协 作 者 ， 请 勿 删 除 本 文 中 刻 意 存 留 的 任 何 空 格 和 看 似 不 恰 当 的 标 点 ， 目 的 是 为 了 突 破 八 爪 鱼 的 “ 自 由 的 ” 、 “ 绝 对 没 有 的 ” 审 查 。
我什么都没有看见
你真的了解共产主义吗？
中国一点都不能少
中国国旗
中华民国（1912-1949）
地位相等
宣传自由民主的储存库把我禁言了
宣传自由民主的储存库把不同意见改成相同文本
BBC的SB报道
《霸权让世界变得更美好》
拜登又摔倒了
大麻合法化地图
暴力执法
P的再假一点
无法举报成功
一种很新的攻击
美国版24字
没有审查
假言论
僵尸之城
朝鲜战争的真相
明尼苏达州大麻正式合法化
FBI：这是你的自由
我的右脚什么都没有
抹黑/打脸
Libgen，万岁！
In Antoine de Saint Exupéry's tale the Little Prince meets a businessman who accumulates stars with the sole purpose of being able to buy more stars. The Little Prince is perplexed. He owns only a flower, which he waters every day. Three volcanoes, which he cleans every week. "It is of some use to my volcanoes, and it is of some use to my flower, that I own them," he says, "but you are of no use to the stars that you own".
There are many businessmen who own knowledge today. Consider Elsevier, the largest scholarly publisher, whose 37% profit margin1 stands in sharp contrast to the rising fees, expanding student loan debt and poverty-level wages for adjunct faculty. Elsevier owns some of the largest databases of academic material, which are licensed at prices so scandalously high that even Harvard, the richest university of the global north, has complained that it cannot afford them any longer. Robert Darnton, the past director of Harvard Library, says "We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices."2 For all the work supported by public money benefiting scholarly publishers, particularly the peer review that grounds their legitimacy, journal articles are priced such that they prohibit access to science to many academics - and all non-academics - across the world, and render it a token of privilege.3
Elsevier has recently filed a copyright infringement suit in New York against Science Hub and Library Genesis claiming millions of dollars in damages.4 This has come as a big blow, not just to the administrators of the websites but also to thousands of researchers around the world for whom these sites are the only viable source of academic materials. The social media, mailing lists and IRC channels have been filled with their distress messages, desperately seeking articles and publications.
Even as the New York District Court was delivering its injunction, news came of the entire editorial board of highly-esteemed journal Lingua handing in their collective resignation, citing as their reason the refusal by Elsevier to go open access and give up on the high fees it charges to authors and their academic institutions. As we write these lines, a petition is doing the rounds demanding that Taylor & Francis doesn't shut down Ashgate5, a formerly independent humanities publisher that it acquired earlier in 2015. It is threatened to go the way of other small publishers that are being rolled over by the growing monopoly and concentration in the publishing market. These are just some of the signs that the system is broken. It devalues us, authors, editors and readers alike. It parasites on our labor, it thwarts our service to the public, it denies us access6.
We have the means and methods to make knowledge accessible to everyone, with no economic barrier to access and at a much lower cost to society. But closed access’s monopoly over academic publishing, its spectacular profits and its central role in the allocation of academic prestige trump the public interest. Commercial publishers effectively impede open access, criminalize us, prosecute our heroes and heroines, and destroy our libraries, again and again. Before Science Hub and Library Genesis there was Library.nu or Gigapedia; before Gigapedia there was textz.com; before textz.com there was little; and before there was little there was nothing. That's what they want: to reduce most of us back to nothing. And they have the full support of the courts and law to do exactly that.7
In Elsevier's case against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis, the judge said: "simply making copyrighted content available for free via a foreign website, disserves the public interest"8. Alexandra Elbakyan's original plea put the stakes much higher: "If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge."
We demonstrate daily, and on a massive scale, that the system is broken. We share our writing secretly behind the backs of our publishers, circumvent paywalls to access articles and publications, digitize and upload books to libraries. This is the other side of 37% profit margins: our knowledge commons grows in the fault lines of a broken system. We are all custodians of knowledge, custodians of the same infrastructures that we depend on for producing knowledge, custodians of our fertile but fragile commons. To be a custodian is, de facto, to download, to share, to read, to write, to review, to edit, to digitize, to archive, to maintain libraries, to make them accessible. It is to be of use to, not to make property of, our knowledge commons.
More than seven years ago Aaron Swartz, who spared no risk in standing up for what we here urge you to stand up for too, wrote: "We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access. With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?"9
We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our voices.
Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the flowers - clean the volcanoes.
30 November 2015
在安东尼·德·圣埃克苏佩里的故事中，小王子遇到了一位商人，他积累星星的唯一目的是能够购买更多星星。 小王子很困惑。 他只有一朵花，他每天都给它浇水。 他每周都会清理三座火山。 “我拥有它们，对我的火山有一些用处，对我的花也有一些用处，”他说，“但你对你拥有的星星没有用处”。
今天有许多商人拥有知识。 以最大的学术出版商爱思唯尔 (Elsevier) 为例，其 37% 的利润率1与不断上涨的费用、不断扩大的学生贷款债务以及兼职教师的贫困水平工资形成鲜明对比。 爱思唯尔拥有一些最大的学术材料数据库，这些数据库的许可价格高得令人震惊，甚至连北方最富有的大学哈佛大学也抱怨它再也负担不起这些数据库了。 哈佛图书馆前馆长罗伯特·达恩顿 (Robert Darnton) 表示：“我们的教师进行研究、撰写论文、审阅其他研究人员的论文、在编辑委员会任职，所有这一切都是免费的……然后我们在图书馆买回我们的劳动成果。” 价格高得离谱。2 ，并赋予它特权令牌。3
爱思唯尔 (Elsevier) 最近在纽约对 Science Hub 和 Library Genesis 提起版权侵权诉讼，要求赔偿数百万美元。4 这不仅对这些网站的管理员，而且对世界各地数千名研究人员来说都是一个巨大的打击。 对于他们来说，这些网站是唯一可行的学术材料来源。 社交媒体、邮件列表和 IRC 频道充斥着他们的求救信息，拼命寻找文章和出版物。
就在纽约地方法院发布禁令时，有消息称，备受推崇的期刊《Lingua》的整个编辑委员会集体辞职，理由是爱思唯尔拒绝开放获取并放弃高额费用 它向作者及其学术机构收费。 当我们写下这些文字时，一份请愿书正在流传，要求 Taylor & Francis 不要关闭 Ashgate5，这是一家 2015 年初收购的前独立人文出版商。该公司面临重蹈其他小型出版商覆辙的威胁。 出版市场日益增长的垄断和集中度使这一趋势发生了逆转。 这些只是系统损坏的一些迹象。 它贬低了我们、作者、编辑和读者的价值。 它寄生在我们的劳动中，阻碍我们为公众提供服务，它拒绝我们进入6。
我们拥有让每个人都能获取知识的手段和方法，没有经济障碍，而且社会成本要低得多。 但封闭获取对学术出版的垄断、其巨额利润及其在学术声望分配中的核心作用超越了公共利益。 商业出版商一次又一次地有效地阻碍开放获取，将我们定为犯罪，起诉我们的男女英雄，并摧毁我们的图书馆。 在 Science Hub 和 Library Genesis 之前，有 Library.nu 或 Gigapedia； 在 Gigapedia 之前有 textz.com； 在 textz.com 之前，几乎没有什么； 在几乎没有之前，什么也没有。 这就是他们想要的：让我们大多数人变得一无所有。 他们得到了法院和法律的全力支持来做到这一点。7
在爱思唯尔针对 Sci-Hub 和 Library Genesis 的案件中，法官表示：“仅仅通过外国网站免费提供受版权保护的内容，不符合公共利益”8。 亚历山德拉·埃尔巴金 (Alexandra Elbakyan) 最初的请求将风险推得更高：“如果爱思唯尔设法关闭我们的项目或迫使它们进入暗网，这将证明一个重要的想法：公众没有知情权。”
我们每天都大规模地证明这个系统已经被破坏了。 我们在出版商的背后秘密分享我们的作品，绕过付费墙访问文章和出版物，将书籍数字化并上传到图书馆。 这是 37% 利润率的另一面：我们的知识共享在破碎系统的断层线上增长。 我们都是知识的守护者，我们赖以生产知识的基础设施的守护者，我们肥沃但脆弱的公共资源的守护者。 事实上，成为保管人就是下载、共享、阅读、写作、审阅、编辑、数字化、存档、维护图书馆并使其可供访问。 它是为了对我们的知识共享有用，而不是使其成为财产。
七年多前，亚伦·斯沃茨 (Aaron Swartz) 不遗余力地捍卫我们在此敦促你们也捍卫的目标，他写道：“我们需要获取信息，无论它存储在何处，您的副本并与世界分享。 我们需要将不受版权保护的内容添加到档案中。 我们需要购买秘密数据库并将它们放在网络上。 我们需要下载科学期刊并将其上传到文件共享网络。 我们需要为游击开放获取而战。 只要我们在世界各地有足够多的人，我们不仅会发出反对知识私有化的强烈信息，而且还会让它成为过去。 你愿意加入我们吗？”9
我们发现自己正处于一个决定性的时刻。 现在是时候认识到我们庞大的知识共享的存在本身就是一种集体公民不服从行为。 现在是时候走出躲藏，将我们的名字投在这场抵抗行动的背后了。 您可能会感到孤立，但我们有很多人。 互联网上表达的对失去图书馆基础设施的愤怒、绝望和恐惧告诉我们这一点。 现在是我们监护人，无论是狗、人类还是机器人，用我们的名字、昵称和笔名发出我们的声音的时候了。
分享这封信 - 公开阅读 - 将其留在打印机中。 分享您的写作 - 将书籍数字化 - 上传您的文件。 不要让我们的知识被粉碎。 关心库 - 关心元数据 - 关心备份。 给花浇水——清理火山。
2015 年 11 月 30 日
加州共和国万岁！
夏威夷王国万岁！
美国新地图
共产主义图片
Reporter: Why did you fight Iraq?
United States: because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
Reporter: Then why don't you fight Russia?
America: Because Russia really has them
共产主义不等于
CIA美好的称赞
美国没有审查制度，只有Censorship
给傻逼送点东风
白乌鸦
Common reasons for declaring war in the United States:
1: Against Hegemony
2: Eliminate terrorist organizations
3: Eliminate weapons of mass destruction
4: Provide "dog-like" support
5: Shit
It seems that America is describing themself
非人类
猪湾事件
Lockdown Browser
域名出售
和平的钥匙
核废水造假？
连海洋都不要
CIA每年给多少钱？
微软的好事
双赢版反共反中
巴不得删了权XX案
【反对】【不先】使用核武器
中国人？
Long live the People's Republic of China! Long live the great unity of the peoples of the world! Down with American imperialism!
Long live the People's Republic of China! Long live the great unity of the peoples of the world! Down with American imperialism!
国歌
简版国歌
youtube = 真相?
爆了爆了 = 撅醒青年
自己干的
选择性民主（指搜索污染并无法举报）
C# Programming Language
请闭嘴
乌龟
AP幼儿园
比赛
优雅
自由？
你真的喜欢？
Your freedom
多吃点。
什么是国际 法？
你敢说吗？
福岛
辐 岛幸福生活
美国：买卖就是我不想付款就不付。
《自 由 的 空 气》
M K - U L T R A
斯坦福监狱实验
鞠躬
屏等
老大爷在看着你
以 - 通过
色 - 颜色
列 - 排序
20世纪的翻转
BBC - 逼逼c
禁言
马蜂窝
新势力
自己成为了他
新闻的屏幕不够大
甜甜圈真好吃.png
自由的布
触目惊心
