|Aaron Swartz Open Access Manifesto e archivio files|
|Tech & New Media|
|Martedì 15 Gennaio 2013|
Questo archivio di 33 GB contiene 18.592 pubblicazioni scientifiche di JSTOR che nella visione Open Access dovrebbero essere accessibili a tutti e di pubblico dominio. Il suicidio a 26 anni del geniale hacktivist Aaron Swartz ha causato una reazione spontanea e fuori controllo (questo è il web) di adesioni e gesti di solidarietà con le idee libere dell'artefice di Reddit, Rss e di Open Library con oltre un milione di libri e testi liberamente scaricabili. Information is power. But like all power ...
Link al file torrent e mirror per scaricare l'archivio completo delle pubblicazioni scientifiche
Copia Cache della pagina del MIT sostituita da hacker Anonymous
Archivio di tutti i lavori, post, software e siti web di Aaron Swartz su Internet Archive
Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto, Aaron Swartz [traduzione italiana sotto]
Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.
That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.
“I agree,” many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal — there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.
Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.
Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.
But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.
Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.
There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.
We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.
With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?
Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto, Aaron Swartz
L’informazione è potere. Ma come con ogni tipo di potere, ci sono quelli che se ne vogliono impadronire. L’intero patrimonio scientifico e culturale, pubblicato nel corso dei secoli in libri e riviste, è sempre più digitalizzato e tenuto sotto chiave da una manciata di società private. Vuoi leggere le riviste che ospitano i più famosi risultati scientifici? Dovrai pagare enormi somme ad editori come Reed Elsevier.
C’è chi lotta per cambiare tutto questo. Il movimento Open Access ha combattuto valorosamente perché gli scienziati non cedano i loro diritti d’autore e che invece il loro lavoro sia pubblicato su Internet, a condizioni che consentano l’accesso a tutti. Ma anche nella migliore delle ipotesi, il loro lavoro varrà solo per le cose pubblicate in futuro. Tutto ciò che è stato pubblicato fino ad oggi sarà perduto.
Questo è un prezzo troppo alto da pagare. Forzare i ricercatori a pagare per leggere il lavoro dei loro colleghi? Scansionare intere biblioteche, ma consentire solo alla gente che lavora per Google di leggerne i libri? Fornire articoli scientifici alle università d’élite del Primo Mondo, ma non ai bambini del Sud del Mondo? Tutto ciò è oltraggioso ed inaccettabile.
“Sono d’accordo,” dicono in molti, “ma cosa possiamo fare? Le società detengono i diritti d’autore, guadagnano enormi somme di denaro facendo pagare l’accesso, ed è tutto perfettamente legale — non c’è niente che possiamo fare per fermarli”. Ma qualcosa che possiamo fare c’è, qualcosa che è già stato fatto: possiamo contrattaccare.
Tutti voi, che avete accesso a queste risorse, studenti, bibliotecari o scienziati, avete ricevuto un privilegio: potete nutrirvi al banchetto della conoscenza mentre il resto del mondo rimane chiuso fuori. Ma non dovete — anzi, moralmente, non potete — conservare questo privilegio solo per voi, avete il dovere di condividerlo con il mondo. Avete il dovere di scambiare le password con i colleghi e scaricare gli articoli per gli amici.
Tutti voi che siete stati chiusi fuori non starete a guardare, nel frattempo. Vi intrufulerete attraverso i buchi, scavalcherete le recinzioni, e libererete le informazioni che gli editori hanno chiuso e le condividerete con i vostri amici.
Ma tutte queste azioni sono condotte nella clandestinità oscura e nascosta. Sono chiamate “furto” o “pirateria”, come se condividere conoscenza fosse l’equivalente morale di saccheggiare una nave ed assassinarne l’equipaggio, ma condividere non è immorale — è un imperativo morale. Solo chi fosse accecato dall’avidità rifiuterebbe di concedere una copia ad un amico.
E le grandi multinazionali, ovviamente, sono accecate dall’avidità. Le stesse leggi a cui sono sottoposte richiedono che siano accecate dall’avidità — se così non fosse i loro azionisti si rivolterebbero. E i politici, corrotti dalle grandi aziende, le supportano approvando leggi che danno loro il potere esclusivo di decidere chi può fare copie.
Non c’è giustizia nel rispettare leggi ingiuste. È tempo di uscire allo scoperto e, nella grande tradizione della disobbedienza civile, dichiarare la nostra opposizione a questo furto privato della cultura pubblica.
Dobbiamo acquisire le informazioni, ovunque siano archiviate, farne copie e condividerle con il mondo. Dobbiamo prendere ciò che è fuori dal diritto d’autore e caricarlo su Internet Archive. Dobbiamo acquistare banche dati segrete e metterle sul web. Dobbiamo scaricare riviste scientifiche e caricarle sulle reti di condivisione. Dobbiamo lottare per la Guerrilla Open Access.
Se in tutto il mondo saremo in numero sufficiente, non solo manderemo un forte messaggio contro la privatizzazione della conoscenza, ma la renderemo un ricordo del passato.
Vuoi essere dei nostri?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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. ef8c02959e947d7f4e4699f399ade838431692d972661f145b782c2fa3ebcc6a sha256sum.txt 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 systemâ€”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 Societyâ€”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, Wikisourceâ€” 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 reproductionâ€”scanning the documentsâ€” 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 archives 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 knowledgeâ€”as their lofty mission statements suggestâ€”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 justifiedâ€”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. - ---- Greg Maxwell - July 20th 2011 firstname.lastname@example.org Bitcoin: 14csFEJHk3SYbkBmajyJ3ktpsd2TmwDEBb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk4nlfwACgkQrIWTYrBBO/pK4QCfV/voN6IdZRU36Vy3xAedUMfz rJcAoNF4/QTdxYscvF2nklJdMzXFDwtF =YlVR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FORSE TI INTERESSA ANCHE ..
Un bello spirito, un bel volto di giovane e un sorriso intelligente anche questo era Aaron Sw
93 giorni fa
Io e Kriminal siamo un po' colleghi. Ed ecco che ho ritrovato girando per la rete in download la ser
135 giorni fa
Per l'ottava volta consecutiva gli spazi della Stazione Leopolda di Pisa ospiteranno dal 30 novembre
156 giorni fa
I libri di Philip K. Dick hanno ispirato visioni impossibili e tuttora continuano ad influenzare il
162 giorni fa
L’archivio Andres Neumann. Memorie dello spettacolo contemporaneo di Maria Fedi. Presentazione del
184 giorni fa
Before I Die I Want To ... Prima di morire voglio ... Global art project. Basta un muro o un altro s
212 giorni fa