Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elsevier Wants $15 Million In 'Piracy' Damages From Sci-Hub and Libgen (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the not-on-my-watch dept.

lbalbalba writes: Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, is demanding $15 million in damages from Sci-Hub and LibGen, who make paywalled scientific research papers freely available to the public [without permission]. A good chunk of these papers are copyrighted, many by Elsevier. Elsevier has requested a default judgment of $15 million against the defendants for their "truly egregious conduct" and "staggering" infringement. Sci-Hub's efforts are backed by many prominent scholars, who argue that tax-funded research should be accessible to everyone. Others counter that the site doesn't necessarily help the "open access" movement move forward. Sci-Hub's founder Alexandra Elbakyan defends her position and believes that what she does is helping millions of less privileged researchers to do their work properly by providing free access to research results.

17 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. bleh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Death to Elsevier

    1. Re:bleh by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a government-imposed monopoly, not capitalism.

    2. Re: bleh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amen.

      Elsevier's entire business model is based on restricting the spread of information and keeping the world stupider than it needs to be. It's time for them to be put out of business.

      Emperor Trump, are you listening? Make America great again by smashing the filthy neofeudal parasites at Elsevier.

    3. Re: bleh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I was talking about copyrights in general (the copyright monopoly and why it's needed).

      How exactly does Elsevier get copyright to work that a) they did not produce and/or b) they did not pay for?

    4. Re:bleh by Wootery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why there needs to be a change in the law. It should be unlawful to take the results of publicly-funded research and lock it away behind the paywall of a private company who contribute nothing.

      Pass the law, and publish-behind-paywalls-or-perish will perish overnight. Well-behaved replacements will emerge. We know this is possible, as the open access movement is already making some progress.

  2. Long live scihub by mSparks43 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny if Elselvier lose!!

    1. Re:Long live scihub by rholtzjr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question is how did a private company get a copyright on tax payer funded research. Who granted the copyright for data that was payed for by the tax payers? Well, it is the political establishment in one case that is trying to tie the hands of NIH funded research in private companies that required them to publicly release findings. Both Rep. and Dem. congress critters are introducing legislation that will remove this requirement and restrict any other agency to enforce this requirement. In other words, they will be granted a "copyright" to the material and we the people paid for it.

    2. Re:Long live scihub by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. I think this is one clear area where the government could (and should) step in and revoke Elsevier's copyrights. I don't think the current administration would actually do such a thing, but then again if Clinton had won she probably wouldn't either.

    3. Re:Long live scihub by elgatozorbas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who granted the copyright for data that was payed for by the tax payers?

      The researchers paid with you tax money did. Their interests and the nation's interests are not necessarily the same. They decided to publish in a "reputable" magazine than in some "non-established" open journal (possibly) because it adds to their prestige. This may change. Maybe in ten years the open journals are more prestigious. Maybe the Government should instate a law prohibiting publication in non-open journals.

      Besides: the conflict between personal interest and the judicious spending of tax money is nothing new. What benefit do you have from your president spending his weekends in mar-a-lago?

  3. The law, and the judges, disagree by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Pretty sure the death will all be in the other direction. Copyright is big business. Big.

    If you want it changed, you have to get after legislators, and possibly even the US constitution, presuming your concerns are US-centric.

    Low-level violations won't do it, and large scale central violations such as these are pretty much doomed from day one.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  4. How does this help? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd never heard of this site before but I agree with the goal of SciHub that the results of scientific research, especially that funded by governments, should be freely available to everyone. However, the way to achieve that is by lobbying governments to make it a requirement that all research they fund is published in open access journals (which is now largely the case). Simply breaking the law on a massive scale like this is not likely to end well nor, in the long-term, achieve the aim of making research freely available.

    1. Re:How does this help? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Couldn't disagree more. We wouldn't have Spotify, Apple Music, Google Music, and a host of other halfway-decent services if Napster hadn't come first.

      When the law does not respect the people, the people will not respect the law.

    2. Re:How does this help? by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SciHub was created by someone who is practicing civil disobedience.
      To say civil disobedience never works, and the government should be petitioned instead, is to ignore history.

      That said, civil disobedience can be painful.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. How come Elsevier still exist? by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Traditional scientific journals had their use before internet and effective search engines became widespread.
    But now, why do people pay them? What do they bring to the table? Distribution is dirt cheap, search engines make finding relevant publications easy, most editing is done by the researchers themselves and peer-review is not paid. The only service they seem to offer is pass the papers from the original researchers to reviewers, and, based on the review, decide to grant it the honor of being published. Publishing means making it available online with a ludicrous price tag.
    And even for scientists, what good does it make being published in a journal that restricts access. I know some researchers who simply don't use paywalled papers. If they find something interesting, they try to work around the paywall (legally) and if they can't, the paper is ignored and therefore not cited.

  6. For you, Elsevier... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the bottom of my heart: Fuck you!

    I am a highly-cited scientist (in my field), but have diligently avoided publishing in, or refereeing articles for (by-rules for-free) any any Elsevier-owned journal – for the entirety of my entire career.

    I also go to great pains to avoid citing anything that has appeared in an Elsevier scientific article. Surely the author said something similar somewhere else... or someone else said it...

    Elsevier are Copyright-vultures feeding off the free labor and hard work of scientists the world-over.

    1. Re:For you, Elsevier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is not written down, but it is the absolutely established tradition in academia. The problem is that most work is so incredibly complex, that potential employers don't want to bother actually reading through your stuff and evaluating it. They rely on the reviewers.

      In each field, there is a list of journals of decreasing importance, called 'impact factor'. Nature and Science are two of the top journals, then there are journals of professional organization (IEEE, AIP), Elsevier journals are mostly on the lower rungs.

      When you apply for a job, you have to submit a list of your papers. They go through the list, and if you don't have >x publications in high impact factor journals, your application goes straight into the recycle bin. No one will bother to read your articles at that stage, and blog posts or similar are not even considered, because they are not peer reviewed (peer review has its own problems).

      I think the main problem is that *scientists actually are not bothered enough by the system*. Any scientist who is bothered will be weeded out quickly. They are under tremendous pressure (probably only 1 in 100 science graduates get an academic job), and they don't need to shell out the money personally. Their publication charges are covered by their grants, their journal subscriptions are paid for by the universities.
      If you give a scientist at the beginning of his career the choice to publish with Elsevier or not publish, he will wisely chose to publish.

      A lot of scientists complain, but the system is working ok for them, they don't pay the bills and have other problems. Also, if you are part of the academic bourgeoisie, you have no problem accessing knowledge. It is all paid for, available in the library.

      The people who are really fucked are the unwashed members of the general public. If one of your loved ones gets cancer and you want to read about the latest medical research, you better hand over a lot of money - for research that you already paid for with your taxes.

  7. And what I want by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They want money for 'damages?' Well I want access to the research that MY tax payer dollars payed for. These papers are not being stolen by Sci-Hub, they are being ransomed by the leeches at Elsevier. You can't steal something that is already rightfully belongs to you. These papers rightfully belong to the people. It's completely ridiculous that I or anyone else should have to pay money for a paper three decades old, or pay for something because their institution does not have that particular subscription, or pay for anything else that they already, through their taxes, paid for.

    Fuck Elsevier. They are nothing more than a drain on the system. The free sharing of knowledge is one integral to the values of science. If promoting science, and getting what you are paid for, are piracy, then long live scientific piracy.