Slashdot Mirror
Judge Recommends ISP and Search Engine Blocking of Sci-Hub in the US (torrentfreak.com)
Sci-Hub, which is regularly referred to as the "Pirate Bay of Science," faces one of the strongest anti-piracy injunctions we have seen in the US to date, reports TorrentFreak. From the article: Earlier this year the American Chemical Society (ACS), a leading source of academic publications in the field of chemistry, filed a lawsuit against Sci-Hub and its operator Alexandra Elbakyan. Sci-Hub was made aware of the legal proceedings but did not appear in court. As a result, a default was entered against the site. In addition to millions of dollars in damages, ACS also requested third-party Internet intermediaries to take action against the site. While the request is rather unprecedented for the US, as it includes search engine and ISP blocking, Magistrate Judge John Anderson has included these measures in his recommendations. Judge Anderson agrees that Sci-Hub is guilty of copyright and trademark infringement. In addition to $4,800,000 in statutory damages, he recommends a broad injunction that would require search engines, ISPs, domain registrars and other services to block Sci-Hub's domain names. If the U.S. District Court Judge adopts this recommendation, it would mean that Internet providers such as Comcast could be ordered to block users from accessing Sci-Hub.
This would mean the blocking access to publicly funded science. This is a first ammendment violation. (this part of the ruling would be.)
If you don't like the result, you'll need a different argument, because while the Constitution only authorizes the federal government to do about a dozen pecific things, protecting copyright is one of those twelve things:
Article 1 - Section 8, powers of the federal government (clause 8):
âoeTo promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.â
You might advocate for a statute saying that any papers which in any way relate to any research which benefitted from any taxpayer funding must be placed in the public domain. The practical effect of that would be debatable and hard to predict, but it would be a cogent proposal. Pretending that the Constitution says the opposite of what it says in Section 8 is not a reasonable argument.
Yup, totalitarian states like the UK.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You know what i've never seen anyone say, but that's sad/true? As someone who has access to journals legally, it's actually -easier- to find the articles i'm looking for through scihub a lot of the time.. how sad is that?
We live in a collective, all governed by the same principals as any other collective. Individual desires have no meaning. If you're in the majority, you'll do fine. If you're in the minority, you're fucked.
Until the public can govern itself, it can't possibly be expected to intelligently choose who to govern over them. Every election confirms this fact. We elect bumbling idiots because they are "one of us" and corrupt tycoons because they "bring home the bacon", and we shun, even punish, those who do well. Today's government is a perfect reflection of the public. A typical day at Walmart...
We are so doomed, by our own submissiveness