this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
164 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59345 readers
5951 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 17 points 3 hours ago

This is the publisher punishing researchers for their own market failure.

If the software is not legally available in Egypt at a price affordable to academics, they should pirate it and publish in a journal that’s not part of this exploitative racket.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 25 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Been waiting for intellectual property reforms for so long, at this point I’d be willing to abandon IP laws entirely. It’s holding the species back.

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I think once a company is of a certain size they shouldn't be granted IP and copyright. It's helpful to protect first to market small companies or groups. Big companies can't just clone and churn when they see something they want. But if they already have scale advantage they shouldn't need or get IP and copyright advantage.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

Sounds fair to me!

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 29 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This is just the difference between science and academia.

Science is influenced by academia. Still an important distinction.

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

How did they even know

[–] GasMaskedLunatic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 120 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Science is not valid if it is not expensive. Gravity does not exist unless Adobe gets their cut.

[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 hours ago

I wonder what those people claim they keep politics and science seperated. You know, because if you get a lab coat you're immune

[–] infeeeee@lemm.ee 67 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

In the Register article they didn't copied from the source that the scientists were from Egypt.

Flow3D has different academic and research licenses: https://www.flow3d.com/academic-program/

  • There is a free research license available, but it's only for 4 months. It's short, researches can take much longer than that.
  • There is a free teaching license, but it can have limitations for using the software outside education. It may be forbidden to use outside classes, so it's possible that they had a teaching license, but they couldn't use that for research?
  • There are licenses for full departments, but it's available for selected countries only.

It's strange that they went after these scientists. In 2nd and 3rd word countries software privacy for work is still common. Everything is cheaper, but software prices are the same as in the US, so they pay relatively more for the same tool. I found that a normal license for Flow 3D can cost USD 100k. According to a quick search civil engineers get USD 2000 yearly in Egypt.

Usually American software companies don't really care about piracy by individuals in these countries. The rationale is that it's better for them if they use their software without payment instead of using a software from another vendor without payment. They go after bigger companies, at least that's my experience.

That's why this story is strange to me, or at least something else should be behind it.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 26 points 8 hours ago

Yup, wide use creates a lock-in effect. If your software is used by everyone, paid or otherwise, it's the standard and you will never run out of paid users. This is why CAD companies offer free tiers and why student subscriptions are always heavily discounted.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 15 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The rationale is that it’s better for them if they use their software without payment instead of using a software from another vendor without payment.

More importantly it is better for the company if they use their software without payment instead of developing some sort of competitor (open source or proprietary).

[–] infeeeee@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

They are users not developers. An academic or civil engineer who uses a CFD simulator usually has not enough programming knowledge develop such a complex application. The employer has not enough funds to pay for developers (see, they use a pirated software). Paying for developers is still more expensive than buying an already developed product.

Just look at the state of FOSS CAD software. There are some, but they are very-very limited compared to proprietary alternatives. Most people don't care, they just want to get the work done. Not everyone is a programmer, even if it looks like that from our lemmy bubble.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 6 points 6 hours ago

Don't underestimate the power of executives to make really dumb choices. My company decided we'd create our own ticketing system this year, and now my Firefox tab consumes multiple gigabytes of ram...

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

You are thinking too small. Even if only one of a thousand companies in one of dozens of third world nations develops an alternative that is enough.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

It's an okay article but the important parts are at the start and end and everything inbetween is a random unrelated anticopyright diatribe filler.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Anticopyright diatribes are the important part!

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

So you think all news should push a political agenda above all else, even when that means excluding important information from the original sources and actively interfereing with the publication of news about past and ongoing events?

This is just an objectively bad article regardless of political stance.