CloudFlare Can Be Ordered To Disclose Science Piracy Website Owner Details (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A New York judge has ruled that CDN provider Cloudflare can be compelled to disclose customer details for the domains libgen.io and bookfi.org, both of which are alleged to provide pirated access to scientific and technical papers, infringing the rights of controversial academic publisher Elsevier. Judge Robert Sweet ruled 'The evidence set forth...demonstrates that Elsevier (publisher who filed the lawsuit) is unable to identify the operators of libgen.org or bookfi.org, or the true location of the computer servers upon which those websites are hosted, absent the ability to take discovery from Cloudflare.' Sweet's ruling refers to 'absent identifying information' necessitating an injunction for Cloudflare to surrender details intended to begin an investigative financial trail to the domain registrants. This information could have been provided by British company TLD Registrar Solutions, who registered libgen.org in 2012 -- and hardly seems likely to retrench under pressure, given the oft-criticised transparency of legal process between the U.S. and the United Kingdom. ICANN and WHOIS also seem like obvious first points of enquiry (however ICANN's secession from control by the United States government at the end of September may have complicated using it as a legal resource), but apparently, neither can help.

Comments

Thanks

[OneHundredAndTen]

I had never heard of those sites.

Re:Thanks

[Phusion]

Then clearly you need to get out more... or.. less, I'm not sure in this context, or why that's relevant, but it's a shame that anyone is using resources to shut these sites down. I suppose it's all in the name of copyright. When it comes to text books, scientific knowledge, they should always be free, anyone, regardless of wealth or affiliation, like the link says, should have access to this stuff for free--- of course the publishers and authors need to be paid for their work, so it's a sticky wicket. Wickets stuck or not, this is more or less what Aaron Swartz fought and died for, we need a solution... and no, I don't have one, other than throw all of it on a torrent tracker with Magnet links and a web host outside of the US/five eyes... but that's just me.

Re:Thanks

[interkin3tic]

I was/am surprised by the number of academic researchers who don't have libgen, sci-hub, and reddit r/scholar on "speed dial." Universities pay for access to most of the relevant articles, but still, you will come across articles that you don't have legal access to. I can't understand the mindset of "Oh, I can't get that article I'm interested in without paying for it? Whatever."

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I too thank Elsevier for this new information. I already use sci-hub for my professional work because it's better than my uni library's services. I found out about it from a similar news article a while ago.

Where should OneHundredAndTen and I be looking to be aware of these kind of resources? I don't have the energy or inclination to stick it to the Man, I just read lots of scientific articles for my work. So if I got out more... or... less, what else do I need to know to do my science efficiently and add to the world's knowledge? Where do I go when these websites stop functioning to find their replacement?

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

of course the publishers and authors need to be paid for their work

Authors (and peer reviewers) of scientific papers are usually not being paid for that by the publisher.

Re:Thanks

[Grishnakh]

You're missing the OP's point, which is that this is an example of the Streisand Effect. Many people may not be that actively interested in reading scientific papers, but then they read articles like this about Elsevier going after these "pirates", and look into the issue, decide that Elsevier's actions and monopolization of the industry are abhorrent, so they go to the pirate sites and start reading, then they tell their friends all about it, and it snowballs.

We've seen this over and over and over on the internet: when some powerful interest wants to shut something down they don't like, it just brings attention to it and makes it even more popular.

Re:Thanks

[SimonTheSoundMan]

I'm in the UK so get forwarded to http://www.ukispcourtorders.co... which lists lots of sites to get even more things from. Thank you British government!

publishers holding all the keys again

[Idisagree]

Piracy: providing a public service distribution since at least when the floppy disk was invented.

In the pursuit of scientific knowledge, no one should be restricted due to their current wealth status.

Re:publishers holding all the keys again

[Falos]

Ugg was illegally humming Grook's privately-owned music property before your floating trees.

"Me wish happy birth-day is yours!" o/~

But Ugg owns intellectual rights to round wheels. Entire human species owes Ugg royalties. Also some animals. Also most extraterrestrials.

Re:publishers holding all the keys again

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Just the same, what fraction are published in myriad shit journals is useful and what are just there to give professors something to publish their crap in?

It is in the interest of these authors these crap journals continue to exist, and they have to pay for themselves somehow, and these meagre subscriptions are it. Now you seek to eviscerate it?

Tl;dr There's plenty of ignoble behavior to go around.

Re:publishers holding all the keys again

[meta-monkey]

God made nature, so all scientists owe royalties to God. Checkmate, atheists!

Re:publishers holding all the keys again

[stealth_finger]

Heaven forbid people get paid for their hundreds of hours of work

Yo, fuckhead, scientists doesn't make money by charging by the download.

The more you know...

[Thud457]

Thomas Jefferson engaged in economic espionage against the Italians.
Which is pretty ballsy given that the Italians were rumored to assassinate your ass for that kind of behavior.

Sigh

[ledow]

UK Data Protection laws would prevent the disclosure of a British domain name owner's data to a non-EU law process, yes.

But a valid UK court's request for the same would be accepted.

Why haven't they tried to compel a UK court to agree to disclose that information for the purposes of law enforcement?

If they have, and they've been denied, I'd be very interested in the reasoning because there's not much reason to refuse if it's got to the stage of a cross-border copyright infringement. So I'd guess that they haven't tried, or tried hard enough.

"Science Piracy"? Awesome.

[hey!]

If you're against something you shouldn't make it sound so cool.

Re:"Science Piracy"? Awesome.

[meta-monkey]

"We are the Committee to Stop Cool Sex-Havin' Fast Car-Dirvin' Badass Science Sharing."

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[lesincompetent]

Somebody mirror those sites! Can't risk to lose it all.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA

[mukinrestak]

Hey man, could you explain the difference between your two links? What is the general size of the whole shebang of torrents?

Libgen.org registered via proxy service

[stevemclaugh]

Libgen.org was registered using a proxy service (Whois Privacy Corp, based in the Bahamas), so that explains why Elsevier hasn't pursued records from TLD Registrar Solutions. http://pageadviser.com/www.lib... Elsevier is aware of this, as one of their lawyers notes in this filing: http://www.stephenmclaughlin.n...

As a scientist...

[blind biker]

I don't even understand what "science piracy" might mean. The whole reason for scientific work to exist, is to be disseminated. Paywalled scientific journals are exactly the antithesis of what science is, which is openness, exposure, universal access.

Re:As a scientist...

[ChromeAeonium]

Also a scientist; I say it's not even piracy. Piracy is downloading something you didn't pay for. If I download, for example, the new Star Wars VII or Civ 6, that would be piracy, because I would be getting something that someone else made, with their money, with the intention of making a return on that investment, without paying a fair price for it.

On the other hand, if you download something that was made at a public institution, build and run with public funds, by a group in some part funded by public money grants, than that is not stealing; that is getting what you are owed. Demanding that someone should have to give $39.99 to some leech-weasel publishing company to get access to something they already paid for is the real piracy going on here. Elsevier and their ilk are stealing from the public.

Science needs to be open to everyone, not just those of us lucky enough to have institutional access (and hell, where I am, I don't even have easy access to all years for all journals, stupid as that is). I've no sympathy whatsoever here for them, and I'd bet they don't even lose money anyway when some curious individuals 'pirate' scientific articles, because most people aren't going to pay $40 for something that may or may not be pertinent to what they want to know. I'm not at all one of those people who rejects the idea of copyright and IP in general, not at all, but Elsevier and the rest of them are thieves, and they can take their copyright and shove it up their ass.

If science piracy is giving the public access to what they are entitled to and supporting the principle of scientific openness for all people, than long live science piracy.

Rule of law, or of scofflaws?

[mbeckman]

We either have rule of law, or we don't. These scientific paper copyright infringers violate current law. If they don't like the law, they can lobby to change it. They have no right to violate the rights of others anonymously.

Re:Rule of law, or of scofflaws?

[HiThere]

It is my opinion that the current copyright law is in violation of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court disagrees with me, but that doesn't change my mind, because their reasoning was faulty. Therefore the current copyright law is invalid. My obedience to it is mainly because it doesn't interfere with what I choose to do, and occasionally because of fear. I and if a work is in print and has existed for less than 20 years I feel that the FORMER copyright law (prior to the Walt Disney extensions) should be respected. Not the current one.

Re:Rule of law, or of scofflaws?

[HiThere]

If the argument is made about what is enforced, I agree with you completely. If the argument is about what is legal, I disagree.

I do understand that different people will have different opinions, and that society depends upon a certain consensus of behavior, but while I may obey laws that I consider illegal, I don't respect them. And others are less obedient.

A decent society depends on decent laws. When the enforced laws are so blatantly illegal it inspires widespread disrespect for the laws, and obedience only based on fear, which means only when you think you might get caught. This is extremely bad for society. It means that the ruling group has lost the trust in their rightness, and this tends to inspire widespread turbulence and general disrespect for even the necessary laws. (And people are such that some laws are necessary, and we live more comfortably in a *loosely* hierarchical social structure.)

The US Constitution is an excellent framework around which to build a society. It's not perfect, and needs some repair before it can work well in a strong-federal/weak-state environment, particularly with rapid transportation and communication. It needs to be a bit easier to amend, and there needs to be a built-in mechanism to allow for both emergency action and recovery from the emergency. This "reinterpreting it so we can easily deal with the current situation" is not an acceptable mechanism, partially because the interpretation is not only temporary. I'm also uncertain that even the basic design is suited for as large a country as the US has become. The higher levels of government are now too distant from the people they are supposed to represent. It would be better for the larger states to be subdivided, and the the federal government to only be able to regulate the states. Perhaps the state governments should also appoint the senators, as was the earlier practice.

The above, though, is all in the "not going to happen" scenario. What *is* going to happen isn't clear, but will probably involve increasingly automated interfaces between the people and the government. This could be either good or bad, depending on design and implementation.

Re:Scientists have a right to earn money too

[HiThere]

You don't have ANY idea how Elsevier works, do you? ...
Or did I miss a joke?

Re:How? Just How?

[AHuxley]

Proof reading, experts to look over the work, an index and publication all transmute that raw gov funded data into pure private sector profit.