"stolen" is such an exaggerated misrepresentation...news organizations should really do better. When you steal something from someone, the owner loses access to it. She just liberated public research.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 hours ago

These articles were stolen, by the paywall operators. Elbakyan rescued them from the thieves. 🎉

[–] Trihilis@ani.social 64 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

When a regular person makes something available that shouldnt be behind a paywall to begin with it's stealing. When a billionaire or company uses ai to gather data from paid sources or just straight out plagiarises it's just maximising profits.

[–] Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Hey hey hey, hold on just a second. It's not called "maximizing profits", we don't do that! It's called ✨innovation✨

[–] meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

disruption 🤌

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 hours ago

democratization 🫡

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 3 points 10 hours ago

Using public information to create something new is not even a little the same as copying private information and then making it public.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 hours ago

I totally agree that she just liberated it. But since many lawsuits said she was "stealing" from them, and people who don't know the details at first glance may think that too. So I think the headline is correct in a news sense. And the article is very accurate and favorable of her.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Also I have met people who have published some pretty important papers, most of them use scihub on a weekly basis, and none of them care that their papers get "stolen". And they all have some strong opinions about Elsevier.

[–] shath@hexbear.net 10 points 14 hours ago

like stealing video games that you technically license if you buy, you're not stealing anything except access which is fundamentally the only thing they can sell