Guerilla Open Access Manifesto
Guerilla Open Access Manifesto 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? Aaron Swartz July 2008, Eremo, Italy https://openlibrary.org/
That's cool. The idea of a digital library where people can check out books is very cool. Give it, say, after 5 years from publication, any book should be available.... During all this rant, all that I was trying to say was: Information wants to be free, just not all at once... Marxos
I abide with the spirit of Aaron Swartz, but he wasn't perfect. I believe, philosophically, that knowledge should be the heritage of mankind, but practically there must be protective mechanisms to ensure that the knowledge is vouchsafed.
Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves.
This is where he's wrongheaded. People do tend to keep power to themselves, but they don't tend to keep knowledge to themselves unless they, themselves, made it. What people are doing holding *access* to knowledge (generally through subscriptions) is trying to monetize knowledge, which is not the same struggle of power.
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.
Probably not. Much of the best science was published centuries ago and is available freely with just a little effort to go to the library. There is hardly any real knowledge that is kept from mankind, except business or national politics.
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.
This is where the internet hasn't quite solved the problem with replacing publishers. In truth, the problem is solved by myself and others who have developed voting models to create a meritocracy of information publishing, but it is not widely applied.
That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues?
This is generally handled by the administration of their university. There is no cost to academics. I don't want to ridicule Aaron in any way. I think RSS is an awesome contribution to the internet. But despite every liberty-loving individual`s desire for freedom, I've had to acknowledge that the power to create the personal computer (which has fostered access to all of this knowledge) came from individuals seeking to profit for themselves. It required corporations, law, money, and self-interest. I hardly believe I'm saying it, but the only conclusion is: Self-interest isn't necessarily bad. Marxos
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 17:58:13 -0600
"\\0xDynamite"
It required corporations, law, money, and self-interest.
wow. Yet another americunt fascist. How very...unsurprising.
I hardly believe I'm saying it, but the only conclusion is: Self-interest isn't necessarily bad.
Marxos
It required corporations, law, money, and self-interest.
wow. Yet another americunt fascist. How very...unsurprising.
I was afraid you were going to say that. Can you imagine personal computers happening without these four things? If not SHUT THE FUCK UP. Americunt denier: benefits from the history of America but wants to wash his hands of ALL KARMA of it. Stasi-punk: ***Typical AMERICAN*** I actually like real libertarian-anarchists, but these folks don't hang out on internet chat rooms, like yourself... \0xD
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:25:17 -0600
"\\0xDynamite"
It required corporations, law, money, and self-interest.
wow. Yet another americunt fascist. How very...unsurprising.
I was afraid you were going to say that. Can you imagine personal computers happening without these four things? If not SHUT THE FUCK UP.
of course I can imagine an actual free market with money, natural law and 'self-interest'(a vague concept anyway) the problem is you linking those things with corporatism and its products.
Americunt denier: benefits from the history of America but wants to wash his hands of ALL KARMA of it.
how exactly do I benefit from the 'history of america'.
Stasi-punk: ***Typical AMERICAN***
I actually like real libertarian-anarchists, but these folks don't hang out on internet chat rooms, like yourself...
yeah, and where are they?
\0xD
of course I can imagine an actual free market with money, natural law and 'self-interest'(a vague concept anyway)
and tell us how you get personal computers so you can type your message, genius...
the problem is you linking those things with corporatism and its products.
Computers came from corporations. I didn't make the link.
Americunt denier: benefits from the history of America but wants to wash his hands of ALL KARMA of it.
how exactly do I benefit from the 'history of america'.
By occupying the land of the American Indian which was gained through conquest (roughly involving murder and theft). By using computers which came from corporations and the internet which came from the Dept of Defense. Do keep up the good fight, but be sane about it (not delusional), 'kay brah? I mean, you could conceivably use JUNKED computers and steal your access to the internet, while moored off away from shore (where you grow your food hydroponically).... that would get you free of greater than 50% of the karma.... jeez \0xD
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:05:54 -0600
"\\0xDynamite"
of course I can imagine an actual free market with money, natural law and 'self-interest'(a vague concept anyway)
and tell us how you get personal computers so you can type your message, genius...
Whether a free market produces computers or not is irrelevant. You're not even articulating your fallacy correctly. You want to somehow invalidate what I say because I'm using your piece of shit, backdoored computer to 'type it'. But that reasoning is flawed. Look see, I can use your computers to call you a fascist. Uh oh.
the problem is you linking those things with corporatism and its products.
Computers came from corporations. I didn't make the link.
Computers were mostly developed in the fascist american cesspool. At the same time, you asked how 'we' could have computers absent fascism and I answered. Here's another thing though. I'd rather have freedom instead of your backdoored computers. You see, I'm not the jews at google who use computers to enslave humanity. The benefit I derive from them is a lot less valuable than freedom.
Americunt denier: benefits from the history of America but wants to wash his hands of ALL KARMA of it.
how exactly do I benefit from the 'history of america'.
By occupying the land of the American Indian which was gained through conquest (roughly involving murder and theft).
I didn't invade the plot of land where I live. And I don't 'own' any of the stolen farmland. Also, I'd love to see the local government shred to pieces...and I certainly wouldn't be worried if the fake property titles they enforce were gutted.
By using computers which came from corporations and the internet which came from the Dept of Defense.
Just like I'd use a gun taken from an americunt soldier to blow up his head.
Do keep up the good fight, but be sane about it (not delusional), 'kay brah? I mean, you could conceivably use JUNKED computers
...what difference would that make? You'd still make the same idiotic remark. "Hey you typed it on a computer!"
and steal your access to the internet, while moored off away from shore (where you grow your food hydroponically).... that would get you free of greater than 50% of the karma....
jeez
\0xD
and tell us how you get personal computers so you can type your message, genius...
Whether a free market produces computers or not is irrelevant.
...not if you want to reply to this discussion.
You're not even articulating your fallacy correctly. You want to somehow invalidate what I say because I'm using your piece of shit, backdoored computer to 'type it'. But that reasoning is flawed. Look see, I can use your computers to call you a fascist. Uh oh.
But you wouldn't even get a voice if the computer didn't exist.
the problem is you linking those things with corporatism and its products.
Computers came from corporations. I didn't make the link.
Computers were mostly developed in the fascist american cesspool. At the same time, you asked how 'we' could have computers absent fascism and I answered.
... ]>> >> Americunt denier: benefits from the history of America but wants to
wash his hands of ALL KARMA of it.
how exactly do I benefit from the 'history of america'.
By occupying the land of the American Indian which was gained through conquest (roughly involving murder and theft).
I didn't invade the plot of land where I live.
No, the federal government did it for you. Badabing!
And I don't 'own' any of the stolen farmland.
But you probably use US currency, yes? Or have you moved to an enlightened gift and barter society?
Also, I'd love to see the local government shred to pieces...and I certainly wouldn't be worried if the fake property titles they enforce were gutted.
Wouldn't do much to rectify history, though. Alas, it does take work and risk.
By using computers which came from corporations and the internet which came from the Dept of Defense.
Just like I'd use a gun taken from an americunt soldier to blow up his head.
Yes, but would you then depend on it for your food, too?
Do keep up the good fight, but be sane about it (not delusional), 'kay brah? I mean, you could conceivably use JUNKED computers
...what difference would that make? You'd still make the same idiotic remark. "Hey you typed it on a computer!"
No, I understand your point: that you can use the tools of the system against the system. But one MUST be honest with oneself, lest one turn into an americunt bastard, mustn't one? I mean one act of righteousness (taking the computer from the system) does not eradicate 10 years of bourgie americunt behaviors (now watching netflix like a muthafucka). Cheerios! \0xD
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:53:50 -0600
"\\0xDynamite"
You're not even articulating your fallacy correctly. You want to somehow invalidate what I say because I'm using your piece of shit, backdoored computer to 'type it'. But that reasoning is flawed. Look see, I can use your computers to call you a fascist. Uh oh.
But you wouldn't even get a voice if the computer didn't exist.
What? I have a voice because I have a body.
I didn't invade the plot of land where I live.
No, the federal government did it for you. Badabing!
the place now known as 'argentina' was invaded by the spaniards in 1500. And I didn't ask them to do it. Now, the thing is, UNLIKE YOU, I don't think their 'money, laws and corporations' were or are legitimate or even useful, except as tools of oppression. Not to mention their fucking joo-kkkristian 'religion', to which you subscribe I believe.
And I don't 'own' any of the stolen farmland.
But you probably use US currency, yes? Or have you moved to an enlightened gift and barter society?
see, that's the problem with being economic illiterate. Money IS barter. As to the dollar or any other national currency, those are FORCED upon the vast majority of the population. As a matter of fact, inflation rate in argentina is more than 100%, the resources stolen through inflation going of course to govcorp - and I'm not a govcorp employee-accomplice.
Also, I'd love to see the local government shred to pieces...and I certainly wouldn't be worried if the fake property titles they enforce were gutted.
Wouldn't do much to rectify history, though. Alas, it does take work and risk.
dude - make up your fucking mind. You can either vomit this fascist propaganda "I've had to acknowledge that the power to create the personal computer (which has fostered access to all of this knowledge) came from individuals seeking to profit for themselves. It required corporations, law, money, and self-interest." or complain about the crimes of your corporations. Also, no, we don't need computers to 'access all of this knowledge'. As a matter of fact, we have BOOKS too. And books don't require a global surveillance network to read them.
By using computers which came from corporations and the internet which came from the Dept of Defense.
Just like I'd use a gun taken from an americunt soldier to blow up his head.
Yes, but would you then depend on it for your food, too?
no
Do keep up the good fight, but be sane about it (not delusional), 'kay brah? I mean, you could conceivably use JUNKED computers
...what difference would that make? You'd still make the same idiotic remark. "Hey you typed it on a computer!"
No, I understand your point: that you can use the tools of the system against the system.
In some cases. And that's not my main point anyway. My point is that I don't owe any allegiance to your 'laws, corporations and govt printed money', nor I derive any substantial benefit from them.
But one MUST be honest with oneself, lest one turn into an americunt bastard, mustn't one? I mean one act of righteousness (taking the computer from the system) does not eradicate 10 years of bourgie americunt behaviors (now watching netflix like a muthafucka).
Cheerios!
\0xD
Wasn't this, indirectly, the genesis for sci-hub? I couldn't afford to do
any tech R&D without it.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, 4:37 AM grarpamp
Guerilla Open Access Manifesto
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?
Aaron Swartz
July 2008, Eremo, Italy
participants (4)
-
\0xDynamite -
grarpamp -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Steven Schear