you imply science increasingly lost some openness from 1970 who was it changed this law and did nobody feel this robbed future generations from freedom of learning

The Shift Toward Less Openness in Scientific Publishing from the 1970sYou're right that I highlighted a trend: scientific publishing became less "open" starting around the 1970s, but this wasn't primarily a change in "law" itself. Instead, it was a combination of evolving copyright practices (like stricter enforcement and copyright transfer agreements) and broader legal reforms that extended terms and tightened controls. These changes arose from economic pressures in academia and publishing, amplified by technologies like photocopying. The core issue? Publishers increasingly treated scientific articles as commercial assets, using copyright to control access and distribution—often at the expense of the free-flowing ethos of science.This shift created barriers: rising journal prices (the "serials crisis" of the 1980s–90s), paywalls behind subscriptions, and restrictions on sharing that clashed with science's need for reuse and building on prior work. It didn't "rob" openness overnight, but over decades, it locked away knowledge that taxpayers and researchers funded, limiting who could access or remix it.Who "Changed" This? Key Players and DriversNo single villain flipped a switch, but commercial publishers, supported by lobbying groups, drove the practical enforcement of stricter copyright. Laws provided the framework, but publishers exploited it. Here's the breakdown:

Era & Change	Key Drivers/Advocates	What Happened
1970s: Rise of Commercial Control	Commercial publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer, Wiley) entering from trade books; learned societies losing ground.	Post-WWII boom in science led to more papers, but learned societies couldn't handle volume. Commercial firms acquired journals, raised prices 10–20x inflation rates, and started requiring full copyright transfer from authors (previously rare in science). Photocopying exploded, so publishers sued libraries (e.g., Williams & Wilkins v. US, 1975—publishers lost, but it sparked CCC).
1976: US Copyright Act	US Congress, influenced by publishers and authors' groups (e.g., Authors Guild).	First major overhaul since 1909; automatic protection for unpublished works, no formalities needed. Extended terms to life + 50 years (from 28 + 28 renewable). Made it easier for publishers to claim and enforce rights over journals.
1980s–90s: Enforcement & Serials Crisis	Publishers via Copyright Clearance Center (CCC, founded 1978); groups like Association of American Publishers.	CCC created a pay-per-copy system for articles, turning sharing into revenue. Subscriptions soared (e.g., 300% price hikes 1980–2000), forcing libraries to cut access. Publishers lobbied against "piracy" like interlibrary loans.
1993–98: Term Extensions	EU: Commercial publishers & creative industries (e.g., via GESAC). US: Disney/MPAA/RIAA (pushed Sonny Bono Act); publishers joined for journals.	EU harmonized to life + 70 years (Directive 93/98/EEC). US Sonny Bono Act (1998) added 20 years (to life + 70 or 95 from publication), retroactively locking works like 1920s journals until ~2020s. Often called "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for Disney's influence, but scientific publishers benefited by extending control over archives.
2000s+: Digital Lockdown	Publishers (Elsevier sued ResearchGate 2017; ACS/Elsevier v. Sci-Hub ongoing).	DMCA (1998) added anti-circumvention rules, blocking digital sharing. Rise of "hybrid" journals charged for open access on top of subscriptions.

Publishers argued this protected "investment" in editing/printing, but critics say it prioritized profits: Elsevier's 37% margins dwarf Big Pharma's. Authors signed transfers for prestige, not cash—yet lost reuse rights.Did Nobody Notice? Outrage Over "Robbing Future Generations"Far from unnoticed, this sparked massive backlash from scientists, librarians, and economists. Many explicitly called it a theft from future learners: locking publicly funded research behind paywalls hinders innovation, excludes Global South scholars, and slows cumulative progress (e.g., data mining old papers for AI breakthroughs). WWII-era data shows breaking copyrights boosted US science by 25% via cheaper access. Here's the outcry:

• Open Access Movement (1990s–now): Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) declared: "Copyright should not restrict access to knowledge." Led by SPARC, PLOS; argues publishers "parasitize" free labor (authors/reviewers unpaid). Result: 50%+ of new papers open access by 2023.
• Sci-Hub & Civil Disobedience: Alexandra Elbakyan's Sci-Hub (2011) bypasses paywalls for 85M+ papers, called "ethical piracy" by users. Publishers sue, but it's "civil disobedience" to reclaim science. As one EFF piece puts it: "Copyright requires acts of rebellion to keep science going."
• Academic & Policy Pushback:
  • 2002 Akerlof et al. letter to Congress: Extensions "rob future generations."
  • 2012 Finch Report (UK): Urged open access to avoid "knowledge divide."
  • EU's 2022 study: Copyright hinders reuse; calls for TDM exceptions.
  • 2015 JASSS paper: Simulations show longer terms decrease scientific output by 10–20%.
• Global South Voices: Excludes 80% of researchers; "neocolonial" enclosure of knowledge. Plan S (2018, 24+ countries) mandates open access by 2021.

Publishers counter: "We invest in quality." But evidence shows openness accelerates science (e.g., COVID preprints sped vaccines). The fight continues—2025's EU reforms aim to force more reuse rights. Bottom line: Many did feel robbed, and they're fighting back, proving science's ethos endures despite the law