The debate over filesharing networks a close analogy to the gun-control debate. In other words, here they are saying that the means (e.g., guns or file-sharing) are not at fault, it's the motivation (e.g., for violent crime or stealing music). The opposite side of the debate is, of course, if we remove the means, then we disable the criminal.
I bring this up only to point out how Congress reacts to these types of questions. That is, the means can be held accountable (i.e., gun registration, bans on some firearms). We could see uncontrolled filesharing networks banned based only on how the RIAA is framing the debate.
I'll do you better. There is a online database of electronic, open access journals. Some, as you say, are a bit obscure, but, in any event, there are 100+ medical journals in their database, not to mention journals for many other disciplines. Help yourself: http://www.doaj.org/
Depends on the journal. Some have relatively few restrictions on what you describe. Others, particularly the top-shelf journals, are very strict about prior publication (including web posting), and distribution (remember that many journals require transfer of copyrights).
On the surface, this idea makes sense (you paid for it, so you should have access to it). But two important words are left out of the post: not journals but PEER REVIEWED journals. If you look on the web for 5 seconds, you can find all kinds of pseudo-science BS (e.g. http://www.alexchiu.com/, perhaps a bit of an extreme example, but it makes the point), because there is no one checking that the researcher is not full of BS him/her-self. Peer review serves as an important guide to both scientists and the public in general and subverting it would be, simply put, insane.
Anyway, this a mute point. Most journals offer much of their content for free online, albeit with a few restrictions. This is just another example of bureaucracy lagging behind the rest of us and unnecessarily interfering with the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
The debate over filesharing networks a close analogy to the gun-control debate. In other words, here they are saying that the means (e.g., guns or file-sharing) are not at fault, it's the motivation (e.g., for violent crime or stealing music). The opposite side of the debate is, of course, if we remove the means, then we disable the criminal.
I bring this up only to point out how Congress reacts to these types of questions. That is, the means can be held accountable (i.e., gun registration, bans on some firearms). We could see uncontrolled filesharing networks banned based only on how the RIAA is framing the debate.
I'll do you better. There is a online database of electronic, open access journals. Some, as you say, are a bit obscure, but, in any event, there are 100+ medical journals in their database, not to mention journals for many other disciplines. Help yourself: http://www.doaj.org/
Depends on the journal. Some have relatively few restrictions on what you describe. Others, particularly the top-shelf journals, are very strict about prior publication (including web posting), and distribution (remember that many journals require transfer of copyrights).
On the surface, this idea makes sense (you paid for it, so you should have access to it). But two important words are left out of the post: not journals but PEER REVIEWED journals. If you look on the web for 5 seconds, you can find all kinds of pseudo-science BS (e.g. http://www.alexchiu.com/, perhaps a bit of an extreme example, but it makes the point), because there is no one checking that the researcher is not full of BS him/her-self. Peer review serves as an important guide to both scientists and the public in general and subverting it would be, simply put, insane. Anyway, this a mute point. Most journals offer much of their content for free online, albeit with a few restrictions. This is just another example of bureaucracy lagging behind the rest of us and unnecessarily interfering with the status quo.