this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
255 points (99.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

68205 readers
257 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:

💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
unruffled@anarchist.nexus
255
The one science reform we can all agree on, but we're too cowardly to do - Get rid of for-profit scientific publishers. (open.substack.com)
submitted 11 hours ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Of all the crazy parts of our crazy system, the craziest part is where taxpayers pay for the research, then pay private companies to publish it, and then pay again so scientists can read it. We may not agree on much, but we can all agree on this: it is time, finally and forever, to get rid of for-profit scientific publishers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

No, wrong, try again. Many of us, certainly at least tens of thousands of academics, have switched to submitting and supporting free open journals.

So I agree with your conclusion, but your factual basis is faulty.

[–] bonenode@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

I think you got to specify which research area you are in. In terms of life sciences for example, I don't see what you are saying.