life today would be minus a jail sentence. Not getting involved in the Pirate Bay might’ve helped him too, but not even Jesus himself could see that perfectly into the future.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak

Spammers Flood Google With Fake Takedown Notices

spam1Every day copyright holders report millions of infringing links to Google.

Nearly all of these requests are automated and involve little oversight. This leads to the occasional mistake but some bogus takedown notices are sent on purpose.

It appears that spammers have discovered Google’s takedown forms and found a way to submit their own fake notices.

While browsing through the Chilling Effects archive of Google’s DMCA notices we spotted some unusual entries. Instead of trying to remove pages from the Internet, spammers are using Google’s takedown forms to promote their counterfeit software, clothing and other merchandise.

Their goal is not to take anything down but to generate links to their own websites. Below is an example of a typical “comment spam” takedown request of which tens of thousands can be found online.

penisspam

Besides bodypart “enlargements” there are plugs for medicine, sports jerseys, designer clothing, handbags, sunglasses and even counterfeit copies of Microsoft products.

The spammers target a wide range of Google services including Search, Blogger and Picasa. While Google tends to ignore them, copies of the requests are available in the Chilling Effects archive and through Google’s Transparency Report.

While somewhat of a nuisance, it’s doubtful that the takedown notices will be very effective in driving traffic. Most URLs are not linked and the Chilling Effect site itself is not indexed by Google at all.

Still, the spam overload is not making Google’s job any easier.

The company already invests significant resources in checking the millions of legitimate DMCA requests, and dealing with a spam flood only adds to this already troubling task.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak