Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

Was Aaron Swartz Stealing?

Since the July 19th indictment of Aaron Swartz for surreptitiously whooshing nearly five million JSTOR documents onto a laptop concealed in an MIT network closet, there's been a lot of codswallop written about JSTOR, about Aaron Swartz and about the public's right to access documents in the public domain. A 24-year-old computer prodigy and political activist, Swartz has been caricatured as either a hero or a villain; likewise JSTOR. The U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Carmen M. Ortiz, who brought the charges against Swartz: she might be a bit of a villain, okay. Information wants to be free, it's been said. But whether this means free of charge or merely liberated from its confines is a distinction most often left unmade.

What we know so far, if the allegations in the indictment are true: late last year Swartz busted into the MIT network in order to conduct his download in secret, though he has been working at nearby Harvard for many years and has no direct affiliation with MIT. At Harvard, as at pretty much any U.S. university, Swartz would automatically have had full access to JSTOR. It's been widely asserted that Swartz intended to distribute the material he downloaded from JSTOR to the public, e.g. by posting the lot onto a file-sharing site like The Pirate Bay. And it's no wonder that people are saying this, because the government's indictment alleges it directly, but the indictment provides not a single shred of evidence to support these claims.

In a statement released the day the indictment was unsealed, U.S. Attorney Ortiz said: “Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim, whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.” Stealing may be stealing, but exactly what is the theft here? There were a few tweets around the time of the press release pointing out the absurdity of Ortiz's remark: "JSTOR is empty!" "I sincerely hope JSTOR will be able to recover the documents that were stolen from them."

If we want to understand the fix that Aaron Swartz is in, a full understanding of the details is in order. Let's start with JSTOR. What is it?

JSTOR (for Journal Storage) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1994 by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for the purpose of digitizing and distributing academic journals over the wire. The project was hatched at the University of Michigan with an initial $700,000 grant for hardware and software, plus an extra $1.2 million to pay for scanning just "ten core journals in history and economics" (Hardware, scanning and software development were astronomically expensive in those days.)

Seventeen years on, JSTOR digitizes and distributes over 1,400 journals, mostly to schools and libraries. The journals are divided up into different "collections" ("Arts & Sciences VIII," for example, offers 140 titles, including a series of rare 19th and 20th-century art magazines). The price for access to these collections varies wildly, according to the size, nature and location of the subscriber. Access is free for any nonprofit institution on the African continent, for example, and in a number of developing countries in other parts of the world. In the U.S., though, it might cost a four-year college over $50,000 for top-tier access; if you teach or study at a participating institution, you can read all the stuff your institution subscribes to for free.

In order to make these documents available, JSTOR has to license the content from publishers. Negotiating these licenses is a tricky business, not least because an academic journal has generally got a backlog of older content that, though it may be in the public domain, will still have to be scanned and archived. Some publishers charge web users outside the institutional subscription system a per-article fee for access to their stuff, a practice that has enraged many, given that quite a lot of this material is in the public domain, and the publisher's right to paywall such material seems therefore questionable.

A lot of people seem to believe that it doesn't cost anything to make documents available online, but that is absolutely not so. Yes, you can digitize an academic journal and put it online, but if you mean to offer reliable, permanent availability, it costs a huge amount of money just to keep up with the entropy. Plus you have to index the material to make it searchable, not a small job. Everything has to be backed up. When a hard drive fries, when servers or database software become obsolete or break down, when new anti-virus software is required, all this stuff requires a stable and permanent infrastructure and that does not come cheap. Finally, the more traffic you have, the more it costs to maintain fast, uninterrupted server access; you can see this whenever some little blog is mentioned in a newspaper and its server crashes five seconds later. In the case of JSTOR you are looking at many millions of hits every month, and they can't afford any mistakes.

So is JSTOR uniformly a good guy? Maybe not; it would certainly be nice if they would make their public-domain materials available to the general public. But if you are an academic librarian, JSTOR, a nonprofit, probably isn't making your blood boil the way for-profit publishers like NPG (Nature) and Reed Elsevier (The Lancet) do, the latter of which I have seen referred to online as "Lord Voldemort Elsevier" owing to the company's greed and general rapacity (though at least Lord Voldemort E. finally ordered a halt to the arms fairs traditionally thrown by one of its subsidiary companies, after top brass at The Lancet et al. kept screaming their pointy heads off).

Another thing to consider is that academic writers are paid through salaries and grants; they aren't paid (not directly, anyway) for the publication of their work. The whole system of compensation for academic content is very different from commercial publishing. When you pay for a JSTOR article online, none of the money goes to the author, it goes to the publisher.

Why Swartz? Why Now?
Once Swartz had been collared, JSTOR declined to pursue charges against him. (Politico reports that MIT plans to press charges, but university officials have not confirmed.) Indeed JSTOR immediately made a public statement to the effect that they have no beef with Swartz. There are two obvious reasons why the Feds decided to pursue criminal charges anyway. The first is that the Feds were already pissed off at Swartz and were just waiting for a chance to go after him.

In 2008, Swartz, taking advantage of a free trial of PACER, a government database of court records, cleverly automated a download of nearly 20 million documents. This was in response to the call of information activist Carl Malamud for donations of downloaded PACER documents, which ordinarily cost eight cents per page. Malamud's position is that since the public owns these documents, access to them should be easy and free of charge online. In the event, Swartz hadn't broken any laws, so the Feds were forced to drop their investigation. Perhaps a certain resentment lingered.

The other reason for going after Swartz is that he is a progressive activist and passionate champion of the free Internet and of open access. He has been so outspoken about open access in particular that his 2008 "Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto" was removed from its website, apparently in response to Swartz's legal troubles. Indeed, it has got some hairy stuff in it, considering the author's current situation:

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.

On the other hand I could see having left this document online, loud and proud. Because, "stuff that's out of copyright," he plainly says. That throws a particular complexion on the matter.

Open Sesame
So what does Open Access mean, exactly? We have several good prototypes already available and thriving, such as the Public Library of Science (PloS), where scientists all over the world have been publishing their papers openly for years, with no fee for access to anyone anywhere on the Internet ever, all published under Creative Commons licenses. Here is a relevant bit from the PLoS website:

In 2003, PLoS launched a nonprofit scientific and medical publishing venture that provides scientists and physicians with high-quality, high-profile journals in which to publish their most important work. Under the open access model, PLoS journals are immediately available online, with no charges for access and no restrictions on subsequent redistribution or use, as long as the author(s) and source are cited, as specified by the Creative Commons Attribution License.

PloS charges those who wish to publish a fee, usually several thousand dollars, to cover peer review and publishing costs. These fees are ordinarily covered by the researcher's institution.

Keep all that in mind as you read a typical comment recently written by someone who understands bupkes about this thing: one Greg Maxwell, who recently uploaded a 33GB file of JSTOR articles onto The Pirate Bay in protest of the Swartz indictment. (Maxwell says the file contains the whole pre-1923 public domain archive of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.)

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.

This is about twenty kinds of not true. JSTOR is paid (not by the public, but by institutions) for a service, not for content. The money that individuals pay for these articles goes not to JSTOR, but to the publisher that is making the material available.

Let's follow this out a bit. There are nearly 19,000 documents in this 33GB download, and anyone can take them off The Pirate Bay—and then what? It will tax an ordinary home computer quite a lot to search just this one file, the archives of a single journal of the 1,400-plus currently distributed by JSTOR; that's the tiniest drop in the bucket. The practical futility of Maxwell's gesture only demonstrates that JSTOR is providing an invaluable service to the public, even with respect to documents in the public domain—one that could be improved upon, maybe, but completely impossible for individuals to duplicate using existing technologies.

But the worst misapprehension in Maxwell's remarks is his total misunderstanding of what public domain really means. Shakespeare is "part of the shared heritage of all mankind," too, but does that mean you can march into a Barnes & Noble and take any copy of Shakespeare that you want out of there for free? No! You have to pay Barnes & Noble and Penguin Classics or whomever for making it available to you in a form you can use, in this case a book. To fail to appreciate this point is to weaken the argument for open access by depriving it of clarity and focus.

Consider Project Gutenberg, where someone has kindly volunteered the work of scanning all of Shakespeare into digital form, and still other volunteers have provided text cleanup and money and server space and IT work so that you can download Shakespeare there for "free", but, well, no, it's not free; this has cost and is costing someone something, just as public money has been allocated by your local government to pay publishers and librarians to maintain public copies of books that you can borrow. In each case there is work to be done by people who most often need to be paid (and deserve to be paid) for their efforts.

Finally, making a profit off of public domain works is allowed; indeed, it's half the point. You're allowed to make a hip-hop rendition of Shakespeare's sonnets and then sell it to make money. The crux of the matter here is balancing the public interest against private interests; individuals should have the right to be compensated for their work, and the public should be free to reuse and remix the products of our shared culture.

Enter The Lawyers
A lot of open source advocates in the academy are pretty steamed at Aaron Swartz. As Meredith Farkas, the Head of Instructional Services at Portland State University, wrote in an email: "I don't think that releasing copyrighted works to the public is the best way to make the case for opening up scholarship or promoting open access," and this appears to be a widely held view. The thing is, we have absolutely NO indication, and no way of knowing, that Swartz meant to do anything of the kind. And just on the face of it, I can't imagine he did.

It seems far more likely that if he meant to distribute any JSTOR articles on a file-sharing site, he would have stripped out any copyrighted material first (1.7 million of the 4.8 million articles he downloaded, according to the indictment.) That would be child's play for someone like Swartz to do, and it would certainly have decreased his chances of landing in the soup.

Still, the government's indictment alleges that he intended to distribute the stuff to the public "through one or more file-sharing sites," without offering any details as to why they think he was going to do that. If they hope to prove this allegation based solely on the 2008 Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto, it would seem that they have got an uphill climb.

For one thing, Swartz has been working for years on analyzing huge data sets at Harvard and elsewhere. He has a longstanding professional interest in the study of large data sets. Sure, it's a little bit fishy that he didn't use the network at his home institution in order to access JSTOR. If the allegations in the indictment are true, it would also appear that Swartz took steps to cover his tracks in order to escape detection. I could think of a zillion possible reasons for this with one lobe tied behind my back: Did Swartz want to keep the nature of his work secret from a colleague for some professional reason? Had the Harvard IT department refused to permit him to take that much data down?

As many have pointed out, JSTOR has got its own systems for performing analysis on its data, but so what? No hacker of Swartz's abilities would be likely to need or want the kind of help JSTOR could offer him. That would be like telling Ferran Adrià to go to Whole Foods to get stuff for lunch; dude probably will not be coming back with a precooked pizza.

Swartz is being charged with hacker crimes, not copyright-infringement crimes, because he didn't actually distribute any documents, plus JSTOR didn't even want him prosecuted. These charges are: Wire Fraud, Computer Fraud, Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer, Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer, Aiding and Abetting, and Criminal Forfeiture, and Being Too Smart for Being Such a Young Guy, and That Seems Dangerous (I made up only the last bit.)

By far the best analysis of the underlying legal reasoning of the Swartz indictment so far comes from the blog of Max Kennerly, a Philadelphia trial lawyer. Kennerly, too, finds it bizarre that U.S. Attorney Ortiz should be pressing this matter in the absence of any further beef between MIT, JSTOR and Swartz.

I don’t see what societal interest Carmen Ortiz think she’s vindicating with the Swartz indictment. According to Demand Progress, JSTOR already settled their claims with him. What more needs to be done here? The “criminal violation” here arises not from any social duty — like, you know, our society’s communal prohibition on murder — but rather from Swartz “exceeding the authorization” imposed by JSTOR on its servers. Prosecuting Swartz criminally makes less sense than prosecuting telecommunications companies for violating their consumer agreements, and we all know that’s not going to happen any time soon. [...] The whole case looks like the iPhone prototype saga again: a civil claim that some overly aggressive prosecutor is trying to dress up as a federal crime.

In order to prove the claim of wire fraud, Kennerly says, Ortiz will have to prove that Swartz meant to defraud JSTOR, which really means "defraud out of money."

I asked Kennerly about this. If Swartz really intended to make the JSTOR documents available on a file-sharing site as the indictment claims, thereby potentially preventing publishers from getting their JSTOR fees, is it still technically "defrauding" even if no money were ever to change hands? He replied (and this is some dense stuff, but please bear with me and get on in there, because it's crucial):

That's a good point you raise, and it could potentially complete the circle to show fraudulent intent. Assuming a jury finds, as a factual matter, that Swartz intended to release the documents, the prosecutors will likely argue that it's a "fraud" because Swartz was only allowed onto JSTOR's servers on the condition that he abide by its rules; if his intent was to release the documents to the public, that would break those rules, and so he "defrauded" JSTOR by misrepresenting his intentions when accessing it.
Consider the Skilling v. United States case (PDF) from the Supreme Court last year (yup, Skilling as in the guy from Enron). Scroll to III(A)(1):

Enacted in 1872, the original mail-fraud provision, the predecessor of the modern-day mail- and wire-fraud laws, proscribed, without further elaboration, use of the mails to advance “any scheme or artifice to defraud.” See McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 356 (1987) . In 1909, Congress amended the statute to prohibit, as it does today, “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” §1341 (emphasis added); see id., at 357–358. Emphasizing Congress’ disjunctive phrasing, the Courts of Appeals, one after the other, interpreted the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include deprivations not only of money or property, but also of intangible rights.

[You can see how the reasoning would be bound to differ a lot, depending on whether or not you were talking about materials already in the public domain.]

In an opinion credited with first presenting the intangible-rights theory, Shushan v. United States, 117 F. 2d 110 (1941), the Fifth Circuit reviewed the mail-fraud prosecution of a public official who allegedly accepted bribes from entrepreneurs in exchange for urging city action beneficial to the bribe payers. “It is not true that because the [city] was to make and did make a saving by the operations there could not have been an intent to defraud,” the Court of Appeals maintained. Id., at 119. “A scheme to get a public contract on more favorable terms than would likely be got otherwise by bribing a public official,” the court observed, “would not only be a plan to commit the crime of bribery, but would also be a scheme to defraud the public.” Id., at 115.

The prosecutor would say the copyrighted articles were both "property" and, if that didn't work (and I can see it not working) that the copyrights were an "intangible right," like described above.

If I was Swartz's lawyer, though, I would turn around and say: the absence of any pecuniary gain for Swartz removes it from "fraud." The release of those documents is almost certainly copyright infringement, but that's not the same thing as "fraud." Consider this further part of the Skilling case:

In 1987, this Court, in McNally v. United States, stopped the development of the intangible-rights doctrine in its tracks. McNally involved a state officer who, in selecting Kentucky’s insurance agent, arranged to procure a share of the agent’s commissions via kickbacks paid to companies the official partially controlled. 483 U. S., at 360. The prosecutor did not charge that, “in the absence of the alleged scheme[,] the Commonwealth would have paid a lower premium or secured better insurance.” Ibid. Instead, the prosecutor maintained that the kickback scheme “defraud[ed] the citizens and government of Kentucky of their right to have the Commonwealth’s affairs conducted honestly.” Id., at 353.

We held that the scheme did not qualify as mail fraud. “Rather than constru[ing] the statute in a manner that leaves its outer boundaries ambiguous and involves the Federal Government in setting standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials,” we read the statute “as limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Id. , at 360. “If Congress desires to go further,” we stated, “it must speak more clearly.” Ibid .

If I was Swartz's lawyer, I'd say we have a McNally issue here. Congress has already spoken on what it means when someone wrongfully distributes someone else's written works: it's a copyright infringement. He didn't deprive anyone of property, he had more copies than they liked. If he intended to distribute them, well, that's an "intent to infringe on copyright," which isn't a crime.

What will the judge do? Beats me. Odds are she or he will send it to a jury to decide on its own what Swartz's intent really was, and, frankly, I can see them acquitting him as lacking the sort of malicious "mens rea" we think of as criminal. At that point the case would be dead. If they convict him, maybe these issues will go to the appellate courts.

Aaron, I Am Your Father
"An indictment is an allegation," Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig wrote in a recent statement regarding the Swartz case published on the Media Freedom website. "[...] It is one side in a dispute." Lessig, one of the strongest advocates for open access and copyright reform in this country, indeed in the world, has been connected to Swartz for a long time. He brought Swartz on board to design the metadata format for Creative Commons, which Lessig co-founded. Here is how old Aaron Swartz was at that point:

It would not be far off to characterize Lessig as Swartz's mentor. From the same statement:

I can’t believe Aaron did this for personal gain. Unlike, say, Wall Street (and what were the penalties they suffered?), this wasn’t behavior designed to make the man rich. Nor, if the allegations are true, was this behavior designed to interfere with any of JSTOR's activity. It wasn’t a denial of service. It wasn’t designed to take any facility down.

What it was is unclear. What the law will say about it is even more unclear. What is not unclear, however, to me at least, is the ethical wrong here. I have endless respect for the genius and insight of this extraordinary kid. I cherish his advice and our friendship. But I am sorry if he indeed crossed this line. It is not a line I believe it right to cross, even if it is a line that needs to be redrawn, by better laws better tuned to the times.

Information activists like Lessig and Carl Malamud have been very vocal in their condemnation of the tendency of academic publishers to keep their materials locked up for the benefit of "elite" institutions like American universities. Lessig gave a rousing April keynote address on this and related topics at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research ("The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge: Just How Badly We Have Messed This Up"). He was deliberately preaching to the choir, here, in a widely visible forum; it's an important address, well worth watching. CERN is at the forefront of the open access movement, having adopted in 2005 a specific open access publications policy to encourage the free dissemination of scientific research and information. Physicists generally have spearheaded open access initiatives around the world with spectacular results, including the arXiv open access system for publishing scientific papers here in the U.S.

Still, there was maybe an injudicious statement or two in this speech. At one point Lessig showed a slide of a tweet made by Malamud: "Jstor is so morally offensive. $20 for a six-page article, unless you happen to work at a fancy school." (Actually no, though, it's not JSTOR that is making this money, it's free if you are in a developing country, and so on.) If the Aaron Swartz case clarifies the position of open access advocates with respect to nonprofit services like JSTOR, that at least will be a good thing.

The conclusion of Lessig's CERN presentation is particularly stirring.

We need to recognize in the academy, I think, an ethical obligation [...] An ethical obligation which is at the core of our mission. Our mission is universal access to knowledge—not American university access to knowledge, but universal access to knowledge in every part of the globe.

We don't need, for our work, exclusivity; and we shouldn't practice, with our work, exclusivity. And we should name those who do, wrong. Those who do are inconsistent with the ethic of our work.

The aims and ideals of Aaron Swartz can, I believe, be laid to some degree at this man's door. That is something I would be very proud of, if I were Lawrence Lessig. Whatever the results of the government's actions against Swartz—and whether or not those actions are ultimately motivated by an instinct toward intellectual property protectionism of the kind demonstrated by the RIAA and others in the U.S.—there can be little doubt that the motives of people like Lawrence Lessig and Aaron Swartz spring from a desire to serve the public good. To that extent we are in their debt, rather than the reverse.

Maria Bustillos is the author of Dorkismo and Act Like A Gentleman, Think Like A Woman.

Top photo by Jacob Appelbaum; photo of Lessig and Swartz by Rich Gibson.

86 Comments / Post A Comment

deepomega (#1,720)

This was wonderful. I admit I came in here with a lot of preconceptions and you did a methodical job of shutting them down and painting a nuanced picture of the issues at stake here. It's interesting though – the entire culture and financial structure of research universities is bent towards shitty publication systems. Every part of it! It's hard to figure out how they could do it better without some really fundamental changes to how researchers are paid, publishing is funded, etc.

jfruh (#713)

@deepomega Hear hear! The thoroughly dysfunctional academic publishing system is a good example for why thoroughly dysfunctional systems across the world don't get fixed. "But if we change this aspect of the system, these perfectly nice (or at least not actively harmful) people who have been playing the rules of the game as given for years will be screwed! So, we'll just keep muddling ahead."

Annie K. (#3,563)

@deepomega Amen to everything you said. Aaaa-men. I'm glad to benefit from JSTOR and I'm glad I don't have to figure out research universities and the shitty publication systems.

Quixote@twitter (#240,751)

A postscript to this discussion:

The arrogant government prosecutors who, in effect, murdered Aaron, as well as the irresponsible academics who shrugged their shoulders in indifference and the various media outlets that gleefully reported on his arrest, should think carefully about the lack of proportion in our criminal justice system, and the devastating impact it can have on the lives of talented people.

Authorities in New York have undertaken a similarly disproportionate assault on Internet freedom involving an academic issue, arresting and prosecuting a blogger who sent out “Gmail confessions” in which a well-known New York University department chairman appeared to be foolishly accusing himself of plagiarism. Again, there appears to be nothing but silence from the relevant communities. For further information on the case, see:

@deepomega In fact i once attempted(influenced by americans), to educate my friends on concept of copyright and that they should respect the rights of content creators. They listened carefuly until the part where i proposed that they should either pay for terrabites of stuff they have accumulated or get rid of it. Needless to say they laughed in my face. Now after hearing what happened to Aron, i think they were right. Screw the copyright...

iantenna (#5,160)

this was fantastic, thanks. i haven't held a copy of nature since like 2002 but the mere mention of its name still makes my blood boil. i will say, though, and i know that you weren't necessarily equating these issues, and i do hate the riaa with a fucking passion as both a music business professional and fan, but i think the intellectual property issues related to music/film/art are wildly different than those in the field of academics and should be treated as such.

jfruh (#713)

" Shakespeare is "part of the shared heritage of all mankind," too, but does that mean you can march into a Barnes & Noble and take any copy of Shakespeare that you want out of there for free? No! You have to pay Barnes & Noble and Penguin Classics or whomever for making it available to you in a form you can use, in this case a book. To fail to appreciate this point is to weaken the argument for open access by depriving it of clarity and focus."

Oh my God this is so perfect. So worth bringing up for everyone who wants all information to be completely free all the time.

C_Webb (#855)

@jfruh Agreed. Analogy as ammunition! Thanks Maria!

sbma44 (#2,565)

Actually, it's not a very good analogy at all:

The article massively overstates the cost and complexity of what JSTOR does.

Joel Rosenbaum (#6,565)

@sbma44 Actually, you didn't read the article. I'd suggest you read it again (or for the first time, as it may be).

El Dog@twitter (#22,428)

@jfruh the thing is, if you read a work, and learn it by heart, it will be yours forevermore…that seems to be similar the case here, except JSTOR was too much data to fit into one brain in one lifetime, na'amsayin? (and also swartz allegdly didn't have the permission to copy the stuff into his computer the way buying a book allows you to copy the stuff into your brain)

C_Webb (#855)

Over the last eight years, my scholarly publications have earned me a grand total of $11.78, which I would gladly donate to help this kid, if I didn't have less than that in the bank right now.

I'm mostly just surprised that this has turned into a reasonable discussion of the topic at hand rather than a chorus of "only my HEARRRRT!" responses to the titular question.

iantenna (#5,160)

@Gef the Talking Mongoose dude sure did grow up nice, didn't he? or perhaps i'm just a sucker for a beard.

Tulletilsynet (#333)

@Gef the Talking Mongoose
As usual with la Barnhouse, it's all information and nuance and zero bloggerish attitude.

karenjeannette (#2,499)

i work at a nonprofit scholarly press in the journals division. i hope you'll allow me a couple of minor quibbles. one, saying "none of the money goes to the author, it goes to the publisher" makes it sound rather like publishers are raking it in, when in reality there are way more small nonprofit presses than there are elseviers. two, the per-article fee doesn't go directly to publishers. part of it does. what we get basically helps offset the loss of print sales our publications have been experiencing for years now.

anyway, as you might imagine i'm a little less eager than some other commenters here to say that the whole scholarly publishing system is broken. that's not because i think it works especially well, but mostly because nobody seems to have a good alternative and academics seem to forget how badly they need editing and other aspects of journal production that publishers provide.

all that having been said, this is the best thing i've read about this whole kerfuffle and that includes plenty of industry discussion.

SidAndFinancy (#4,328)

@karenjeannette How much larger would the share of the per-article fee going to publishers have to be to afford capital letters?

dntsqzthchrmn (#2,893)

Here's an idea. (Cover your eyes, DeepOmega.) What if we change the listings requirements for stock exchanges so that only companies that it would be socially beneficial to drive into the ground can raise capital through public offerings of shares. Education, agriculture, mmmkay publishing too — off limits. Because ANYTHING that lists has started its death clock of quarterly reports, costcutting measures, creative destruction etc etc.

deepomega (#1,720)

@dntsqzthchrmn it;s harf ti typd wuth m eyed clised

This was great, Maria.

I can't believe I read the whole thing! This was terrific.

Content and access, folks, have value.

JoshUng (#11,371)

Great article. I think its important to understand that free means there is no cost. Police are free, but you have to pay taxes, roads are free but you may have to pay tolls.

Even though much scholarly work doesn't pay, or pay well, there would be a lot less of it if it was guaranteed to not make any money, or even lose money when factoring backup, servers, etc.

TheRtHonPM (#10,481)

Elsevier! God. Remember when they published a fake medical journal on Merck's behalf, whose only job was to made Merck's drugs look good?

David (#192)

You know, these days if you have a library card, and then have access to everything in the "library" you just might be charged with "intent to distribute" … that is, if you make too many 10-cent a page copies on the third floor and someone notices.

GoGoGojira (#2,871)

@David I like the Copyright Librarian's comparison better:

"Maybe a better comparison story would be this: someone goes to an open-to-the-public library, and starts taking lots of journals off the shelves and photocopying them. The library staff asks this Someone to stop, because he's making it hard for the other patrons to use the journals, and because he's copying in such volume that they have some copyright concerns (yeah, yeah, I don't want libraries to be the copyright police. But the 17 U.S.C. § 108 limitations on libraries' liability for patron copying don't really protect libraries from known large-scale questionable use of their resources, and we're talking some pretty darn large-scale photocopying.) Someone persists in the copying, so much so that the journals are all unusably out of order (JSTOR's servers allegedly overloaded), the copiers break (MIT's network allegedly got stressed), and the journal distributors even refuse to deliver new issues until the library does more to stop this Someone's copying (JSTOR turned off service to the whole MIT campus for multiple days, eventually.) Nevertheless, this Someone still wants to copy, so he breaks in to the library at night to continue going about his business. And no one sues him for copyright infringement, and the distributors and the library let things drop when he finally knocks it off. But the prosecutors step in and bring charges against him for messing up the journals, breaking the copiers, and breaking in to the library."

MikeBarthel (#1,884)

From what I'm familiar with, Lessig's comment about Swartz's actions being unethical are rooted in a debate that people who do Internet research are currently engaged in: even if ToS agreements are themselves unethical, is it ethical for you to violate them for legitimate research purposes? The consensus (again, from what I've seen, which YMMV) seems to be that no, it's not. For better or worse, the users of that site agreed to those terms of service, and so the ethical wrong is to the users, not the company. Facebook's ToS forbid "scraping" data, for instance, and while it's technically possible to do so, you would have a very hard time getting an article published that used such techniques. You are, after all, analyzing the data of actual Facebook users, and as far as they knew, no one, no matter their intentions, would be using a program to automatically download their data en masse. In this case the ethical wrong is slightly more diffuse given the issues you outline here as to who JSTOR actually represent. But I think Lessig's position is that, even if the violation was for good reasons, it goes against the consent of JSTOR's content providers, and as researchers, we're not supposed to violate consent.

To truly fulfill the spirit of public domain, JSTOR would be priced within the budget of a public library.

barnhouse (#1,326)

@Butterscotch Stalin actually, it is! The price depends on all these parameters, including the size of the community you serve, etc. etc. For a small public library in a small community, access is way, way less.

There are a lot of allusions to a notion of access as a part of the public domain in the piece itself and the authors' quoted, but everyone skirts around this concept as if the general public couldn't possibly have a curiosity about these materials. Just the usual emotional appeals against "elitism" and so on, which don't elaborate on real access you can find in your neighborhood.

@barnhouse So do they do it? Because I didn't mention "budget" for nothing. Whether it's "way, way less" is one thing, whether it's compelling enough at the price is entirely different.

barnhouse (#1,326)

@Butterscotch Stalin Short answer: I think so? The terms are here and really pretty interesting, I think.

@barnhouse Yes, interesting in that they provide a hobbled, piecemeal "lite" version of JSTOR to public libraries. The Public Library I & II collections are much, much less than what's available at El Camino Community College in Torrance, for example.

The important part of the argument is providing the public domain works at a reasonable cost, which they completely sidestep even in the academic tiers, with "Archive" and "Current" forms of the database, and an entirely separate, almost completely public domain content "Primary Sources" archive (also available for public libraries, and the cheapest – but again, most likely to fall beyond a budgeting decision). And of course, no distinction made for a journal that started prior to 1923.

While there are obviously some cost issues to scanning an 1887 journal, a licensed 1937 journal may have deteriorated even more. And it's silly not to consider economies of scale. JSTOR created a fee structure that makes public domain works more expensive, and cuts most of those works out of the packages they offer to the most public of institutions.

The LA Public Library doesn't have JSTOR, although they have an extensive database selection. I think they realized they could provide more materials from a variety of sources, rather than waste money on JSTOR Lite. A good question is whether they can even purchase academic access, since that sounds like something ripe for obscure licensing terms.

barnhouse (#1,326)

Actually, am not at all sure about the "hobbled" thing, in practical terms. And the question of JSTOR cost issues is really more to do with asking each institution to bear some fair share of the cost of providing the infrastructure as a whole.

The biggest point is that before JSTOR and related services, you had little to no chance of searching and/or acquiring reprints of journal articles, in or out of copyright, without visiting a brick and mortar library in a big university or a big city library. There's no reason to expect this service for free; it doesn't just fall out of the sky.

@barnhouse It absolutely is hobbled. Arts & Sciences I-IX average over 120 titles each, but the Public Library I collection is described vaguely as "More than 500 titles across 40 disciplines," and no page count to make a comparison (unlike the other collections), or any indication that the archive is complete. On the plus side, the Public Library II and Life Sciences collections are the same.

How do you feel about Google Books being the gatekeeper to so much literature? Except Google books has the decency to make public domain work freely available. It doesn't resolve whether Google or JSTOR is an effective steward of content in general, and the question is still open whether the hard-copy archives will allow anyone else access, giving potential donors and investors in new projects pause.

But speaking of donors, you gloss over Project Gutenberg all too briefly. PG has expanded beyond simple printed material into illustrated works, some which approach gigabyte sizes. Not to mention a project like Librivox. Or, which has it's own non-HTML content archive that's quite broad. How do they manage their costs? I don't think it's very different from the means Wikipedia uses, although WP probably serves a lot more data.

All of those above projects come out of the broad information freedom movement, from operating systems and software to the content those things serve. People who identify with that movement are well-placed in the Internet infrastructure to provide network resources (the list of companies that provide mirroring for PG is informative). They are also able to donate hardware and provide coding work to manage OCR, image scanning, collaborative proofreading, and content management.

It's surprising in that context (especially in re: Wikipedia) that you make the argument that – paraphrasing – they need to charge at least something to cover costs.

We are talking about the basic texts in the development of science and ideas in their original context. It's a form of historical narrative in itself. That JSTOR makes no allowances to access this separately makes them a bad steward of our knowledge.

barnhouse (#1,326)

@Butterscotch Stalin (I am loving this conver!! btw.) Yes, hmm, I tried but couldn't manage to get hold of financials for JSTOR. Without seeing those, it is impossible to say anything about it for sure, right?

If you were to pay everyone $10 for each hour invested in Project Gutenberg (since 1974!!!) I wonder how much it would come to.

One of the commenters above, karenjeannette, made a very salient point, I thought. Longstanding academic journals may have teeny-tiny little audiences but the whole corpus of what each has published is valuable in a different way, tracing a thread of inquiry through a whole discipline over many decades. But they are all sucking wind, like all publishers are. What such publishers are doing is kind of herding and preserving this information. (Again, it's a valuable service.) If readers aren't willing to help defray the cost of keeping these institutions together, they are going to go the way of brick and mortar bookstores.

@barnhouse There's a lot more that I could comment on, but I've come to the conclusion that JSTOR has no interest in either selling to public libraries or breaking up their collection into manageable historical units.

They claim "130 Public Libraries in 32 countries participate in JSTOR." This is in comparison to the American Library Association's figure of 9,221 public library systems in the US.

This is also compared to the real breadth and granularity of Gale/InfoTrac's offerings.

The only reason JSTOR has the "mindshare" they do is because of their focus on higher education, and so the descriptions of them as elitist and so on seem much more appropriate now.

Basically they are a bad company and they should die.

Tulletilsynet (#333)

@Butterscotch Stalin
Late to the party, but this is a great show.

barnhouse (#1,326)

Before the Internet was a gleam in anybody's eye, it was very rare for public libraries to house any academic journals at all; only the very largest metropolitan libraries did so, and then only the biggest journals. If you lived in a city of any size (just like now!) you would naturally go to the local college or university for access to this kind of material (and to the people whose interests they serve.)

The specialist nature of the material that JSTOR handles means small audiences, means more expensive. There's nothing so wicked about that. Mind you, this discussion is really, erm. Academic, without the relevant numbers.

@barnhouse Yes, I'm aware of what life was like Before the Internet. However, these days you can't even enter the Charles E. Young Research Library at UCLA without swiping your BruinCard; it's similar at USC. It's possible to walk into the Powell Library, but they don't have journals, and you have to login to access online resources in the computer lab (even if you go when they aren't checking IDs), which is the case for any higher ed library or computer lab.

The LAPL doesn't seem to have any problems providing electronic access to academic journals, but they do it mostly through Gale/InfoTrac, which has a far more flexible and à la carte means of ordering, as opposed to the all-or-nothing approach JSTOR allows libraries.

But that's not material to the subject of providing access to public domain works, since "the whole corpus of what each [journal] has published is valuable in a different way, tracing a thread of inquiry through a whole discipline over many decades." It's history now.

When I started thinking about this subject several days ago, I considered an example from 1858 in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 3 (20 August), which received a pretty indifferent response at the time. The article itself is available, but I figured the context within the journal was restricted. Not so. The same context for a much less important article by the same author in the Proceedings of the Geological Society of London costs $30 for each separate article. And that year is not available on any other online source that I've found so far (the BHL may have it in its sights, so up yours, Geological Society!).

The BHL example highlights how it's not up to the journals themselves to decide who gets access to what's in the public domain. This makes what JSTOR does all the more grasping and self-serving when they approach archives with no available funds to scan works. While scanning texts doesn't require unbinding anymore, it still requires a white-gloved archivist to oversee the handling of volumes and – depending on policy and condition – to turn each page. This means hours and hours of the archive's time. The return they get beyond payment for their time is a digital copy of the work, which is a strong disincentive to go through the process again with another project, no matter how well-intentioned or flush with cash they may be. Money isn't going to compensate for the potential damage from opening each and every volume all over again.

barnhouse (#1,326)

@Butterscotch Stalin (wow I didn't even know that about the UCLA library! the big URL one?! I used to go there all the time when I lived on that side of town, even when I wasn't taking an extension class… hmm.)

Anyways, you make a good point about certain once-esoteric public domain documents becoming more valuable to interested citizens as history unfolds. The question is, what is the best way to make those documents available, seeing how they are liable to be very few and far between in the whole corpus of academic literature? Your argument is like that of Nicholson Baker (in Double Fold, let me hasten to add); he drove all the librarians crazy, too. The work to be done here is both expensive and complicated, and who's payin'?

A lot of commenters here have taken me to task over their perceived non-complexity of what JSTOR does technologically (which, I don't know, I am a dot-com refugee who used to spend her days wrangling with Oracle programmers, and I do not think that database optimization for fast searches is such a piece of cake as all that), but really it's not the technology it's the organization and the design and implementation of fast, efficient, super-reliable interfaces that creates the problem. The hidden human cost of these things has brought many a startup down before now.

Believe you me, what I really think is that Google (or equiv.) should be nationalized, so in a lot of ways we are on the same page. The question is, again, given the existing constraints we're laboring under, who should pay, and how?

p.s. I always find it a little chilling when you search Google books and a stray thumb has gotten in the picture. They don't always bother with the gloves!

@barnhouse A regret I had about moving on from school was losing access to their electronic materials. I didn't personally find JSTOR all that helpful; I needed more primary sources, but having access to a heap of medical databases was also really nice.

I may very well have read Baker's extract in The New Yorker and filtered some of those ideas into here. Reading up on that book reminded me of the acid paper problem, and how exposing the pages of a bound volume to air was the biggest contributor to their decay. I also wrote out, for a response I never made here, my own experience at how mind-deadening scrolling through microfilm was. It's pretty clear to me from using ReCAPTCHA (a Google company!) that they've scanned a lot of microfilm and had some problems using software to read it.

Still, he's more focused on preservation, and I'm mostly only considering here it when it may have an impact on access. And who's paying for it? Something I guess I've been too subtle about is how generous the nerds are. They like books! And the history of ideas! And most of them aren't prone to flaunting their wealth with material things. And again, that charity may not be monetary, but involve lobbying their companies to donate bandwidth or servers, or donating time to write code or manage upgrades.

Which is a good segue: one of the things the open-source software movement (a subset of the free information movement) did was change the way hardware was implemented for very powerful computing tasks. It was things like a university's IT service finding itself with hundreds of somewhat out-of-date desktops saying to the CS department, "What fun things can we do with this stuff?" That there's a lot of crossover in student staff with CS students helps, and university IT employees aren't as overworked like in the corporate world.

Out of this came open-source implementations of all kinds of networked computers. And companies also started to see the benefit of failure-resistant networked servers for uptime (even using a smaller number of mainframe-style servers that have everything hot-swappable, it's considerably more expensive to maintain and upgrade them). The networking hardware can still be expensive, but it's platform agnostic, and it can be upgraded independently. So now there's not such a big gap in the hardware used by the consumer and by "the enterprise," except for network devices and storage networks.

One thing to remember about commercial search implementations is that there's a lot more than just search going on with a query. Google needs to monetize as much as it can, so it parses your query in ways you'd rather not think about. Even so, Wikipedia search is about on par with an old Lycos query and they rely a lot on title redirects to lighten that load too. But both Google and WP are outliers due to volume.

Database management hasn't been static either, but the new schemas with search engine applications look like they need some time to mature. I don't know how interested you are in revisiting this stuff, but some examples are NoSQL, Apache Cassandra, and column-oriented DBMS.

As somebody mentioned below, the biggest ongoing expense is probably going to be competent administrators who can tie all this stuff together.

I would rather they be an NGO, don't you read Greenwald?

And yeah, I'd like to be a fly-on-the-wall at an archivist conference. Google seems to feel that if they have the means to gather data, then they need to do it as soon as possible, and let their big pockets solve all the things that their engineers overlook. They sure don't act like they have a QA department.

skahammer (#587)

I presume Maria B. is pretty much a shoo-in for a Pulitzer at this point.

darthchewie (#12,569)

Maria, you defend Swartz because you say there is "not a single shred of evidence" that he intended to distribute the stuff to the public, yet you also want to laud him as a hero for his "desire to serve the public good." Well, which is it?

To those commenters who are raging at paywalls, do you realize that licensing fees from online databases are keeping academic publishing afloat? And that if they disappeared, academic publishers would disappear as well, and with them the tenured professors and the knowledge they produce? And then there would be no knowledge to "liberate"? Knowledge does not just float around out there in the cloud, contrary to what some seem to believe. It has to be made, and that is costly.

If Swartz were really a genius, he would have come up with some kind of viable financing for making this stuff more widely available. Now he is likely going to prison for an immature and pointless prank. If this is a hero, we need better ones.

C_Webb (#855)

@darthchewie How would tenured professors disappear? We receive credit for the depth and persuasiveness of our work and the influence it has in our fields, not the amount of money it makes — little to none of which we ever see. With all due respect to academic publishers, I don't think that's your best angle for argument. I completely understand why JSTOR needs to charge fees of some kind, but as long as scholarly work is correctly quoted and cited, I really don't see how open access would affect the tenure process, or the knowledge "produced."

sbma44 (#2,565)

@darthchewie what C_Webb said. Also: please to explain how arXiv exists and thrives.

Spend a little time reading Derek Lowe's blog and you'll see that peer review isn't all it's cracked up to be. We don't need journals any more.

darthchewie (#12,569)

@CWebb The reason they would disappear is that departments assess the quality of publications by looking at the prestige of the venue. Top journals and top presses matter in the tenure process. No one has ever gotten tenure for something posted on a website. If JSTOR stops charging and moves to an open model, these venues will shrink in number, and professors will have fewer ways to get promoted.

And if you think that universities are going to start recognizing "open" publications, let me warn you.
The siren song to go to an open system is getting louder just at the moment that many universities are replacing professors with poorly paid adjuncts. The disappearance of tenure-worthy publications outlets would suit the universities just fine. It would turn academia into a world of adjuncts.

There has been virtually no discussion of how the call for "open" or "wiki" publication systems reinforces the broader casualization of academic labor.

darthchewie (#12,569)

@sbma44 I would be happy to explain to you why arXiv exists and is flourishing. The reason is because the people who contribute to it and support it all have traditional, tenured jobs and have previously published in traditional, tenure-worthy outlets. The economic support they receive from the traditional university system frees them to do arXiv on the side for free. If that traditional system were completely replaced by a model like arXiv, then arXiv would disappear as well, because the people who maintain it would be working at Starbuck's.

Key fact you are overlooking: most of the papers on arXiv are drafts of papers that are currently under submission to traditionally recognized outlets that will go behind a JSTOR paywall. The reason professors are able to create papers and post them on arXiv is because the papers ALSO have value behind a paywall. If that paywall venue disappeared, they'd no longer be posting on arXiv, either.


vespavirgin (#1,422)

This is wonderful, and thank you for doing the hard work to back up my own personal opinions, Ms. B. The one thing that vexes me is this: why was Swartz at first claiming to be a co-founder of reddit? The real reddit co-founder, Alexis Ohanian, had to do a lot of fretful writing to explain the sit, which was that Swartz owned a company that reddit purchased, and Swartz was given reddit co-founder status as a part of that purchase. But Swartz had been saying he was involved in coding and development, which he decidedly was not. And this concerns me about Swartz–why is he lying about that? He's a smart enough guy that he doesn't need to have reddit on his resume. I dunno. But srsly, the JSTOR is empty!

eiColline22 (#21,121)

post is awesome! I'll give you my two thumbs up…

joshc (#442)

This article is phenomenal. My only minor complaint is including NPG and Elsevier in the same breath. Nature Publishing allows authors to retain copyright, allows them to blog and present their research, post preprints on personal websites, and takes care of archiving preprints into public domain servers like PubMed Central with the click of a checkbox. They even do Creative Commons!


joeclark (#651)

I support the consensus that Bustillo’s piece is thorough and solid, but like everything over 350 words published here it desperately needs copy- and line-editing and better HTML. Like scientific publishing, these too cost.

This is a very good, and balanced, writeup of the whole ordeal.

The one point I would take issue with, is the debate over how much it costs from a technical standpoint to run something like JSTOR.

The actual hardware and hosting costs would be very inexpensive to any company that is technically savvy. It would cost more to pay the programmers and network admins than to host the servers. (This may have been what you meant.)

You are less than correct on some of your assertions, especially the indispensability of JSTOR with regards to making a large database of content available, and it deserving to cover its (perceived or claimed) costs.

If this were the case, something like Wikipedia would be impossible.

"Oh!" you say, "but Wikipedia runs pledge drives every year to cover their costs!"

And this is true. But they also make their full archive (minus pictures that might have copyright ambiguity) available. It can be mirrored by anyone, and is mirrored by many. (That's why you see so many search results that are the same regurgitated WP content.)

Bottom line is that at this point, bandwidth is less costly by an order of magnitude or more than it was in 1994. Today, just about anyone could be a JSTOR. And many are doing precisely that. Perhaps you've also heard of Google Books?

The rest I won't touch, because while I regard the copyright/ownership issue moot, the fact still would seem to be that Swartz made unauthorized access to a secured computer, and that's a felony, and he's going to be punished for that, at the very least.

Dougal (#12,302)

Just for the record: Greg Maxwell probably knows more about these matters than Miss Bustillos and has done more for humanity (via aka FLAC, ogg/vorbis/theora) than she will ever do.

JSTOR provides a service to academics, Greg provided a service to us (via Pirate Bay): they're just computer files and we can download them from him.

egh (#21,456)

Thanks! It's really great to see people talking about these important issues in the (somewhat!) mainstream press. Outside of computer and library circles, that is.

While it is certainly true that a service like jstor costs money, I do think that you are overestimating the difficulty of providing this service. That 33GB of journals, for instance, is really going to be only about 2GB of text, max. The rest is page images. My desktop keeps a full text index of more mail than that. It's really not that big a deal anymore. Even multiplied by 1500, it's not out of the question.

Of course it costs money! But there is money out there. For instance, the project (sponsored by the non-profit Internet Archive) provides full-text search to 2 million books – a 3 TB (3000 GB) index.

The thing that is holding back free access to this data is not money. If we pooled together the money that libraries spend on licenses for this content, we could build systems open to anybody in the world that could serve all our needs. Easily. The issue is that the copyrights are owned by people who are extracting money by charging very high prices because they are the only way that you can get access. And these copyright holders are not (generally) the authors.

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking jstor – I imagine that most of their money goes back to the publishers as well.

egh (#21,456)

@egh To be even more clear: this is a good article! Thank you for writing it! It's really important.

GoGoGojira (#2,871)

Okay. I have to say that I'm honestly disappointed, since you don't actually state what happened or what's involved in the charges. (Keep in mind that this criticism isn't unique to *this* article, there seems to be a dire lack of factual information floating around about this case.) I defer to the Copyright Librarian, who lays out the facts and misconceptions very clearly.

El Dog@twitter (#22,428)

why does every article about this guy have that same picture? you know, the one that makes him look like a roguishly handsome modern-day pirate?

What a poorly written article that is contains a fair of amount of misinformation. I like you pretend to be a computer scientist on the internet.

If you weren't pretending you would know that basically every modern operating system does pre-indexed searching now out of the box. Even a low end computer with a modern operating system could search a 33 GB folder with in nearly real time for content not just filenames. So JSTOR service is very poor in comparison. But whatever, don't let facts get in the way of you pandering to JSTOR.

Cesira (#57,474)

There is an important dimension to the 'guarded knowledge economy' story that is entirely overlooked in the commentary and response to this article. This is the nearly universal failure of university managers to inform themselves of this (and other) cost drivers in the organisations they direct and control.

By capping the total library spend to a fixed percentage of the overall budget, these managers assume they are controlling costs rather than eviscerating the knowledge commons available to their undergraduates who they routinely charge more and more each year for less and less.
This budgetary behaviour is further evidence of mismanagement, of a serious failure to understand the difference between purchasing computers and sustaining the seed bank of knowledge production they are charged with managing. It is noteworthy that In the many dozens of published academic articles on this subject, I know of none which report initiatives by managers . Indeed the most valuable empirical research on the subject has been produced by librarias who have been the assiduous in trying to draw attention to the problem.

IWe need to ask hard questions about the competence of university controllers and yet there is little evidence that any section of the media is willing to do so. Why have tenured professors chosen to ignore the transformation of academic publishing, just as they have ignored casualization of the academic labour force.

It is commendable that the true guardians of knowledge production, our librarians and open-access researchers have taken the initiative to find solutions. What is disgraceful is the lack of detailed attention to how this and other knowledge resources are being managed and the weight it may have in the overall fees that undergraduates now pay.

Retired Senior Lecturer

barnhouse (#1,326)

@Cesira Thank you for this great comment. In the US at least, what you call the "casualization of the academic labour force" has not gone unnoticed. A number of excellent and widely-read books have been written on the subject, notably Bill Readings's The University in Ruins and Frank Donoghue's The Last Professors.

The links between the public, the media and the academy have grown weak in these troubled economic times. But many in media are doing their best to bring awareness to what many see as the corporate assault on the academy.

Sam Cannon (#172,685)

There are fighters who are still alive. Google "Maslow Imbroglio" to see some history. If a book is re-published as "Maslow on Management" it is not the same as "Eupsychian Management," a title chosen by Maslow. And, one might ask, "Why does a writer write?"

dvh (#240,758)

This article is confusing. Why would anyone justify JSTORs' exorbitant fees? If you want to really clearify the situation why not reveal their nonprofit percent to program, actual fees paid to rights holders, fees paid to attorneys ( the real catch?) and the salaries received by employees and officers of JSTOR. As far as I am concerned they have blood on their hands….

jennyscotch (#241,964)

I certainly enjoyed the way you explore your experience and knowledge of the subject! Keep up on it. Thanks for sharing the info…
citizenship by investment

kapil1234 (#241,902)

Hi, interesting post. I have been wondering about this topic, so thanks for posting. I’ll definitely be subscribing to your site. Keep up the good posts. Texas Cable Park

biii (#242,002)

I don’t suppose I have read anything like this before. So nice to find somebody with some original thoughts on this subject…

kapil1234 (#241,902)

You probably have three variety of stresses in your genes that harm your health and fitness in some way. Reverse Phone Listing

kapil1234 (#241,902)

Excellent.Please keep up the good work for the concise and informative articles.This is more informative than other media,I really like following your blog as the articles are so simple to read Click here.kandyan wedding

kapil1234 (#241,902)

This article alone shows your talent and skill at writing on this topic. I am very impressed and I sincerely hope you plan on continuing with these. I’ll return soon. do my math homework

kapil1234 (#241,902)

Good post. This is a very clear, informative and helpful post. Thanks for sharing. Will come to visit again.Click here to find more information. pony games

Anand (#242,731)

This is really very wonderful. I think its important to understand that free means there is no cost. This is the best thing I've read about this whole kerfuffle and that includes plenty of industry discussion. vps hosting

aisha vax (#241,630)

To those commenters who are raging at paywalls, do you realize that licensing fees from online databases are keeping academic publishing afloat? And that if they disappeared, academic publishers would disappear as well, and with them the tenured professors and the knowledge they produce? And then there would be no knowledge to "liberate"? Knowledge does not just float around out there in the cloud, contrary to what some seem to believe. It has to be made, and that is costly.
online Games

baber (#244,003)

To those commenters who are raging at paywalls, do you realize that licensing fees from online databases are keeping academic publishing afloat? And that if they disappeared, academic publishers would disappear as well.thanks!!!!
travel bogor bandung

baber (#244,003)

To those commenters who are raging at paywalls, do you realize that licensing fees from online databases are keeping academic publishing afloat? And that if they disappeared, academic publishers would disappear as well.thanks!!!!thanks!!!
travel ke bogor

gujjar (#244,282)

Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me. Going to bed at night saying we've done something wonderful, that's what matters to me.
cornell notes

Lush Acres (#245,074)

The condo’s facilities provide full family entertainment needs for your family and loved ones. Indulge in a serene and tranquil lifestyle right in the heart of Sengkang and Fernvale
Sengkang West EC

134jane (#246,422)

There's certainly a great deal to find out about this issue. I really like all of the points you have made.visit mysite online sbobet

Skypark Residences (#246,625)

Entertainment for your loved ones and friends are therefore at your fingertips with the full condo facilities as well as the amenities near Skypark Residences.
Skypark Residences

gujjar (#244,282)

In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure.

ruth (#280,327)

It is very interesting book of the best favour of new made couple. Most of the people not like such work but it very common..
Bio raw material

kevinguru (#247,753)

well! I'm mostly just surprised that this has turned into a reasonable discussion of the topic at hand rather than a chorus of "only my HEARRRRT!" responses to the titular question.
( )

loxxin (#278,102)

Such bathrooms can still be enhanced by providing better finishes such as sanitary fittings of a higher quality, apart from its layout, noted Mr Francis Koh, group chief executive of Koh Brothers Group. The Terrace Punggol

ruth (#280,327)

This is the primary second I even have glimpsed your content and do paying deference to to state to you – it's in purpose of reality pleasant to observer that i salutation your exertions. but if you presumptively did it in associate easygoing technique which will be very pleasan
Hotel Towels exporters

prdudes (#275,776)

Resale prices of completed non-landed private homes slipped 0.4 percent in February from the month before as prices dropped in both the central and non-central regions, anchorvale belle waters

Post a Comment