Re: <nettime> Shadow libraries in the Washington Post

Thanks for sending. Enjoyed reading about history of sci-hub,, libgen, and other information access efforts. Guess we are starting to see something similar with pre-prints (at least in my field, psychology; think they've been around for a while in other fields). Know one academic that exclusively reads pre-prints. I've had some classes that read a good amount of pre-prints in addition to standard pubs. Econ has culture (or so I've been told) of posting papers to pre-print server and discussing for a while before pub; formal journal pub ends up just a formality because people already aware of paper. In psych, we've had one recommendation in a journal pub to switch to something like that. Different cultures than simply accessing information but similar idea of getting around publishers

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 3:00 AM, <nettime-l-request@mail.kein.org> wrote:

Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to
nettime-l@mail.kein.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
nettime-l-request@mail.kein.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
nettime-l-owner@mail.kein.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Shadow libraries in the Washington Post (tbyfield)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:38:12 -0400
From: tbyfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
To: Nettime-l <nettime-l@kein.org>
Subject: <nettime> Shadow libraries in the Washington Post
Message-ID: <ABAFC59D-FE08-4CA9-93EB-B53876D3AA79@panix.com">ABAFC59D-FE08-4CA9-93EB-B53876D3AA79@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

What a pleasant thing to see this morning ? a razor-sharp overview by
Joe Karaganis and Balazs Bodo. In the Washington Post, no less.

Cheers,
T

<
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/07/13/russia-is-building-a-new-napster-but-for-academic-research/
>

Russia is building a new Napster -- but for academic research

By Joe Karaganis and Balazs Bodo

July 13 at 7:00 AM

What will future historians will see as the major Russian contribution
to early 21st-century Internet culture? It might not be troll farms and
other strategies for poisoning public conversation -- but rather, the
democratization of access to scientific and scholarly knowledge. Over
the last decade, Russian academics and activists have built free,
remarkably comprehensive online archives of scholarly works. What
Napster was to music, the Russian shadow libraries are to knowledge.

Much of the current attention to these libraries focuses on Sci-Hub, a
huge online library created by Kazakhstan-based graduate student
Aleksandra Elbakyan. Started in 2011, Sci-Hub has made freely available
an archive of over 60 million articles, drawn primarily from paywalled
databases of major scientific publishers. Its audience is massive and
global. In 2017, the service provided nearly 200 million downloads.
Because most scholars in high-income countries already have paid access
to the major research databases through their university libraries, its
main beneficiaries are students and faculty from middle- and low-income
countries, who frequently do not.

Such underground flows of knowledge from more- to less-privileged
universities are not new. But they used to depend on slower and
less-reliable networks, such as developing-world students and faculty
traveling to and from Western universities, bringing back photocopies
and later hard drives full of scholarly work. Sci-Hub scaled this
process up to meet the demand of an increasingly interconnected global
scientific community, where the first barrier to participation was
access to research.

Why Russia?

Academic copying and sharing has created shadow libraries all over the
world. But only the Russian versions have grown into large-scale global
libraries. This was not an accident. From the 1960s on, Russian
intellectual life depended heavily on clandestine copying and
distribution of texts -- on the "samizdat" networks that distributed
uncensored literature and news. The fall of communism ended censorship.
But it also left Russian readers, libraries and publishers impoverished,
trading political constraints for economic ones.

The arrival of cheap scanners and computers fueled the growth of new
self-organized libraries. By the second half of the 1990s, the Russian
Internet -- RuNet -- was awash in book digitization projects run by
intellectuals, activists and other bibliophiles. Texts migrated from
print to digital and sometimes back again. Efforts to consolidate these
projects also sprung up by the dozens. Such digital librarianship was
the antithesis of official Soviet book culture, as it was free,
bottom-up, democratic and uncensored. It also provided a modicum of
cultural agency to Russian intellectuals amid the economic ruin of the
1990s.

The big Russian shadow libraries emerged from this mix of clandestine
librarianship, economic crisis, technological change and -- at the state
level -- regulatory incapacity. By the early 2000s, these shadow
librarians had digitized much of the highest-value Russian scientific
and literary work. By the mid 2000s, the largest of these efforts had
consolidated into an archive called Library Genesis, or LibGen.

LibGen equated survival with redundancy, and so made both its collection
and its software available to others. Almost anyone could clone the
library, and many did. By the late 2000s, the most prominent was the
Gigapedia (later called Library.nu), which began to build a large
English-language collection. When a copyright lawsuit by Western
publishers took down the Gigapedia in 2012, its collection was
re-assimilated into LibGen.

Sci-Hub was built around similar principles. When a user requested an
article, Sci-Hub automatically downloaded that article from publisher
databases, using borrowed faculty credentials. Sci-Hub then archived the
article with LibGen, to fulfill any subsequent requests.

Now, Sci-Hub has its own archive, and LibGen serves as a backup.
According to Elbakyan, the complete archive has been copied many times.

But what about the legal implications?

Much of this activity violates U.S. and international copyright law. In
June 2017, a New York district court awarded $15 million to Elsevier,
one of the handful of publishers that control most of the world's
academic journals, in its lawsuit against Sci-Hub and LibGen. This
hasn't stopped either service. But the legal pressure has forced Sci-Hub
to periodically change hosting services and access methods. None of the
LibGen administrators are named in the suit, but Elbakyan could face
criminal charges if she travels to the United States.

All this has amplified academia's ongoing and intensifying debate about
publishing ethics. Many academics regard their work as part of an open,
cumulative and universal human project. Taxpayer dollars support a large
amount of academic research, so much so that both the United States and
European Union have open access requirements for publicly funded work --
although they have not yet fully figured out how to fund that
requirement. Some Western academics have been boycotting publishers
viewed as profiting unreasonably from their role as middlemen between
academics and their own scholarship.

What comes next?

The U.S. and European open access mandates point to a future that looks
a lot like a legal Sci-Hub: cheap, open and all you can eat. And this
future appears to be getting closer. In mid-May, the largest Swedish
university library consortium dropped its contract with Elsevier,
objecting to the price of database access. Universities have taken
similar actions in Germany and France. In practice, libraries have more
leverage in these negotiations because of Sci-Hub, which offers
researchers a back channel to Elsevier-published articles.

As with the music industry, it's possible that the publishers themselves
will provide these better services and thereby marginalize their pirate
competitors. As with music, publishers are learning that controlling the
platform can be more lucrative than owning the content -- a shift that
has underwritten a variety of publisher experiments with open or hybrid
access models. It's also possible that the combination of legal pressure
abroad and an increasingly repressive Russian state will break the
online and personal networks that sustain the Sci-Hub/LibGen ecosystem.

In the meantime, the Russian shadow libraries will continue to support
the global research community, shift the balance of power between
libraries and publishers, and -- perhaps most important -- raise faculty
and students' expectations about what meaningful access to knowledge
entails, which publishers and universities will need to evolve to meet.

They will, in short, keep the pressure on to find legal ways to expand
access for the tens of millions of new students and researchers entering
global higher education.

Joe Karaganis (@jjkaraganis) is vice president at the American Assembly,
a public policy institute at Columbia University, and editor of "Shadow
Libraries: Access to Knowledge in Global Higher Education" (MIT Press,
2018), downloadable free.

Balazs Bodo (@bodobalazs) is a senior research scientist at the
Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam.

------------------------------

# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l

End of nettime-l Digest, Vol 130, Issue 13
******************************************

Stephen Antonoplis

(818) 317-4105