Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sci-Hub 'Pirate Bay For Scientists' Sued by American Chemical Society Over Cloned Site (ibtimes.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on from the another-twist dept.

The American Chemistry Society (ACS) is now suing Sci-Hub, the so-called "Pirate Bay for Scientists," over copyright infringement and counterfeiting, and is asking the courts to grant an injunction against the website in the US. From a report: Following the news that academic publisher Elsevier won a legal judgement of $15m in damages against Sci-Hub for allowing people to illegally download peer-reviewed academic papers for free, the world's largest scientific society ACS has filed its own lawsuit in the state of Virginia against the website. ACS is complaining that in addition to making hundreds of thousands of research papers owned by the society freely available, Sci-Hub has also cloned its website and is infringing its trademarks by operating two almost-identical replicas of the ACS website at pubs.acs.org.sci-hub.cc and acs.org.secure.sci-hub.cc.

6 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Default Judgement by Luthair · · Score: 5, Informative

    It should be noted that the judgement Elsvier won was a default judgement because SciHub didn't appear... because they aren't a US entity.

    1. Re:Default Judgement by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not wrong. Sci-Hub is in violation of the law, no doubt about that. Morally though, I absolutely could not care less, and think that what is really wrong is hoarding knowledge in the form of the tax payer funded publications which Sci-Hub is now making accessible for all.

      I hope the Sci-Hub founder that Elsevier is after is never extradited. What she's doing is making the world a better place.

    2. Re:Default Judgement by ooloorie · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI:

      Following a lawsuit brought in the US by the publisher Elsevier, Elbakyan [the SciHub founder] is presently in hiding due to the risk of extradition;[16] Elsevier has been granted a $15 million injunction against her.[17] According to a 2016 interview, her neuroscience research is on hold, but she has enrolled in a history of science master’s program at a “small private university” in an undisclosed location.

      Note also that Elsevier is a Dutch publisher, headquartered in Amsterdam. Maybe the US should tell Elsevier to go f*ck themselves and file those lawsuits in Europe rather than the US. Why should the US always take the political crap that results from European publishers suing people?

  2. Science need to be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We pay our taxes. We want our money's worth. Give us our free science. NOW!

  3. Not piracy by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I still do not believe what Sci-Hub does is legitimately piracy. Piracy is downloading something you did not pay for. If my tax dollars already paid for the institutional overhead, the scientist's salary, and the grant money, downloading the paper is merely getting what I am owed. Those who monetize science are the real pirates, demanding money for access to that which was created with our tax dollars, charging universities obscene fees for the privilege of allowing their students to read it, and denying scientists and students in poorer countries access to important research.

    I've had issues getting papers from the 50's thanks to this outrageous copyright business...the publishers claim to somehow be of benefit to science, and that Sci-Hub harms science, but tell me, how does that benefit science, and how does allowing me or anyone else harm it?

    Copyright be damned, suing them is like suing a cop who returns stolen property because it cuts into the thief's profits. I'm a scientist, and I say long live Sci-Hub.

    1. Re:Not piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      your not a scientist your a theif

      Content producers are thieves. They've choked off the public domain by lobbying for the extension of "time limited" protection of their work far beyond the Constitutional provisions in the United States. The intention was that this burden upon the public - and yes, it's a burden on the public, as it was always intended to be a brief abridgment of the right to share information - would be endured for only a relatively brief period so the owner could make a reasonable profit. They have used their money to essentially buy Congress, and it's often been treated as a purchase before (see the response of content producers to the rather massive rejection of SOPA on the part of the American public). This doesn't cover the fact that many of these works are produced by government employees of the US and are, by default, in the public domain.

      Of course, with the use of software EULAs, they're extending copyright in directions far worse than originally specified, and are trying to use it to force the public to do their bidding, essentially attacking the concept of property ownership by proxy. Plus, many of the time-honored whiny laments such as "you wouldn't work for free, would you" are grossly disproven by a lot of things, including the fact that copyright need not be destroyed, merely made short and sane, as well as the fact that there are in fact people who make large amounts of content for free, such as much of the software you use on a day-to-day basis, particularly if you do things on the web.

      So yeah, I'll care about people who "steal" once all these problems are rectified. Your defense is of far larger and more dangerous thieves. I'll assume you've got a vested financial interest or listened to "don't copy that floppy" a few too many times, so I doubt I'll convince you, assuming you read this. But anyone else who's reading this, you might benefit if you consider these possibilities.