Black Market Database Access To Scholarly Journals 209
An anonymous reader writes "University libraries offer access to a vast array of valuable materials — if you have a login and password. Now people are buying and selling university credentials online, or giving them away on warez sites. They're used by upstart companies abroad who need access to the latest industrial compounds or other valuable info on databases like SciFinder."
Taxpayer Information (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxpayer funded research should not be behind pay walls or restricted in any other manner. Exception for information with military applications...mostly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, technically, taxpayer funded research should be available to everyone who paid taxes. Which pretty much excludes anyone outside the country and corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll sign on to that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The following snippet is your share of the collected data based on the proportion of research you have paid for:
7
Re:Taxpayer Information (Score:5, Insightful)
Invalid argument as research is never done isolated, but it's almost always based on previous research, and/or discussed with/helped with individuals work from other countries.
That's the whole point of academic research, it advances knowledge through open cooperation and open competition.
Academic publishers served their purpose when publishing wasn't easy, they serve no purpose at all today. Not even as editors as the real editors are in peers who are not employed as editors but working in the same field. And raising the prices as much as they have done serves noone's purpose except the asshats (those publishers) who want money for doing zero useful work.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, but the salient point is really why government grants are being used for research which isn't available for free to the taxpayers. I can understand privately funded research not being available for free, and I can understand why the underlying data isn't available for free, but I don't see why government funded papers should be allowed to be hidden behind paywalls.
It's a real problem if you're going to a smaller school which can't afford to subscribe to the relevant journals placing such institutio
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, but the salient point is really why government grants are being used for research which isn't available for free to the taxpayers.
The Bayh-Dole Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act [wikipedia.org]
Re:Taxpayer Information (Score:5, Insightful)
He asked for a reason. Not an excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, most of the worlds scientific research doesn't come from the US, and therefore this isn't really an answer.
The real answer is because we have a overly expensive and nonsensical publishing system that costs a vast amount to both author and reader, and provides very little back. The scientific publishing industry current costs around 2 billion a year. Wikipedia costs around 10 million to run.
It is a pity that it takes illegal activity to draw attention to this, but ultimately, we need competition in
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the publishers don't add a lot of value anymore. They filter, but pagerank filters better. They review, but the reviewers are often just working for the glory (and promotions).
The problem is, rankings tend to be based on journal articles, not on the impact of articles. If researchers are rewarded by journal acceptances, they will publish in the best journal they can. If they are rewarded by impact (which they should), they will self-publish (and update the papers on feedback).
The problem is, admini
Re: (Score:2)
I know, that small business / oil company known as Walmart pays ~34% in taxes (the rate, before any accountant monkeying, is 35% at the federal level). Many retailers are the same way. You're right about tech companies; many of them base themselves overseas so they don't pay the 35% in taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies in the US with at least ten lawyers generally pay almost nothing in taxes
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be so fast, there are quite a few companies that get more government subsidies than what they pay in tax. And I'm not even talking about bailouts yet.
NIH agrees with you (Score:5, Informative)
Taxpayer funded research should not be behind pay walls or restricted in any other manner
The largest funding source for biomedical research in the US is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). They recently passed a rule requiring NIH-funded work to be published in an accessible manner [nih.gov]. This has had some interesting results, as now journals such as Nature and Science have ways to release articles to the public so that they can be in their high-impact journals and accessible freely.
Of course, this only applies to grants that are approved 2010 and onwards; work funded by older grants does not need to worry about this. However, grants that are were issued originally prior to 2010, and are being renewed, do.
In other words, less federally funded work is published behind paywalls now than ever before.
Re:NIH agrees with you (Score:5, Informative)
The regulation requires that any paper supported to any extent by NIH and published after April 2008 be made accessible to the public, with free links from the publicly accessible Pubmed database. NIH enforces this be requiring grant applicants to submit evidence that they are in compliance for any of their own papers that they cite. Journals can request at most a 1-year window of exclusivity before the requirement goes into effect
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good start. I can understand why they can't do it retroactively, but I really do wonder why it was ever the case. I guess, these rules were probably not needed when the primary way of publishing information was in a journal and the journals cost money to publish.
Re: (Score:2)
It's usually not, but it's only searchable on the major databases (journal compilations), and it's the databases/journals that are private. To do what you'd like, we'd have to do in the journal system, and replace it with a government run journal, and I'm sure it would be impossible for centralized governmental control of publication to be any sort of problem for science.
Re:Taxpayer Information (Score:5, Insightful)
To do what you'd like, we'd have to do in the journal system, and replace it with a government run journal, and I'm sure it would be impossible for centralized governmental control of publication to be any sort of problem for science.
Others have already pointed out that for new research, the problem is already solved. NIH already requires research they fund to be published in accessible form, and it hasn't caused the medical and life science journals to go out of business. Almost all physicists post their papers on arxiv.org, and it hasn't caused the physics journals to go out of business. Your concerns about government control of science seem kind of silly to me, a bit like the infamous "keep your government hands off my medicare" picket sign. We're talking about research that is already funded by tax dollars. The journals are just parasites on a government-funded system; they have unpaid volunteers to do all the actual editorial work for them.
Re:Taxpayer Information (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still forming opinions on academic paywalls - but you most certainly have a good point right there.
I get SO aggravated when I'm trying to chase down some bit of data, that often enough is trivial in nature, but all the leads send me to a freaking paywall. Hey, I don't expect copies of textbooks, nor do I expect access to "trade secrets". There is plenty of stuff that the average person probably shouldn't have access to, unless he's willing to pay. But, FFS, I've run into paywalls when reading about psychology, chemical reactions, even HISTORY!
How in hell does Academia and their suppliers corner the market on some trivial history fact, anyway? (BTW - don't even ask what I was searching for in particular. I've forgotten now. I only remember that I hit the pay wall, and exploded. I ranted to an empty room for a good 15 minutes, LMAO!)
Re: (Score:2)
Taxpayer funded research should not be behind pay walls or restricted in any other manner. Exception for information with military applications...mostly.
Similarly universities should not be able to patent or commercialize anything where the research done to develop it was funded with taxpayer dollars. It should automatically be in the public domain available to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't they be able to commercialize it?
I get not locking down knowledge with paywalls and patents, although patents are a bit funny because the whole point of functional patents is to encourage making knowledge freely available, via the mechanism of legally-enforced limited exclusivity on products. But I don't see why it's a problem to sell stuff enabled by new knowledge?
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't they be able to commercialize it?
Becuase they didn't pay to develop it. Are you retarded?
So, rather than actually use the research, it just gets published in an open-access journal - but because you're not allowed to make money from it, it just stays there and rots?
If it's public paid research, maybe exclusive commercial access isn't always appropriate, but have a think about what you just said. How about you stop accepting money for your job because some of your income undoubtedly comes from the taxpayer.
BTW, You're an asshole calling someone retarded because they disagree with your views.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxpayer funded research should not be behind pay walls or restricted in any other manner. Exception for information with military applications...mostly.
Can somebody who follows this more closely help me with this?
The National Library of Medicine compiled an internal database of almost every significant medical journal article. With encouragement from Al Gore, they made it free on the Internet as PubMed (on the theory that the public should have free access to the product of tax-funded work). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed [nih.gov]
Either the NLM or another government agency also created a database of articles about chemistry. They also wanted to
Re: (Score:2)
The whole 'pay to read' research thing bugs me. Even in grad school (where I paid fees for access), some databases required extra payment for articles. Even as a member of IEEE I need to pay extra for various database on IEEE.
If you have published your article, why do I have to still go and pay for it? Yeah, sure, I'm going to track down a physical copy of Scientific American from 1967 somewhere. It's not really the payment itself (there are costs involved, I realize that), but how friggin' expensive it
No Tears (Score:5, Interesting)
The only people with the right to keep scientific knowledge closed-source are those raised by wolves without so much as even a hint of the nature of linguistics and any thought upon how IT might have evolved. As Newton said: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - it applies no less to someone so nameless their only affiliation with science is the selling of other people's methods.
Re:No Tears (Score:5, Informative)
As Newton said: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Newton was merely quoting when he said this; the original source predates him by 500 years. John of Salisbury [wikipedia.org] first wrote it in 1159. I know it seems pedantic to waste a post on quote attribution, but it's an extremely widespread quotation in nerd circles and not even 1 in 100 people seems to know where it actually came from.
Not to mention that Newton wrote the famous saying in a letter to Robert Hooke, a man with a slight build and severe spinal defect (although these didn't make him especially short), and some authors think it was actually a cutting insult rather than an expression of humility.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Good Wiki quoting.</snark> As pedantic as you're being, you might as well point out that even John of Salisbury was giving attribution to someone else (Bernard of Chatres); naming Newton as the source of the quote isn't out of place, since he did say it, and in the form recognisable today.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays it's:
"If I have seen further it is by stealing the intellectual property of giants."
and before you congratulate me let me be the first to say I stole that from someone's sig.
But seriously, scientific knowledge paywalls are evil, in that they are a barrier to the advancement of science. Ok maybe some kind of six month exclusivity for organizing the editing and reviewing of the damn thing, but anything more is highway robbery.
How do you know the next Einstein isn't some teenager in Africa, who would
They've had this one coming (Score:5, Insightful)
These publishers have been nothing but parasites profiting from publically funded research, selling individual articles for $40 a pop (often being no more then 5 page PDF files!), can't say they didn't deserve this, they probably deserve worse.
Re:They've had this one coming (Score:5, Insightful)
As an alternative, I would propose that universities host archives of peer reviewed papers, and grant access to everyone. Put those tuition dollars to something worthwhile, instead of replanting the grass every year.
unreasonable pricing encourages copyright violatio (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't surprise me at all that there's a huge amount of copyright violation. Here [aps.org] is the paywall page for a classic physics paper describing an experiment that tested a prediction of Einstein's theory of general relativity. The paper was published in 1960. They're willing to sell me the scans of this 5-page paper for $25. I teach physics at a community college, so I don't have free access to this journal online. If the price was something more reasonable, like $1 or maybe even $5, I might have considered paying. But at $25 it's not even an option. I can drive to the local Cal State campus, pull the journal off the shelf, and photocopy this paper for 50 cents. No, that's not copyright violation, because it falls under fair use.
What's really ironic is that new physics papers are essentially all available for free, whereas old ones aren't. Today, almost everyone in the field posts their papers on arxiv.org, where anyone who wants to read them can download them for free.
They're selling convenience (Score:2, Interesting)
I can drive to the local Cal State campus, pull the journal off the shelf, and photocopy this paper for 50 cents.
They're selling convenience. How much does the gas cost? And how much at your hourly rate does your time cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're selling convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
They're selling convenience. How much does the gas cost? And how much at your hourly rate does your time cost?
I don't object if 7-11 sells me convenience by charging me twice as much as Safeway for a quart of milk. But the last page of the Pound-Rebka paper has the following note: "Supported in part by the joint program of the Office of Naval Research and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and by a grant from the Higgins Scientific Trust." This is research that was funded by federal tax money. There is absolutely no excuse for the American Physical Society to be charging such an exorbitant amount of money for access to taxpayer-funded research.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Libraries are increasingly ditching subscriptions to print journals. They may not want to do so, but the realities of purchasing, storing, and maintaining print collections leave them with very little choice. They are also reluctant to provide access to electronic journals to outside users, either due to agreements with the publisher or cost-per-access. (They can do that because individual articles are still subject to copyright.)
So no, it's not convenience they're charging for. They're sim
Re: (Score:2)
Working at a community college? Well, $25 will probably be 4 or 5 hours of his time.
Re:They're selling convenience (Score:4, Insightful)
They're selling convenience.
Partially, but the vast majority of that cost is artificial scarcity due to copyright. Don't you think your parent poster would like to put his scanned copy up on his web page? There are a lot of seminal papers in science locked behind paywalls and copyright, many -- if not most -- made with public funding.
Re: (Score:2)
That's if the library subscribes to a paper copy of the journal. If they use SciFinder, you'll find it difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's more convenient of going to the trouble of pirating the paper, I don't think they're selling it very well.
Re: (Score:2)
But if I'm at home and 2 buddies call me up asking me if I want them to pick up some beer for me, one buddy at the gas station and one at the grocery store, I'm gonna tell the buddy at the grocery store to get my beer. Because the convenience store isn't. I have a better option.
That's where you went wrong. You should be asking the buddy who will buy better beer.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you have a misunderstanding of fair-use there. Care to cite the copyright code that allowed you to do that?
Re: (Score:3)
US Code 17 U.S.C. Â 107 [cornell.edu]. Specifically, exceptions to copyright are allowed when the copying is for "teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." Assuming the OP is doing it for one of those purposes (and he is faculty at a community college), he falls within fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
That is only one of the factors, and not sufficient, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Co._v._King [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see you your 1914 district court opinion and raise you one 1994 Supreme Court opinion, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 US 569, 577 (1994) [google.com]
The fair use doctrine thus "permits [and requires] courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster."
The task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis. The text employs the
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that backs up what I said actually.
Re: (Score:2)
For all those claiming I'm wrong, please read this first:
"reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;"
Not a whole work. A small part. Who says this?
The copyright office.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html [copyright.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read them, they're clearly wrong. Sorry that I take the US copyright office over random incorrect slashdotters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, exactly, for example:
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
Clearly indicates that a full copy is not going to qualify, and every element must be met for fair use.
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include"
Re:unreasonable pricing encourages copyright viola (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly indicates that a full copy is not going to qualify, and every element must be met for fair use.
No, that's incorrect. The code does not say that all four factors must be met, and that isn't how the courts have interpreted it. The WP article [wikipedia.org] specifically addresses your misconception: "Common misunderstandings: [...] If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use."
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly indicates that a full copy is not going to qualify, and every element must be met for fair use.
Wrong. Fair use is a minefield.
see "Fairest of them all and other fairy tales of fair use" [duke.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
I have looked it up, and the 'limited' use is precisely what he runs afoul of by making a complete copy.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, if interested, look at the other mistaken AC's post in response to mine and you can read the actual law that supports my position.
Re: (Score:2)
I have. The law does not support your position. It says the amount of copied material is a consideration in finding whether or not it is fair use; it does not say it determines whether it is fair use. The law, for those of you who do want to read it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html [copyright.gov]
Enjoy the part that says:
"reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson."
Not the whole of a work. A small part.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're citing is a quote from "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law." The current copyright law was enacted in 1976. The 1961 report was written by the copyright office as part of a recommendation to Congress on how to revise copyright law. The report does not reflect current law and wasn't a conclusive statement of then-existing law.
As countless others have said in this thread, fair use is a minefield and its not possible for anyone other t
Re: (Score:2)
FL-102, Reviewed November 2009
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Even less precise copying for purely educational purposes has been found in violation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Co._v._King [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And only small portions, btw, not the whole thing, which was my claim in the first place, see:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html [copyright.gov]
"reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;"
Re: (Score:2)
"I can drive to the local Cal State campus, pull the journal off the shelf, and photocopy this paper for 50 cents. "
You can bring a digital camera and copy it for free.
Re: (Score:2)
http://publish.aps.org/public-access-announcement [aps.org]
Re: (Score:2)
ripping off the digital copy that some company has made available online at its own expense?
Expenses that are paid for by universities without regard to who access the paper. These companies are not suffering because someone accesses these papers; their income is as close to guaranteed as is conceivable.
don't be surprised if the online publishers close up shop
When they have such a cozy arrangement with researchers, why would they close up shop? These journals are not paying for the papers they host, they are not paying the reviewers (in many cases the reviewers are volunteers) and they are getting enormous amounts of money from the subscription fe
Re:unreasonable pricing encourages copyright viola (Score:5, Informative)
So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I feel justified in accessing, by any means authorized or not, content that MY GODDAMNED TAX DOLLARS already paid for.
If Elsevier et al don't like those terms, they have every right to see how long they last without any content derived from public funding.
Re: (Score:2)
> If Elsevier et al don't like those terms, they have every right to see how long they last without any content derived from public funding.
Frankly, I'd be satisfied if Google would just fucking give us an option to completely exclude search results behind paywalls. Yes, I know you can sometimes avoid them by just ignoring anything that doesn't have a link to view from Google's cache (big tip-off), but it's still annoying how they've increasingly littered their search results with that crap.
Or, as MrSafe
Academic publishing is a scam anyhow (Score:5, Insightful)
It's absurd that research is funded by the tax payer, but when it's submitted to a journal, they want to claim the copyright - even the original author of the work doesn't have the right to re-publish it.
In return for this, what does the journal do? Well, they have the submission checked out by a team of reviewers. Except none of these are payed for their services (which is probably as it should be, otherwise that could introduce bias). But the journal's not out of pocket there. Again, it's likely the tax-payer footing the bill.
The other thing the journal does is actually publish the final, peer-reviewed articles. Except, these days, no-one in their right mind would bother with dead trees. It's a massive waste, both to produce and distribute, and much slower and less convenient for all concerned. So they just stick the papers on a website.
I'm sure that any academic institution would be willing to host the papers for free.
I'm all for anything that breaks the stranglehold these parasites have over the world of academia. Divulging login details isn't piracy, it's reclaiming rights that should never have been surrendered in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Web sites are not so good for long term archives. I shudder to think what would be lost if publishing to web sites became the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
I shudder to think what would be lost if publishing to web sites became the norm.
What the parent likely mean was some sort of website backed by a database which properly indexes, links and cross references the paper in such a way that it can be queried, referenced and excerpted as needed. Care should be taken not to confuse the data storage model with the view(s) of that data when discussing such concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we have systems like LOCKSS, or any of the many archiving systems around the world.
In one sense, digitial information is more secure because the cost of archiving per paper drops year on year, as storage space gets cheaper. This is why I can now archive all my email since 1995 for less than it costs to archive my CD collection. The former just gets moved around between hard drives and machines as part of my normal work practice. My CD collection needs dusting, sorting, takes up space, weighs aro
Re: (Score:2)
Ordering access to journals via web access doesn't preclude the existence of good paper archives somewhere.
It's the idea that all you have to do is post a PDF on some server that I find scary. Is that server going to around 150 years from now?
And yes, some of the primary sources in my dissertation are more than 150 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do they expect? (Score:3)
Web server logs (Score:2, Interesting)
I run a small webserver inside an .edu domain -- looking at my error logs I see daily attempts from Chinese IP addresses to connect to Science Direct and other subscription-only services, presumably looking for open proxies or connections to subscription only services accessible from users within my machine's IP block -- and this presumably explains why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, that was probably me, an American taxpayer. $36 for a single article is a lot of money when a university professor is making about $300-$600 per month. And there is no way I can expect my students to pay that much for one article.
State of the DB (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good, those publishers are leeches anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
Upstart? (Score:2)
Science should be open anyways (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Science should be open anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
journals need to secure their funding
Funding for what, exactly? There is no reason journals need to print and bind paper copies (the only places you really see those is in the library of a research institution, and those places are entirely capable of binding things on their own if they need to), nor do we need journals to host archives of papers (which any big university is more than capable of doing). Journals do not pay for peer review, nor do journals fund research. So what money do journals need to secure?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funding for what, exactly? There is no reason journals need to print and bind paper copies (the only places you really see those is in the library of a research institution, and those places are entirely capable of binding things on their own if they need to), nor do we need journals to host archives of papers (which any big university is more than capable of doing). Journals do not pay for peer review, nor do journals fund research. So what money do journals need to secure?
While it is a common meme to deride the cost of academic publishing, there is significant benefits for journals in their current form. As science progresses the number of articles is exponentially increasing. For this reason journals in their current form primarily serve as gatekeepers, ensuring that the highest quality research, on average, is published in the top journals and filtering down. Compare the impact of articles published in for example Physical Review Letters to those published in the Chines
Re: (Score:2)
Journals are even less justified in expecting to be paid than newspapers are. At least newspapers tend to contribute something of value in exchange for asking to be paid. Journals contribute little to no value to society, in the past that wasn't the case, but at this point, the cost of actually distributing papers is pretty trivial to the point where a $20 a year fee should more than cover the cost and by quite a bit.
There's Always A Way... (Score:2)
Of course, academics are aware of the problems getting to other
Re: (Score:2)
That's all very well, but in the 21st century, I think we should have a better system that Samizdat [wikipedia.org] for allowing access to research results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
States pay for access to various databases... (Score:2, Informative)
...for the public. In most public libraries that I've been to (which, granted, aren't that many but there have been a few), library assistants can help you log in to various academic research journal databases for doing research.
At one point about 4 years ago, I called my local library in El Paso, TX (where I lived at the time) and asked them some questions about this. The library assistant was more than eager to help, and he *gave me the username and password for the State of Texas' library system to logi
Many of the database (Score:2)
are full of crap anyway. Especially IEEE that has full of SCIgen-created papers.
I may have to use this (Score:5, Insightful)
I may have to use an account like this or else leave academia altogether.
I am currently facing the prospect of being between jobs in academia, and while I am, I will no longer have university library access to digital archives. What this means is that I cannot read the many millions of papers being hoarded by academic publishers without paying around $30~$50 for each one.
Effectively, without a recognised position at a university with good library access, or a substantial lottery win, I will not be able to research in any real sense, with all reasearch, even that which was publicly funded and published before World War 2 began. So much for access in the digital age.
I would personally have no problem whatsoever in availing of one of these services if the price was right. Since the prevailing copyright regime directly impedes my ability to do my job professionally, I see no reason to support or abide by it in any way.
I have work to do, and if turning to warez sites can help me do my job better, then I will turn to those sites without hesitation. I don't see why any professional should think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
It's common that you will be able to keep a computer account of some kind when you leave. Just set up an ssh tunnel to that computer and use FoxyProxy [getfoxyproxy.org] (Firefox) or Proxy Switchy [samabox.com] (Chrome) to set up rules to use the proxy when you hit particular journals. I do this now even though I'm at a university, because every library is reducing their library subscriptions due to increasing journal costs, my research is multi-disciplinary, and it's becoming more and more common to hit pay walls from within the univers
At MIT (Score:3, Informative)
Login: rms
Password: rms
Really, most University library resources shouldn't have password protection as getting a credential at most University libraries requires practically no validation or identification. The problem however is when employees, students and others that are using other University resources share their credentials they may be getting more access due to lack of access control than the University or the donator is aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
Aboard. Just like that.
Aboard what, you may ask.
To you, the doubter, I say: aboard everything.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They're pirates, they're aboard the Jolly Rogers, matey!
Stealth student (Score:2)
What if the student enrolled for the sole purpose of selling his access to the highest bidder?
Re: (Score:2)