Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "This Lawsuit Could Change Science" video.

  1. No evidence she read the complaint. Maybe she read someone's account of what it says.
    3
  2. ​@THX..1138 This couldn't be more wrong. If the journals were not behind steep pay walls for the institutions whose faculty create and review content for free, then there would be no "trade." A scheme to induce work and not to pay for it most certainly is trade. How you could confuse this with employment law is beyond me. In any case, following your flawed analogy: A customer has a choice between using a cashier or self-check-out. If researchers and reviewers could chose to work only for publications that offered some form of compensation, which was set without their backroom agreement, then there would be no antitrust case.
    2
  3. ​@klausroxin4437 Have you been "everywhere?" 😂
    2
  4. ​ @henrytuttle Reread the OP, this time slowly and with an open mind.
    1
  5. I see no reason to believe Sabine read the complaint. The first four double-spaced pages, eleven numbered paragraphs, set forth the heart of the case.
    1
  6.  @henrytuttle  Don't give me that ignorant ______, it's evident you haven't a clue. Did you read the complaint in this case? It's so intellectually honest to "know" all about what's right or wrong in a case where you've read nothing.
    1
  7. @henrytuttle  If science channels are like this, what are soft core comments like?
    1
  8. @henrytuttle  If you read the complaint, you would know this is not some new case aggressive lawyers dreamed up. It is a long-standing controversy scientists have tried to rectify for years, without engaging the legal process.
    1
  9. ​@henrytuttle This simply articulates a blanket statement against bringing disputes to court in general. It has no bearing on this case. It has no predictive value. The next time a drunk driver hits a family member, don't sue? Let karma take care of it. This video is a prime example of the crisis in intellectual honesty. Sabine takes a position and it generates clicks, controversy, and money for her. Did she READ the complaint? I see no reason to believe so. Based on what she said, it strongly appears otherwise. In any case, do you see her reading from it or quoting from it? Does what she have to say justify a number of publishers colluding with one another to obtain free work -- that some other entity/employer actually pays for -- and then profitting from it? (In the meantime, let students go into debt. They don't graduate with enough. The way money flows through this system is dishonest at every turn.) Anyone who is commenting without at least reading the first four pages of the complaint is part of the intellectual dishonesty problem.
    1
  10.  @henrytuttle  You don't know that.
    1
  11.  @henrytuttle  Try reading some cases where a law that violates the First Amendment was struck down. Then tell me what you think.
    1
  12. @henrytuttle  No I do not -- but I don't know from which of his writings the quote was taken, and whether the context alters its apparent meaning.
    1
  13.  @henrytuttle  I generally disagreed with Scalia on most things he wrote about that I investigated myself. He supported sentencing minors to d--th for capital crimes.
    1
  14. Anyone who read the complaint would know this is not some new case aggressive lawyers have dreamed up. It is a long-standing controversy scientists have tried to rectify for years, without engaging the legal process.
    1
  15. Did you read the complaint?
    1
  16. Did ANY of the critics read the complaint? Eleven numbered paragraphs, four double-spaced pages tell you all a layperson needs to know to understand why the case was filed . . . C'mon, you can do it!! Is the fact that no one will pay you to read it stopping you?
    1
  17. ​ @SabineHossenfelder Anyone who is commenting without at least reading the first four pages of the complaint carefully is part of the intellectual dishonesty problem. I see no reason to believe you read them. Show me where the costs justify colluding to obtain free work, then placing the result behind a very steep pay wall, even for university libraries. No one is suggesting that the editors work for free and that the costs of database maintenance not be covered. That isn't what the case is about, nor is it a likely consequence of victory -- unless the publishers have gotten too used to their lavish lifestyles and cook up a new scheme to maintain them. This scheme reminds me of how the top-heavy administration of the modern university developed, and mired the youngest adults in debt in order to finance what is, for them, a necessity. Hospitals in the US now work this way, too. Hmm.
    1
  18. There is no evidence that she read the actual complaint.
    1
  19. You're correct. You are not a lawyer. EDIT: Wait a second. Did you actually read this complaint? I see no reason to believe so. Did you read someone's account of what the complaint says, instead?
    1
  20. Beautiful. Best comment. 😂❤
    1
  21. Read the complaint and see what the profit margins are.
    1