This is a bit OT, but it reminds me of the much under-reported aspect of Aaron Schwartz's document collecting:<p>As I understand it, he intended to analyze the resulting data set for patterns. Meta-analysis of said scientific literature, so to speak.<p>Of value in itself, for several reasons. Scientific. Personal interest -- interesting language and rhetoric.<p>One very important one -- that can be lumped under the important work of science as well as that of understanding human endeavor in all its aspects: Fraud detection.<p>We all have been reading about both mistakes and deliberate mis-representation in scientific publications. Including in some very influential works, subsequently retracted.<p>ArXiv is a step in the right direction. When we have all these scientific results locked up to the point where such meta-analysis and subsequent <i>science</i> is impossible, we've greatly shackled the process of scientific research and our own human endeavor and progress.<p>By the way, with respect to recent public conversation with respect to economics, some view this as another form of rent-seeking. People who don't produce but rather gather the "rights" to the results of production, and then divert as much as they can of its value into their own pockets -- often diverting it away from investment in the actual work from whence it comes.<p>Or, eating your seed corn.