Copyright lawyers are the worst. That shit makes no sense, retroactively claiming copyright on a paper from a hundred years ago? The journal should be shamed by the community.

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago

They're not really claiming copyright, Springer is just selling the articles (anyone can sell copies of public domain texts). The problem is in their moronic mechanical attempt (probably not even checked by a lawyer) at "detecting" copyright infringement by comparing two editions of the same article.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 2 points 3 days ago

Cool, so they probably now let hallucinating machines decide if humans should have access to scientific articles? Doesn't sound too smart for a business that should have smart people available.

[–] Mistiygirl@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because OF COURSE it's the Axel Springer verlag. Who the hell else could it be??

[–] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, the Springer Verlag (now called Springer Nature) is separate from the Axel Springer Verlag. Springer Nature is not on the level of Axel Springer, but the enshittification is ongoing.

[–] Mistiygirl@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago

ah, good to know