JSTOR torrent

[Permit]

Please keep in mind that JSTOR paid almost $100,000 to digitize these files[1]. I think a lot of people don't realize that they're a non-profit organization with similar goals to many of you.

I don't think it's such a bad idea to give them money to continue digitizing works that no one would have had access to otherwise. They provide full-text search of all of their documents and undoubtedly employ programmers and designers much like yourself.

[1]http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/10/royal_society_frees_up_...

[joelthelion]

The non-profit status doesn't automagically make an organization "good". The executives of the institution still get paid and have an interest in perpetuating and growing the organization, even if it goes against public interest

I don't know much about JSTOR, but I know the IEEE (for example) can be a good bunch of sharks. In the past, they forced you to hand them your copyright for the privilege of publishing your work in their journals, and proceeded to go after you if you committed the cardinal sin of distributing your own papers through your research website. They also put your work behind a 30$ paywall without, of course, giving you a dime.

[DoubleMalt]

$100,000 is nothing, that a single fundraising call to parties interested in the freedom of information cannot collect.

I would personally be ready to donate 100$ immediately.

And then there is the example of the Wikipedia Foundation that seems to do quite well (and could incorporate this effort bringing fund raising and software engineering power to the table)

Whining about $100,000 for such a trove of information is laughable.

[sliverstorm]

I am pleased to see this is the top comment. It is very frustrating to see people who completely disregard the cost and effort associated with digitizing and managing records.

[colechristensen]

And if any educational institution used torrents instead of paying it would be unethical, but some day, and some day soon, restricting information will need to stop because it must. Armies of people would be perfectly willing to do the job of JSTOR pro bono publico only needing a bit of equipment easily enough donated.

[BuddhaSource]

So far 88 Seeds & 261 Leechers.

I think its fair to donate some money to JSTOR. Even if its 1-10$ they can recover their losses & may be even profit for digitizing.

If they can open a small donation channel I would like to donate & thank them. Make knowledge easily accessible to all & we should encourage it.

[hugbox]

JSTOR may be a non-profit, but they earn a lot of money and they're not shy about spending it.

http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your...

Of course earning money by itself isn't an evil thing. The bigger problem is that JSTOR is part of a system which many people have come to feel is unjust-- a system whereby the public finances research which is then put behind paywalls.

It isn't just wild-eyed hackers who feel this way. Even Donalth Knuth has commented about how little value the academic journals really provide, and how much they charge.

It is the public who pays for this system. We pay because our taxes and tuition money subsidize the research that we're not allowed to see. The government should require publicly funded research to be made available on a site like arxiv.org. It is those guys who are really in favor of open access, not JSTOR. Throwing us a bone-- some 80-year old manuscripts which are in the public domain anyway-- shouldn't obscure that.

[kanzure]

Not quite, it's just the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. It's a good start, I guess.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2789709 (lots of comments)

    >   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.

Btw, the court documents from 2011-2012 show that aaronsw transferred his collection to an unidentified server in China. Maybe he has a deadman's switch? Or maybe it's time I go on a modern-day pirate treasure hunt.. yarr.

[jlgreco]

I've been thinking that perhaps some sort of mass downloading could be organized, to be distributed among current college students with access to JSTOR.

If it is thousands of students all doing a small part of the downloading, what could be done to stop it? The trick would be distributing the tasks, and collecting all the results.

This is all assuming there is no dead-man's switch, but since he went out on his own terms I assume that would be triggered already.

[NelsonMinar]

This archive is not directly related to Aaron Swartz's prosecution, it's something different. "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."

[_delirium]

Yes, as the file description says, this was released by Gregory Maxwell rather than Swartz, though it's tangentially related. Maxwell had assembled this collection of public-domain articles earlier, but hadn't decided whether to release it yet. After the Swartz/JSTOR case broke, he was spurred to release this torrent (the linked file description contains a statement from Maxwell explaining his motives).

I don't think Swartz's famous JSTOR collection has surfaced.

[anoncow]

To hell with this shit. I don't want what the copyright owners do not want to give. I don't want what they got by arm twisting authors. I don't want what they got for free but now want to make money off. They can die with this in their collective behinds. I will never submit anything to a closed journal, never ever.

[bendmorris]

Are you an academic? You're right that their arms are being twisted. I can't have an academic career and not publish in closed journals. I hate it and I don't know what I can do about it. If I only publish in open access journals I'm just offering my career up as a meaningless sacrifice.

[joelthelion]

The "copyright owners" don't get the copyright through legitimate means. Basically, academics are forced to hand them the copyright to publish in prestigious journals they control. Then the publishers exploit this copyright by putting publicly funded research behind paywalls, and doesn't give a dime to the original author.

[josh_fyi]

We wish it didn't have to be that way. We wish that information, particular academic publications, could be share openly and legally.

Now, it's 1855. You want the slaves to be freed. By law. By right.

So, do you shut down the Underground Railroad?

[oinksoft]

Comparing intellectual property law to chattel slavery is a bit tasteless, no?

[VMG]

brb, torrenting Django.

Where can I get my medal?

[rprasad]

Underground Railroad: people risking their lives to help slaves fleeing slavery, rape, beatings, murder, and the wholesale destruction of their families.

Aaron Swartz: releasing academic articles that are already available for free or a low cost simply by visiting your local university and acquiring a guest access card.

Not even remotely comparable.

[fatbird]

Please downvote this. A torrent of the JSTOR content shouldn't be Aaron Swartz's legacy. With JSTOR, Swartz was making a larger point; if all you have is these docs, you missed it.

[seldo]

Each download isn't a copy of some files, it's a statement that Aaron's cause was the right one, even if I disagreed with his methods.

[kqr2]

The torrent isn't his legacy but rather the spirit of his activism.

[mbesto]

You can't downvote on HN.

[technifreak]

I think we should pressure JSTOR to release the documents into the public domain. If it is in the best interest.

[ig1]

JSTOR doesn't own the copyrights, they have the documents under licence from the journal publishers.

[randy5007]

So is this safe to dl? Newbie here. I don't even know what these papers are.

[IheartApplesDix]

I finished downloading this last week.

[mserdarsanli]

So, do you want upvotes?