More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
The Latest File-Sharing Piracy: Academic Journals
November 3, 2009 | 9:51 am
|
By Steven Lyle Jordan
An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education highlights a study that indicates digital document piracy has moved beyond the latest pop novels:
A new study, published in the Internet Journal of Medical Informatics, looks at a site aimed specifically at medical professionals and students and finds that thousands of people were obtaining non-open-access materials free of charge. The article says that in a six-month period of watching the unnamed site, nearly 5,500 articles were exchanged, costing journals about $700,000 in that time, or about $1.4-million a year.
The published study then labels the site, and its users’ activities, as “ethically dubious,” and urges research into the implications of the problem.
|
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
Because the results of NOT sharing valuable medical information are not ethically dubious? Anyway, does this study take into account the fact this information may have been readily obtainable by the students through their institutions? So the issue is simply one of convenience: whether to download it from JSTOR or whatever in my university library and take it home with me or download it from home. Unless the journal gets paid per download or view from within the uni library, I don’t see how they’re out any money unless the school stops licensing their product.
The study does not question the ethics of the information or its actual use once obtained: It seems to indicate simply that the materials themselves were intended to be purchased, not shared freely on a Napster-type site, and that the tracked incidents of sharing were the equivalent of $1.4M/yr worth of potential purchases. The question is addressed to downloading materials from a pirating site, and whether a future doctor who does this has a proper sense of ethics.
All the studies about piracy always assumes that one free download is one lost sale.
Whether we talk about videogames, movies, music, comics, books or medical essays the above stated assumption is not right. No matter how specialized the downloaded content is.
I would support the first comment that most students and MDs at hospitals would have a subscription through their library, so it is a question of VPN. The sad fact, that publicly financed research is not publicly available is a completely different issue.
Whether proper handling of intellectual “property” should even fall under the heading of ethics is questionable at best. I certainly would not want to have a doctor who let something as absurd as copyright or patent law get in the way of saving my life.
Too clarify, this is not to say that dishonesty, academic or otherwise, is acceptable. But the journals are essentially parasitic; very few authors get meaningful compensation from writing journal articles. The case is not the same as book sales which do generate some meaningful revenue for the creator.
@Chris: Whether or not the amount “lost” is in question, the activity is clear. Just because you can’t assume a 1:1 correlation between a download and a lost sale, doesn’t mean you can assume the loss is zero. There is unintended loss, it is significant, and it is caused by taking materials without payment or consent.
@Luqman: On the other hand, if such medical journals that formerly depended on these sales to exist decide that they will no longer get that income, they may stop being published… and your local doctor won’t be able to get the latest information. In this case, your doctor isn’t letting the law get in his way… he’s ducking the cost of his materials (and don’t think you’ll get a discount for his services because of it).
The issue here is about taking materials that were intended to be bought, without authorization from the copyright holders. I think the ethics of the situation is clear.
Actually, there is a further level of complexity here compared to the rest of the publishing industry. The vast majority of the research and funding for the articles was paid for by taxpayers, thus, the “information” is actually owned not by the journal, but the people “pirating” the journal. So, can you steal from yourself? This is a big question right now in the academic journal world.
What Chris says.
*Most* people, when they learn that an article they’re interested in is only available directly from the publisher for $30+, will find a print copy of the journal and photocopy the article they need (*not* a copyright violation); or will get the article through interlibrary loan (*also* not a copyright violation, and not free, but fees go to the libraries used — not to the publishers) — or they will skip it and just ignore the article as they proceed with their research. *Especially* if there is no abstract available so they can be sure the work is on-point before they shell out the cash.
But. Obtaining the article for free in an illegal manner is in fact unethical.
So authors. Do you want your work ignored by all but the wealthiest and/or most compulsive researchers? Then be sure to have your work published in those journals (Elsevier, Springer etc.). If you’re serious about having your work cited, it needs to be both visible and accessible.
That still doesn’t account for the fact that the journal does NOT own the information in the article. They don’t even pay the “authors” any royalties. The whole thing about visibility and accessibility is no longer the same as it was 10-15 years ago. These days, there are so many stories about “fake” journals and the many faces of editorial politics, that the idea of paying extravagantly for information that was already purchased by taxpayers makes the ethics of “stealing” something that was never “owned” in the first place so interesting and moot.
I suppose the question then is whether or not the taxpayer funds for R&D are intended to include the costs of documentation and dissemination of the results, and whether the institution has any right to try to recoup any costs and expenses it generates that are not covered by tax money. I imagine that is why the question of “right to charge” hasn’t been answered to everyone’s satisfaction yet.
But is all of that really relevant, or just ducking the question? The fact that you can get an apple for free from a tree doesn’t mean you have a right to steal one sold at the store.
This is certainly a good reason to revisit the process of making research data available to the public, and/or the costs of digital materials. But it doesn’t change the fact that right now the material is being obtained, essentially, illegally.
@Chris:
Do you, in fact, disagree with this statement?
There’s that argument again, everything paid for by taxes should be free. First off, there’s a lot of research that’s paid for by private foundations, not by government grants. Second, there are in fact researchers and journal readers who are not American, nor in America.
Many local governments use taxpayer funds to build stadiums for sports teams. Shouldn’t tickets to games be free? My local government seems to be using my tax money to build toll roads. Haven’t I already paid for those roads? When the government gives out a small business loan, why do we have to pay for the products that company subsequently sells? I pay fees at the DMV, for a dog license, court costs, etc., etc. How come all this stuff isn’t free?
…hallelujah and amen to “Luqman” for pointing out that academic journals are parasitic!…neither the authors NOR the agencies that fund the research receive a single cent for the articles…yet the publishers have the unmitigated gall to try and charge $30-40 to download a pdf of an article…it’s as though they’re spitting in your face and laughing about it at the same time!…I’m hoping the advent of kindles will encourage academia to start self-publishing “ejournals,” eventually driving the “parasites” out of business!
I still takes time and effort to publish a journal… even an e-journal. Unless that “tax money” covers the writing, proofing, editing, prepping and dissemination of the journal in any form, I see no reason why the institution shouldn’t charge something to cover their expenses. Otherwise, we should expect our taxes to go up to cover the journal costs.
Speaking of taxes: As most of these costs to purchase a document are business- or education-related, the involved parties can probably take tax deductions for them…
“nearly 5,500 articles were exchanged, costing journals about $700,000″
(Lips move. Frowns. “That can’t be right.” Pulls out calculator to be sure she hasn’t misplaced a decimal. “Damn, that *is* right. Wow.”)
That’s 127$ for *one* copy of *one* article, guys. $127.27 to be exact. And the author (I know from personal experience) didn’t receive one penny of that. Neither did the peer reviewers who did the fact checking.
@Steve Jordan
“Speaking of taxes: As most of these costs to purchase a document are business- or education-related, the involved parties can probably take tax deductions for them…”
Great, that means I can pay 127.27 pre-tax dollars for one article–which works out to about $107.75 in regular money.
I’d like to be educated, but I can’t afford it.
I somewhat agree that the journal publishing business is parasitic — in most cases the authors do not get paid and before e-publishing had to actually purchase the journal issue where their article was published. The profits of the publishers were astronomical. Later, to get even better bottom line, some publishers fired most, or even all, of their editors or made them into freelance workers.
But what about the authors? Most continue playing this game. Do they have any moral obligation to make their work wildly available? There are many open access journals in medical/health sciences. Why not publish in those publications?
For some reason it looks like the comment I made before didn’t post. It has only been about 10 minutes but it’s getting late and I need to go to sleep so I’m going to repost. If I end up double posting, I apologize.
The article the original post quotes says: “nearly 5,500 articles were exchanged, costing journals about $700,000 in that time”
If 5,500 articles cost $700,000 that means they are charging *$127.27* for *one* copy of *one* article.
Does that seem excessive to anyone else?
@Steve Jordan: “Speaking of taxes: As most of these costs to purchase a document are business- or education-related, the involved parties can probably take tax deductions for them…”
Well, supposing that is true (and education tax-deductions are more complex, and apply to less, than you might think) that means one article would cost 127.27 pre-tax dollars. Which works out to about 107 regular dollars, for me.
107 dollars for one copy of one article? That tromps past past “too expensive” without looking back, presses against the back membrane of “ridiculous” and finally bursts through and lands with both feet planted squarely in “insane“
Steve, the institutions shouldn’t charge because they don’t pay for any publishing. The journal is not the institution. The journal is a 3rd party charging for sending a pdf of the article. The journal doesn’t even have to format it properly, the authors do all the writing, editing and formatting by strict submission guidelines. The journals don’t even pay for peer reviewing. The articles are reviewed by other specialists/researchers on their own time unpaid (for the glory of saying they edit for the journal). The journals turn around and charge an arm and a leg for the article without paying anyone for the right to do so. It’s all a big house of cards. This is why, not only in the US, but in Canada, and now in Europe, many government grants for research are stipulating that the research must be published in a format that is free for anyone to use. The journals don’t like this because it means their gravy train is ending.
@Mark: Assuming all of that is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t), it begs the question of how such a system could have carried on like that for as long as it has… or even gotten started. Although obviously printed journals could charge to recover printing costs (and Cat, in the low print volume of journals, costs could be expected to be high), costs should have come down precipitously when PDFs were available.
I still have a hard time believing tax money covers ALL the costs of preparing the journals, however.
Sorry Steve, I am not trying to say the tax money covers the cost of the journal, but the costs of the journal are pretty minimal. There are no royalties or editor fees. The costs are the logistic costs of choosing the articles, making a cover and TOC, printing and shipping. These costs are covered by the millions of dollars of advertisements paid by the pharmaceutical companies and then the journals also charge for the article/journal itself. This is a huge money maker.
However, this is not always the case. For example, the Canadian Medical Journal (CMAJ) is considered one of the top 5% of journals (similar to the Lancet or NEJM). This journal does not charge for its articles. This is because the journal makes up for all its costs (plus a profit) solely by selling ad space for drug money. The reason it does so is because it is not owned by a publishing company, but instead, by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA).
More recently, there has been a push to reform the industry, however, the industry is resisting. The only clout they still have is the name of the journal and its potential to aid the career of researchers where the more number of articles published is used to determine status (even to the point of faking data which is unfortunately more common than most think).
Okay, I’ll buy all that. And I tend to agree, the system sounds like it needs serious reformation, not just because of cost issues, but because of its own ethical issues.
Unfortunately, I don’t think snagging bootleg copies of journal articles is sending the right message to those involved. Any concerned parties should be boycotting those journals, not stealing from them on account of they’re greedy. If anything, that will only encourage them to keep publishing, because they know they are in demand, and if anything, try to find ways to secure their content with DRM (and up their prices to compensate). So, even if the DRM doesn’t work, the material will cost more, and some people will have to pay (not everyone can use the darknets for their research).
Boycotting or going to other journals is more likely to teach those journal publishers that their publishing model is not sustainable, and force them to change (or go out of business).
So we’re back to the original question: The ethics of taking what you’re not supposed to.
@Cat, just a small correction on the cost. The original research article points out that although only a total of about 5,500 articles were downloaded and then saved to the forums, the site also tracked the number of times the articles were viewed, or accessed, by other users. So, someone requested an article, it was posted to the site but could have been viewed by others (or none). It’s not really the number of articles that determines the cost, but rather the total number of times those articles were accessed once they were in the forums. The total number of views was 23,461 and at an estimate of $30.00 per article, that gives a total of just over $700,000 in 6 months, or $1.4M in a year.
And yes, the final figure is based on some assumptions, and so open to query, but that is how the figure was calculated.