How Indian lawyers, scientists gave Sci-Hub its first legal defense team(news.careers360.com)
news.careers360.com
How Indian lawyers, scientists gave Sci-Hub its first legal defense team
https://news.careers360.com/sci-hub-scihub-libgen-alexandra-elbakyan-lawsuit-india-delhi-high-court-du-sol-delhi-university-iiser-jnu-mit-iit-science-research-elsevier
61 comments
> When the deck is completely stacked against you, going outside the rules is not "illegal".
Yes it is. Things are "illegal" when they're in the law book, regardless of which law they're breaking and what they're standing up for.
Yes it is. Things are "illegal" when they're in the law book, regardless of which law they're breaking and what they're standing up for.
In most places, and certainly in places that practice "common law" and democracy, part of what makes something legal is its moral acceptability. The laws on the books exist to reflect that and to make things function efficiently and fairly. Without that, laws are simply a tool of violence and oppression by the authorities (or the majority, in case of a democracy) against their population.
That's why we have juries of peers, and the ability of a jury to say "this person did the thing, but they shouldn't be punished for it".
That's why we have juries of peers, and the ability of a jury to say "this person did the thing, but they shouldn't be punished for it".
Hence why jury nullification scares the ever loving crap out of the Justice system. Binding precedent is created by the Jury, which throws a wrench into the works that for some reason is seen less acceptable or "official" than a prosecutor exercising prosecutorial discretion.
Jury nullification does not create binding precedent.
That only makes things even more hilarious, because now the Justice system can't even claim to be consistently applying stare decisis across the board if that is the case.
Rather it only does it when someone makes the decision that to do so is convenient for maintaining the integrity of the Judicial system; thereby creating the facade that the entire thing isn't rife with capricious singularities like it actually is.
When laws are impossible to consistently enforce (as evidenced by prosecutorial discretion), or juries are not on board with seeing them enforced, it should be a much more blatant signal something is up or off than it is.
In fact, is there even a record of cases of "refused prosecutions"? If not, maybe there should be. Then there's be an objective metric to analyze to see if a law is being abused selectively.
Rather it only does it when someone makes the decision that to do so is convenient for maintaining the integrity of the Judicial system; thereby creating the facade that the entire thing isn't rife with capricious singularities like it actually is.
When laws are impossible to consistently enforce (as evidenced by prosecutorial discretion), or juries are not on board with seeing them enforced, it should be a much more blatant signal something is up or off than it is.
In fact, is there even a record of cases of "refused prosecutions"? If not, maybe there should be. Then there's be an objective metric to analyze to see if a law is being abused selectively.
Cases are recorded in general. I don't know if there's a BigQuery LexisNexis or whatever, but I bet someone has access to a representative database and can grep for "we the jury declare the defendant not guilty" followed by "the judge was foiled and slunk back to its lair to concoct a new scheme".
Care to elaborate?
Not a ton to elaborate on, it just isn't precedent.
All jury nullification is is a jury finding someone not guilty despite the fact that they think they did actually commit all the elements of the offense. It doesn't prevent the law from being applied in future trials, even in identical situations (nor do other jury verdicts). It's not even typically known whether or not the jury found not guilty because of nullification or because they didn't find the prosecutions case convincing.
All jury nullification is is a jury finding someone not guilty despite the fact that they think they did actually commit all the elements of the offense. It doesn't prevent the law from being applied in future trials, even in identical situations (nor do other jury verdicts). It's not even typically known whether or not the jury found not guilty because of nullification or because they didn't find the prosecutions case convincing.
In quite a few US states anti-miscegenation laws are still on the books. You would hardly find a lawyer or judge to take the case but most haven't been removed, yet. If you told a interracial couple that what they are doing is "illegal" you'd rightly be laughed at.
>Things are "illegal" when they're in the law book,
Probably oughtta get the Kazakhstani Disney police right on it.
Probably oughtta get the Kazakhstani Disney police right on it.
Isn't this double negation? If what the industry is doing is unethical and what Alexandra is doing is considered "illegal" in the eyes of that industry... wouldn't that make it actually legal and ethical?
I think it's quite important to distinguish between 'legal' and 'ethical'. What Alexandra is doing is illegal and ethical. If we don't view those two as separate it becomes way too easy to excuse unethical behaviour on the basis of 'just obeying the law'
I think the author meant that from a constitutional POV. There are no provisions for free access even if its not affordable.
I wish there was a way I could financially support Sci-Hub.
The only impediment is they accept cryptocurrency and I am too lazy to get well versed with it. Not forgetting to mention the prices are currently through the roof, and TBH unaffordable for me.
But just like I regularly support Wikipedia and USENIX with modest but periodic donations, I would like to support Sci-Hub as well.
The only impediment is they accept cryptocurrency and I am too lazy to get well versed with it. Not forgetting to mention the prices are currently through the roof, and TBH unaffordable for me.
But just like I regularly support Wikipedia and USENIX with modest but periodic donations, I would like to support Sci-Hub as well.
> Not forgetting to mention the prices are currently through the roof, and TBH unaffordable for me.
Cryptocurrencies are divisible into tiny fractional units, so you don't have to buy a whole unit of a cryptocurrency to use it. While it is a small hassle to convert your currency to cryptocurrency before sending it, if you use an exchange like Coinbase, it's not much harder than transferring money to a different bank/investment account.
Cryptocurrencies are divisible into tiny fractional units, so you don't have to buy a whole unit of a cryptocurrency to use it. While it is a small hassle to convert your currency to cryptocurrency before sending it, if you use an exchange like Coinbase, it's not much harder than transferring money to a different bank/investment account.
> it's not much harder than transferring money to a different bank/investment account.
Yes, along with all the KYC requirements that coinbase require, just like my investment account does. Meanwhile the bar for services like Pateron, paypal, shopify, etc is one click and done.
Yes, along with all the KYC requirements that coinbase require, just like my investment account does. Meanwhile the bar for services like Pateron, paypal, shopify, etc is one click and done.
why? what is the "benefit of elsevier"? beyond holding copyright to the work of others which they give away for free, what value addition does elsevier bring to the table that cant be done otherwise? if the argument is that they provide classification and other stuff, why cant you just dump everything on schihub and let people do the organization themselves?
remember a few hundred years ago, horse drawn carts were a big business but cars drew them to extinction. should we bring back horse drawn carts monopoly of the old just because they were something once?
on a sidenote, why arent authors and researchers publishing on scihub directly?
remember a few hundred years ago, horse drawn carts were a big business but cars drew them to extinction. should we bring back horse drawn carts monopoly of the old just because they were something once?
on a sidenote, why arent authors and researchers publishing on scihub directly?
> on a sidenote, why arent authors and researchers publishing on scihub directly?
Many compsci/physics/math researchers already submit preprints (or post-prints even) of their papers to arXiv, which is public: https://arxiv.org/. I'm confused, is there a reason why they should they submit to Sci-Hub too?
Many compsci/physics/math researchers already submit preprints (or post-prints even) of their papers to arXiv, which is public: https://arxiv.org/. I'm confused, is there a reason why they should they submit to Sci-Hub too?
They're not always quite the same, often arxiv have doesn't updates reflecting changes during the publication process (not including formatting). Can be annoying, the can be subtle differences and people aren't really careful about which versions they use or cite.
> on a sidenote, why arent authors and researchers publishing on scihub directly?
Because Elsevier own prestigious journals that authors want to publish on. Its like saying why compete in the Olympics when you can compete in your local races.
Because Elsevier own prestigious journals that authors want to publish on. Its like saying why compete in the Olympics when you can compete in your local races.
why dont they dual publish or does publishing on elsevier make you forfeit the right to publish elsewhere ? publish on elsevier and simultaneously publish on scihub also? what is the problem in that?
I don't follow this issue in detail but I think Elsevier edits the drafts so you are not free to publish it elsewhere unless you pay extra to make it open access. The other option is to publish the draft copies elsewhere before Elsevier touches it.
Multi-billion dollar international team of lawyers vs a bunch of young volunteers!
I’m rooting for the little guys...
I’m rooting for the little guys...
Haha, PepsiCo (Lays owner) lost case against farmers who produced the special potatoes in India.
Suppose SciHub looses cases in multiple countries and has to shutdown. What prevents someone from putting entire data as torrent?
Piracy is result of unfair prices. Music used to be pirated all the time but then Spotify came along with subscription based services. I don't know anyone who still pirates music. Maybe people with IP and copyright claims should learn from Music industry.
Piracy is result of unfair prices. Music used to be pirated all the time but then Spotify came along with subscription based services. I don't know anyone who still pirates music. Maybe people with IP and copyright claims should learn from Music industry.
> What prevents someone from putting entire data as torrent?
What do you mean by that? It's already a bunch of torrents on the official SciHub page.
What do you mean by that? It's already a bunch of torrents on the official SciHub page.
Yes, these torrents hold hundreds or thousands of articles each. You can help preserve them by downloading and seeding them.
Can you point me to these torrents please? I can’t seem to find them.
If you look at https://libgen.rs/scimag/, on the top left, there's Download -> Torrents.
But pirating music is different from streaming it on some application. Like you don't own the music file you're just streaming it from some servers(in case of downloading you still need the app and can't share it to some other device).
I don't think that matters.
Everybody had a bunch (or thousands) of MP3s because mobile phones weren't a thing, fast mobile connections weren't a thing and there was simply no infrastructure to have something like Spotify.
If we'd have Spotify with everything in 2003, we would not swap hard drives in school breaks.
Everybody had a bunch (or thousands) of MP3s because mobile phones weren't a thing, fast mobile connections weren't a thing and there was simply no infrastructure to have something like Spotify.
If we'd have Spotify with everything in 2003, we would not swap hard drives in school breaks.
I was a subscriber to “Yahoo music unlimited” in 2005 and transferred my DRM’d WMA files to a zen micro with a 4GB spinning disc.
granted, i never met anyone else at school doing the same thing.
granted, i never met anyone else at school doing the same thing.
I am not convinced music prices were "unfair" -- they were higher than people wanted to pay. There is a distinction.
Hm, unfair to whom. Do you know how much the artists actually receive?
There are clauses from the days of shipping vinyl to record stores, regarding breakage of disks. The label keeps a percentage (5% - 10% can't remember correctly), for broken disks. They still use these clauses decades after they have <edit>lost</edit> any basis in reality.
The Police financed the recordings themselves, to get higher royalty percentages.
Have you read about majors suing artists for damages after their albums flopped?
How much do the people earn that made the music in the first place? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/19/zoe-keati...
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/12/06/zoe-keating-spot...
Further reading here, published 21 years ago: https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
There are clauses from the days of shipping vinyl to record stores, regarding breakage of disks. The label keeps a percentage (5% - 10% can't remember correctly), for broken disks. They still use these clauses decades after they have <edit>lost</edit> any basis in reality.
The Police financed the recordings themselves, to get higher royalty percentages.
Have you read about majors suing artists for damages after their albums flopped?
How much do the people earn that made the music in the first place? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/19/zoe-keati...
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/12/06/zoe-keating-spot...
Further reading here, published 21 years ago: https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
What is a fair price? There is no such thing.
An economically optimal price is one that maximizes total profit.
If it's too high, fewer people will buy the product, which might reduce profit. If it's too low, the profit margin will be small in spite of lots of units sold.
An economically optimal price is one that maximizes total profit.
If it's too high, fewer people will buy the product, which might reduce profit. If it's too low, the profit margin will be small in spite of lots of units sold.
> What is a fair price? There is no such thing
It's subjective, but that doesn't make it nonexistent. I pay $10/mo. for Spotify. I'm happy with that. I think I get great value for that money spent. If someone came out with an $8/month streaming service, I'd scrutinize it fairly closely before contemplating switching.
It's subjective, but that doesn't make it nonexistent. I pay $10/mo. for Spotify. I'm happy with that. I think I get great value for that money spent. If someone came out with an $8/month streaming service, I'd scrutinize it fairly closely before contemplating switching.
Are you actually saying that you would refuse to use a service (all other things being equal) that was $8/month because $10/month is what you think is "fair?"
If so, I'd mark that behavior as strange, and not actually evidence of the existence of a "fair price." There's no way this behavior is typical.
If what you're saying is that you'd assume a price lower than $10/month would have other, unseen problems, then:
1) You're not referring to a "fair price" but instead a believable price, which is a compromise between what you want to pay (which is nothing) and what you estimate to be the price of delivery, and the odds with that price in mind that what you receive will be adulterated/lower-quality than advertised.
2) How is $10/month fair? No wonder musicians don't make any money.
If so, I'd mark that behavior as strange, and not actually evidence of the existence of a "fair price." There's no way this behavior is typical.
If what you're saying is that you'd assume a price lower than $10/month would have other, unseen problems, then:
1) You're not referring to a "fair price" but instead a believable price, which is a compromise between what you want to pay (which is nothing) and what you estimate to be the price of delivery, and the odds with that price in mind that what you receive will be adulterated/lower-quality than advertised.
2) How is $10/month fair? No wonder musicians don't make any money.
> It's subjective, but that doesn't make it nonexistent.
Yes, it does. Subjective assessments have no objective reality.
Yes, it does. Subjective assessments have no objective reality.
> Subjective assessments have no objective reality
Subjective assessments drive political preferences and policy, to say nothing of human relations and experiences.
Subjective assessments drive political preferences and policy, to say nothing of human relations and experiences.
Hallicinations of the expressed wishes of divine figures do that, too.
Still doesn't make those figures, or their wishes, real. Beliefs about fair prices exist, fair prices themselves do not.
Still doesn't make those figures, or their wishes, real. Beliefs about fair prices exist, fair prices themselves do not.
Only if you assume humans are purely self centered rational agents. In practice, many people do care about what a "fair" price is and don't just charge as much as possible in pursuit of profit.
We are talking about music, not insulin. There's probably hundreds of millions of different songs including the ability to listen for free on radio with ads, YT etc.
This is an absurdly limited point of view. If I charge 3x as much as other vendors, then force them to raise their prices by firebombing businesses that don't comply, it might (conceivably) maximize profit, but most people would think it unfair, largely because it was founded on unfair restraint of trade.
I don't think the prices on music were unfair before. No one has to have music, and there was no evidence that the prices were enforced by unfair practices. They were just higher than people wanted to pay.
But most people would say that Enron's manipulation of energy markets was quite unfair.
I don't think the prices on music were unfair before. No one has to have music, and there was no evidence that the prices were enforced by unfair practices. They were just higher than people wanted to pay.
But most people would say that Enron's manipulation of energy markets was quite unfair.
> there was no evidence that the prices were enforced by unfair practices
Copyright is the unfair practice at work here enforcing high prices for distribution of information, a service which can be provided at practically zero cost when not restrained by force.
Copyright is the unfair practice at work here enforcing high prices for distribution of information, a service which can be provided at practically zero cost when not restrained by force.
> An economically optimal price is one that maximizes total profit.
The economically optimal price is the one that maximizes total value in the long run.
The economically optimal price is the one that maximizes total value in the long run.
> maximizes total value in the long run.
What value? Units sold/quantity of product? If so, should businesses operate at breakeven in the long run?
This is an interesting take, it is optimal for everyone, not just the producers. I agree that this would be the ideal scenario for society.
The problem is - how to arrive at it?
Profit sends a message that offering X instead of Y is more profitable - and therefore, better use of one's time.
How would you reduce/remove profit without destroying incentives to innovate or even pivot to new industries?
What value? Units sold/quantity of product? If so, should businesses operate at breakeven in the long run?
This is an interesting take, it is optimal for everyone, not just the producers. I agree that this would be the ideal scenario for society.
The problem is - how to arrive at it?
Profit sends a message that offering X instead of Y is more profitable - and therefore, better use of one's time.
How would you reduce/remove profit without destroying incentives to innovate or even pivot to new industries?
Yes, but it depends if the goods or service is essential. Is knowledge/ education/ access to information essential?
Shutting down isn't actually on the table here. In the best case, she wins. In the worst case, she goes back to her post-USSR nation that doesn't really care about international copyright law and continues to ignore international copyright law.
Pirating music remains lively on the private tracker scene
MP3 art shared by napster is different from Knowledge shared by SciHub in that the former was financed privately by record companies while the latter is funded by state taxes (i.e. public money).
At the current state of affairs, Scientific Publishers can be reduced as "curators" of public research publications. They may work very well at that (i.e. reading something from Nature, or from JAMA has its prestige) but there is no reason why they should gate the knowledge behind paywalls. They should offer their "curation/selection" services, dedicated to create lists/collections of scientific articles already published elsewhere for free.
At the current state of affairs, Scientific Publishers can be reduced as "curators" of public research publications. They may work very well at that (i.e. reading something from Nature, or from JAMA has its prestige) but there is no reason why they should gate the knowledge behind paywalls. They should offer their "curation/selection" services, dedicated to create lists/collections of scientific articles already published elsewhere for free.
s/defence/defense/
Not all English is American English, in countries influenced by British English defence is often the correct spelling.
Thank you, I've been corrected.
Also, center in british english is centre.
Captchas are the worst for this as a native British English speaker since they tend to be automotive, which is an area where British and American English differ wildly. Some are fairly self-explanatory because of how literal the American English terms are (pavement vs sidewalk, zebra crossing vs crosswalk) but some are a bit more arcane (central reservation vs median, bonnet/boot vs hood/trunk).
The correct spelling of defen(c|s)e is regional (as are many English words).
Not really. https://proofreadmyessay.co.uk/writing-tips/spelling-tips-de...
India uses British English.
India uses British English.
100% agree with this; Though i would dispute that what she is doing is "illegal". When the deck is completely stacked against you, going outside the rules is not "illegal".
Every rational, educated person on this planet should support free access to Knowledge if we are to achieve a fairer, egalitarian society.
More power to Sci-Hub, LibGen and their brethren !