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.
It's not an order, though. It's just the judge expressing his personal desire.
Usually what happens in just about every court proceeding is that the plaintiff's attorney files a motion usually leading to a hearing unless the parties settle the matter beforehand. During the court proceedings the plaintiff presents to the judge an order that they believe will resolve the issue. If the defendant doesn't show up (which is the case here) to contest the order that has been presented by the plaintiff, unless the judge really understands the order (which I suspect they may not understand the internet in this case), they may be inclined to use the plaintiff's proposed order and enter it as a default judgment. Otherwise, I'm not sure how a judge could have thought that this is an appropriate remedy to the issue. The judge is asking entities who are not parties to the case to perform actions that constitute the remedy.
We'll make great pets
Aren't amendments supposed to be superior to the original text of the Constitution?
Why doesn't the first amendment greatly restrict copyright law?
Play Command HQ online
Then you should know something else about the site.
The only way Sci-Hub gets content is by stealing it from those who legitimately pay for access.
I agree, publicly funded research should be made publicly available but not all research is publicly funded and Sci-Hub does not discriminate in the research papers and journal articles it steals.
You have freedom for your own political speech, not freedom to violate someone else's rights - in this case copyrights granted by government.
Except we don't have a democracy in the US. We have a corporate state similar to fascism. Corporations have captured the government and run it for their benefit. Actual voters are irrelevant.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Except we don't have a democracy in the US. We have a corporate state similar to fascism. Corporations have captured the government and run it for their benefit. Actual voters are irrelevant.
No, fascism isn't at all similar. In fact, quite the opposite, fascism requires that businesses can only operate in a way that works towards "the greater good", with that greater good being defined by the government. In the case of Germany, that meant things like no pornography, no alcohol, etc. Fascism is also highly collectivist, whereas what we have today is highly individualist.
And contrary to popular belief, the founding fathers were all themselves a bunch of aristocrats, and the most powerful corporations of their time were far more powerful than they are today (for example, they had their own private navies/armies, they had the power to declare wars, they could jail and execute people who didn't pay their debts.) The Dutch East India Company, who in 1623 was the first company to ever go public, and was worth $7.4 trillion dollars in today's money at its peak. It also had the largest monopoly the world has ever seen.
Anybody who thinks corporations are becoming ever more powerful and taking over the world doesn't know shit about history. In fact, over time the checks and balances have only improved. Alas, socialists always have rose tinted glasses about the "good ol' days" where governments in practice own and control everything, including your personal property.