Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Hub Faces $4.8 Million Piracy Damages and ISP Blocking (torrentfreak.com)
The American Chemical Society (ACS), a leading source of academic publications in the field of chemistry, accused Sci-Hub of mass copyright infringement and is demanding $4.8 million in piracy damages. "Sci-Hub was made aware of the legal proceedings but did not appear in court," reports Torrent Freak. "As a result, a default was entered against the site, and a few days ago ACS specified its demands, which include $4.8 million in piracy damages." The complaint comes soon after the pirate site was ordered to pay $15 million in piracy damages to academic publisher Elsevier. From the report: "Here, ACS seeks a judgment against Sci-Hub in the amount of $4,800,000 -- which is based on infringement of a representative sample of publications containing the ACS Copyrighted Works multiplied by the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each publication," they write. "Sci-Hub's unabashed flouting of U.S. Copyright laws merits a strong deterrent. This Court has awarded a copyright holder maximum statutory damages where the defendant's actions were "clearly willful' and maximum damages were necessary to 'deter similar actors in the future.'" The publisher notes that the maximum statutory damages are only requested for 32 of its 9,000 registered works. This still adds up to a significant sum of money, of course, but that is needed as a deterrent, ACS claims.
Although the deterrent effect may sound plausible in most cases, another $4.8 million in debt is unlikely to worry Sci-Hub's owner, as she can't pay it off anyway. However, there's also a broad injunction on the table that may be more of a concern. The requested injunction prohibits Sci-Hub's owner to continue her work on the site. In addition, it also bars a wide range of other service providers from assisting others to access it. Specifically, it restrains "any Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries, to cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Defendant Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to [ACS's works]."
Although the deterrent effect may sound plausible in most cases, another $4.8 million in debt is unlikely to worry Sci-Hub's owner, as she can't pay it off anyway. However, there's also a broad injunction on the table that may be more of a concern. The requested injunction prohibits Sci-Hub's owner to continue her work on the site. In addition, it also bars a wide range of other service providers from assisting others to access it. Specifically, it restrains "any Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries, to cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Defendant Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to [ACS's works]."
I think they now have to go to russia to enforce this...
But I am finding it hard to find a place in my heart to enable companies to "own" published scientific research. If you're a scientist and you publish your findings, it should be free. Period. That doesn't stop someone from commercializing the fruits of their research according to the opaque patent laws around the globe, but the actual scientific discovery ought to be public and free.
Best,
let them stack punishment on punishment on copyright violators and "pirates". punishments that will be increasingly unenforcible as more and more methods are found and used, both to evade punishments, and perpetrate the alleged "crime"
more an unjustifiable law is exposed as impotent, better it is.
original creators and discoverers should learn to be satisfied with creation and discovery itself and glory(if any). financial rewards should be confined to direct interactions(actual performance, talks, employment, etc ,)
I'm sure that the court action in a US court will have a huge effect on that Russian site, hosted in Russia, made by a Russian woman.
Or, you know, not.
Sci-Hub will continue to not give a shit what the random whinging of profit mongering science leeches like Elsevier and ACS. The world will collectively ignore the judgement and continue on reaping the benefits of free and open access to scientific research. And search engines will roll their eyes at requests to delete their indexes; hell, the corporations can't even get Google to stop indexing game and media piracy... do you really think they'll be able to deter the far less morally dubious 'piracy' that Alexandra's Sci-Hub encourages?
Just one more news article to pile on to the entire Barbara Streisand effect pile, just to make sure nobody is unaware of this awesome site.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
I recently discovered sci-hub. The shear amount of knowledge accessible through it is astounding. These are things I'd never have had access to before due to location and financial reasons (some websites won't let me buy their stuff from my country, and I don't really have that kind of money to be flinging around paying for random papers and what not).
If we actually cared about our species as a whole, this sort of information would be freely available to those that seek it. I hope sci-hub can ignore these silly demands and continue improving their website. Fuck the ACS. They don't even sound like they were significantly affected by it.
Specifically, it restrains "any Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries, to cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Defendant Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to [ACS's works]."
How can a court injunction restrict the actions of parties not involved in the litigation? That seems like it's crossing the line into executive/legislative territory.
So if I were an ISP, and I wasn't paying attention to this legal BS, the ACS is going to sue me? For not following some random court injunction, as opposed to breaking a law? How would that even work?
.free the world's knowledge from these paywall-mongers for the betterment of personkind. How very dare she.
Requiem for the American Dream
That course of conduct worked so well for torrents that Pirate Bay is still up.
If I were to author a research paper and that paper was accepted in a credited scientific publication - who owns the copyright to my research paper?
Me, or that scientific publication?
The issue is that the ACS couldn't have authored all the papers they allegedly own the copyright of - why can't the scientific community rise up and demand that this copyright trolling platform, such as the ACS, be once and for all be closed down?
The published scientists are the enablers of this enterprise. It's time for them to make a stand and to publish only in open-access journals. I, myself, published a paper in an Elsevier journal four decades ago, long before the Internet, but I would never do this today.
But I am finding it hard to find a place in my heart to enable companies to "own" published scientific research.
They do not - they own the copyright on a paper. There is absolutely nothing to stop the author writing another paper with the same information and making that freely available. Indeed most papers in my field are preceded by a preprint on arxiv which is completely free.
If you're a scientist and you publish your findings, it should be free.
Agreed. The problem is that the reason that all these academic publishers exist has almost entirely vanished but there is a huge inertia in the system to change because many people's academic performance is evaluated based on where and how often they publish.
Personally, I think we need to go back to what we had before publishers took over. The current system grew out of scientific societies which would publish a regular bulletin based on letters from members who wrote in about a discovery they had made. As science took off the societies grew and printing thinker bulletins, more frequently with a larger circulation became a huge, expensive and time-consuming job given old printing presses. So the job was spun off to publishers who were good at doing this and they made their money to support the work by charging a subscription.
Today the journals need to be returned to the scientific societies which started them. The cost of publishing is basically nothing if you do it on the web and we academics already provide all the reviewing and correction of the content. The publisher is just involved in formatting and typesetting which is less important and easier to do if you publish online vs. a printing press.
Data just wants to be free!
Various recent incidents of Nazi related websites having their domains suspended / deleted will increase use of the practice to block all sorts of sites and content.
Some suggest just becoming a registrar, the cost of doing so is prohibitive for most. Starting a registry for a new .TLD could be another route, but is even more expensive and complicated. Furthermore, the article summery indicates even registries are restrained. That basically eliminates any viable domain alternative.
Down the slippery slope we go...
'Zero F*cks Given. kthxbye.' - Alexandra
Domain names are not blocked here in Germany.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
What emboldens ACS is the unanimity shown by Internet infrastructure companies in deleting the domains and search access of sites with fringe political views. The obvious next target is "illegal content" that reduces the profitability of any deep pockets US or EU companies. Sci-Hub will lose its domain in 3...2...1
So, where should that $2000 per article funding come from, exactly? It is far from "basically nothing", especially in the aggregate. If you disagree, I challenge you to start and run your own high-quality publication for a decade in a financially responsible way. I have.
There are many options. It does have to get paid for, but copyright may not be the best way to do it--in fact, we know it isn't, because it restrict access to information that is literally there to advance human knowledge. Perhaps schools and individuals who wish to publish could subscribe to publishing cooperatives, for example.
In the alternative, scientific papers could more sensibly be treated like patents--a short period of monopoly, followed by public use.
The big problem is the politics of trying to get it done, not that there's any intrinsic preference for copyright-based pricing of access to scientific knowledge.
Real lawyers write in C++
In case the domain gets blocked, there is always scihub22266oqcxt.onion
I can't be bound be a judgement entered against a third party? Nothing stops me from helping out sci hub and this order is pretty much illegal. Courts can't bind non-parties except in an in rem action and that's clearly not what this is.
I am a patient, with a severe condition.
I use it to be informed about latest research into that condition, and to be able to flag up errors and shortcomings if any in that research.
This is important, as guidelines for treatment can be based on research that doesn't quite prove what it says it proves.
Many papers are not available without significant fee ($20-50 one-time access), and many of these would require me legally to only have access to the paper for 24h, when it may take much more time, as available energy allows, to digest it.
Both non-NIH funded work, and outside the USA work are typically not available free.
All older papers, which may be crucial to understand the argument of current papers are not open access.
So, where should that $2000 per article funding come from, exactly?
Same place the funding for the original research itself came from? Add the "cost of publishing" to the grant proposal.
And if it's publicly-funded at taxpayer expense, don't even THINK about putting the result behind a goddamned paywall.
"Specifically, it restrains 'any Internet search engines[...]', to cease facilitating access"
"Restraining to cease facilitating access" means it requires them to continue facilitating access.
EDITORS, EDIT !
As part of the scientific community who has published many articles, I can affirm that the above poster is exaggerating at best. Since the age of the word processor, the author does the lions share of the type setting. In fact, I have had articles sent back for revision if the type setting was wrong. So, I am not sure what all these high paid graphics artists are doing.
Now, I have also reviewed hundreds of articles. I guess I really did not get the memo, because I was not paid for a single one. Maybe in the above posters magical journal, they pay reviews, but in my experience it is a service that one has to do gratis, if they want grant money from a federal agency. If I am wrong, i am happy to send a bill
As for the rest of the arguments, all I can say is that circles are circular because they are circles. If one creates a system with an arbitrary number of cost centers at an arbitrary cost, then they can get an arbitrary value for their production fee. For example, many journals are located in DC or New York. While I am sure this is a lot of fun for the editor, it is not necessary. I am pretty sure in a world of interconnected supply chains, one could base in somewhere cheap like West Virginia, pay negligible rent and pay the editor less since it is a cheap place to live. Suddenly, the costs go down.
BTW, the editor's main job is to find reviewers and to see if the article fits the scope of the journal. Despite the title, there is very little editing of typos etc going on from that position. Some journals also have people do this gratis, for the ability to have a better chance to get grants, of course.
To put this in further perspective, the poster claims over $2000 per article. Using an example I know well, the journal of physical chemistry has about 30-40 articles per issue. So, this means each issue is costing 60-80K dollars. In comparison, a comic book has a break even point of about $20,000/issue. These are in full color, based in New York, and they have to pay all their artists and authors. Since a comic book costs about 3 dollars, this means they are doing this for less than the poster's journal, who gets all their material for free. Something doesn't add up.
Did I mention that the authors of the article have to pay to be published? Just saying...
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
The crappy news site linked to:
"Specifically, it RESTRAINS "any Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries, to cease facilitating access [...]"
The actual court document:
"ORDERED that any person or entity in privity with Defendant Sci-Hub and with notice of the injunction, including any Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries, cease facilitating access[...]"
RESTRAINED is not ORDERED, FFS.
Slash their faces open, smear feces into the wounds, impale them (not fatally) on meat hooks and hang them up as an example.
... I remember receiving a message from the library of a university (not the one I was at) encouraging everyone to boycott Elsevier.
The reason ?
Elsevier accounted for 1% of the journals in their library, but it took 25% of their budget.
This not about piracy, it is all about corporate greed.
It's usually, "on the arxiv". The name puns x => greek letter chi, because internets are serious business.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Fuck anyone who says the US government doesn't censor the Internet.
I wonder how long it would take to spin up a Tor version of Sci-Hub. Any takers?
Just the typical crap that was only accepted after reading the first 3 sentences and is only allegedly peer-reviewed but not actually
On the one hand, it seems pretty clear cut to me that sci-hub is in violation of copyright law. Whether or not the law is just or efficient or good policy aside, sci-hub publishes material that it doesn't have legal rights to publish.
On the other hand, the benefit to society is enormous while the harm to the copyright holders is marginal. If we stack up the ethical issues on either side, the balance is unquestionably in favor of sci-hub.
And that should make everyone a little uncomfortable.
So, where should that $2000 per article funding come from, exactly?
Same place the funding for the original research itself came from?
This is the wrong place.
There are lots of "pay to publish" journals, and they are practically guaranteed to be crap. Because if I pay you to publish my article, are you really going to say no?
A major part of the value of a journal like PNAS or Science or Nature is that you can trust that most everything they publish is high quality research of high interest. Nobody can keep up with everything that everyone is writing. Researchers rely on journals to filter out some of the crap for them so they have a chance to focus on the more important bits.
Funded by me and you. Working everyday to fund this research. Rent seekers stick the most important research in the world behind a paywall. These are the death bringer of our world. There is not one good thing they bring us, but simply making us pay double for research we the people have already paid for.
if their dues weren't such a fucking ripoff. And on top of that it's $90 a year for a digital-only subscription to a journal (they stopped selling print copies to memebers years ago; I like paper) which I have to pay to print out myself. Of course, they very graciously allow you 25 free downloads per year. But at the beginning of a research project I read that many in an afternoon. Now I just use the ACS website's search function to find what I need and then download it from sci-hub. The pdfs there look just as good as the ones from ACS.
How are we over 100 comments without a link to this?
The Right to Read
The topic isn't really, "Should Nature get paid?" or "How much should Nature get paid?", but "Who should pay them, and who should be able to view the resulting publication?"
If the original research grant were used to cover for the editorial costs associated with peer review and publication, then the Elseviers of the world could no longer make a case for restricting public access to publicly-financed research.
The goal of sci-hub is to remove artificial obstacles that block access to human knowledge. Every legitimate scientist should share this goal. But right now, the financial and academic incentives are horribly misaligned.
The way around this has already been paved by PLOS ONE. They might not quite have it right, but the open-access part is good.
Each discipline needs to take ownership of their own peer review process and publish entirely in open access web journals. Ideally only one. And some sort of slashdot style moderation and metamoderation system might help bring the more important articles to the top. It is certainly doable. And every discipline could have membership dues to pay the (very small) bills for web development and hosting. Or the NSF could foot the bill and set the thing up.
All it really requires is buy-in from the research industry. Which is probably a lot like herding cats.
Oh, and everyone should publish all of their supporting data too. Much, much easier to critique, reproduce or follow someone's work if you have full access to the data.
You can't eat your "oughts"
pz - Thank you for your cogent, thoughtful and earnest responses in this debate. It has been fascinating to read a contrasting dialectic where pretty much none of the parties likely possess an understanding of the scope, structure, needs and stakeholder requirements of the opposing viewpoints. (and probably neither their allied viewpoints). Yet each credible contrast does indeed seem rational and logical -- such as Roger W. Moore's, which I will call the 'Free Model'.
As an innovator who runs a business, sponsors conferences, and also executes original research -- I am interested in some more, say, 5000-10,000 foot view of your model. I will be asking Roger W. Moore the same as his responses have been as lucid as yours. Such as when you told the 'Hosting Is Free' guy the SLA requirements for the Enterprise-Level hosting you require. (I too am interestd if HIF guy can provide source of Enterprise-Hosting for pennies. I will switch TODAY.)
Anyway - to move this debate from "you suck and you're an antiquated liar" vs "you suck and are ignorant of real-world needs" -- would you consider giving us a "big picture" or "medium sized picture" of why your 2K Cost is not Roger W. Moore's 0K cost?
Maybe an anchor could be why pz 'Ethically Pays Reviewers' vs Roger W. Moore's point of 'Free Review is Industry Standard.' Sounds like you both are in different industry/academic cultures. But who knows. Why I am asking. Very interested. Thanks.
Time spent editing a journal isn't time spent teaching or researching
It is time spent on research and as academics, we are paid specifically to do that. Not all research is going out and thinking of new things to test and calculate. A very important part of research is checking the data and conclusions to make sure that they are absolutely correct. That is where editing for a journal falls. It is just part of the job we are paid to do by tax payers.
Since you are so concerned about who is paying us to do this then just think about the current system for a second. Why should tax payers be subsidizing the operating cost of a commercial, for-profit publisher by paying the salaries of their reviewers when their profits come from selling the results back to tax payers (either directly or indirectly through upfront costs to publish a paper)? It is far, far easier to defend tax payers covering the salaries of those reviewers if they are working for a non-profit organization that checks and disseminates science that those same tax payers can then access for free themselves.