this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
328 points (99.1% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

68205 readers
319 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:

💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
unruffled@anarchist.nexus
328
The one science reform we can all agree on, but we're too cowardly to do - Get rid of for-profit scientific publishers. (open.substack.com)
submitted 1 day ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Of all the crazy parts of our crazy system, the craziest part is where taxpayers pay for the research, then pay private companies to publish it, and then pay again so scientists can read it. We may not agree on much, but we can all agree on this: it is time, finally and forever, to get rid of for-profit scientific publishers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ntd_quiet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 14 hours ago

They absolutely should, I agree, and I think many folks will email you a copy if you ask. Also, sometimes the journals have clauses when you agree to publish, like you can't upload to your website the same version that they published, at least for 1-5 years. I still think people should do it anyway, anonymously, but I wanted to add that point about the extra legal bullshit.