News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science by oiuyhtgyhuj on Tuesday March 01, 2011 @02:34PM (#2276860)
The reason is that live on institution subscriptions. If they switched to an iTunes $5/paper download then there would be less pressure on university libraries to pay $1000s/year for a subscription (the library pays a lot more than members for a journal)

It's like the cable companies, they want your $100/month irrespective of whats showing - they don't want you to pay $1/show for what you actually want to watch.

Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science by drallison on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @03:17AM (#2278854)
Even a $5/paper fee is too costly. On an average day I probably read 5 papers and browse another 5 papers. That means my research habit would cost $17,250. And that is too expensive for just casual reading.
Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science by chalst on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @05:11AM (#2279055)
I wouldn't trust Apple to maintain an archive of peer-reviewed science for the next 100 years, which is what librarians aim to do. Institutional subscriptions are part of this picture: libraries receive all the publications of the journals they subscribe to and archive them.
Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science by te_chris on Tuesday March 01, 2011 @10:34PM (#2278346)
You should be upvoted more. These organisations exist to extract millions of dollars of subscription fees out of University Libraries each year.