Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Court Grants ISPs and Search Engine Blockade of Sci-Hub (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the decline-of-the-arts-and-sciences dept.

Sci-Hub, a scientific research piracy site home to thousands of research papers, has suffered another blow in a U.S. federal court. According to TorrentFreak, "The American Chemical Society has won a default judgment of $4.8 million for alleged copyright infringement against the site. In addition, the publisher was granted an unprecedented injunction which requires search engines and ISPs to block the platform." This comes after a $15 million fine was imposed on Sci-Hub by a New York federal judge earlier this year. From the report: Just before the weekend, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a final decision which is a clear win for ACS. The publisher was awarded the maximum statutory damages of $4.8 million for 32 infringing works, as well as a permanent injunction. The injunction is not limited to domain name registrars and hosting companies, but expands to search engines, ISPs and hosting companies too, who can be ordered to stop linking to or offering services to Sci-Hub. The injunction means that Internet providers, such as Comcast, can be requested to block users from accessing Sci-Hub. That's a big deal since pirate site blockades are not common in the United States. The same is true for search engine blocking of copyright-infringing sites.

"Ordered that any person or entity in active concert or participation 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 to any or all domain names and websites through which Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to, use, reproduction, and distribution of ACS's trademarks or copyrighted works," the injunction reads.

97 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. stupid by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the only people that cant freely benefit from these U.S. science papers are U.S. citizens.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:stupid by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even worse. Rather than direct action on the offending party, this ruling assumes to force the cost of enforcement onto innocent third parties.

      That should be, at a bare minimum, an unconstitutional 5th Amendment "taking."

      And F the application of "taking" to only real property. It's extremely disingenuous to try to apply that to a case involving intellectual property.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re: stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the ACS is anti-science and refuses to allow a site which provides free hosting to researchers to operate. They are the lowest scum imaginable.

    3. Re:stupid by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      That was the first thing that occurred to me.

      Researchers outside the U.S. in china, russia, etc. will have free access while u.s. citizens (and probably some EU) will have to pay for access. In many cases, they won't be able to access it as their budget's won't allow it.

      Not familiar with the works- are they from public universities paid for by tax dollars but published in journals that are claiming copyright or are they private company research, or both?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:stupid by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's more than that. The judge's demand is worthless and is unlawful.

      Honestly the judge should know better. He can write all he wants about "Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries" in his court order. But if they were not part of the suit, they cannot be part of the order.

      Of course, the judge can bring them in as new named parties, but by doing so he'll have to face the lawyers from all those companies. His order will need to stand scrutiny and appeals from the legal teams of many of the biggest companies in the world.

      That part of the order should just be ignored for now. It is illegal, and if the court attempts to enforce it, they can find themselves at the wrong end of a bar review for it.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    5. Re:stupid by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Welcome to corporate America. Why would they care?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    6. Re:stupid by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That legal theory won't work. Nothing is being taken by the government. Unless my understanding is wrong, what's established is that if if ISPs don't block this, then they open themselves up to civil liability on the basis of this case law (unless it is appealed.) We already have many examples of laws that do this, like the DMCA for example. If the penalty for not complying with this order is adverse action by the government (i.e. a fine) then it still wouldn't work...they're not giving private property to the public, and this isn't eminent domain. If it was a government penalty, then I think you'd have better luck fighting this on first amendment grounds.

      Personally, I'd like to see some kind of law or case law in a high court that prevents breaking the internet. And I mean that literally; you're causing what should be one big cohesive network of networks to become segmented into smaller networks of networks, and making the term "internets" (yes, plural) apply. (Depending on how they implement it, of course. If it's at the IP layer, which is the only way that this could reasonably work, and the injunction seems to call for it, then this is exactly what they'd be doing. Of course, it probably won't defeat VPN tunneling, which could never realistically be banned without making major changes to the constitution.)

      We may be able to get a good case law in a higher court (maybe even SCOTUS) for that if all of these internet companies decide to hop in the ring to fight this, which based on their history, seems probable.

    7. Re:stupid by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      That should be, at a bare minimum, an unconstitutional 5th Amendment "taking."

      Im fairly sure ther are multiple constitutional barriers to this ruling being enforcable.-

      Expect it to die in appeals

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    8. Re:stupid by mysidia · · Score: 2

      But if they were not part of the suit, they cannot be part of the order.

      That is not true; However, the order is too vague to understand who is being required to act, and exactly what step they are being ordered to take.

      Depending on your interpretation of the order, they may be ordering something that is technically impossible for ISPs to do, Or they might be making an order that only applies to those doing business with Sci-Hub directly....

      "In Active concert or participation with defendant" --- does not include merely routing packets that might somehow be associated with the defendant.

      Furthermore: cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to, use, reproduction, and distribution of ACS's trademarks or copyrighted works

      ISPs have no way of knowing what domain names SciHub engages in unlawful access, etc,
        with. Furthermore, ISPs have no way of knowing what domain names IP traffic are associated with, and to the degree they provide any DNS services typically have no capability to handle any destination domain differently than any other destination domain, thus there is no way to implement the order.

    9. Re:stupid by zifn4b · · Score: 2

      Even worse. Rather than direct action on the offending party, this ruling assumes to force the cost of enforcement onto innocent third parties.

      The offending party is outside of US Jurisdiction. They can't touch her and I seriously doubt Putin would extradite her.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    10. Re:stupid by msauve · · Score: 1

      So what?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    11. Re:stupid by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

      And the British, don't forget they block access as well.

      --#

    12. Re:stupid by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Rather than direct action on the offending party, this ruling assumes to force the cost of enforcement onto innocent third parties.

      This implies that there was some action that could be taken against the offending party but that a malevolent choice was opted for against innocent people. That's inaccurate. The reason the action was taken is because there was no logical action that could be taken against the offending party due to the circumstances. Do you disagree?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    13. Re:stupid by msauve · · Score: 1

      If there's no action which can be taken, there's no action to be taken.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    14. Re:stupid by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      Not all US citizens. If you're a student or faculty member at a primarily undergraduate institution and not a Carnegie D1 research institution, you probably don't have access to all of the scientific publications as those at the main research schools. This is simply because you're library doesn't have the budget to subscribe to everything.

    15. Re: stupid by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      or malicious.
      While it was fun for a while watching the US get destroyed from the inside out, its got kinda boring now. can you guys stop attributing to stupidity what is obviously the consequence of malice please.

    16. Re:stupid by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      If there's no action which can be taken, there's no action to be taken.

      That is a nonsense statement. That is like saying, if you post to slashdot, you post to slashdot. What is your actual claim here? Clearly because some action was taken, by definition there was an action to be taken. Can you clarify your position so we can understand you better?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    17. Re:stupid by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sorry there Derpy, but there are these other Judges above those Judges who are even more legal and force-y.

    18. Re:stupid by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      "In Active concert or participation with defendant" --- does not include merely routing packets that might somehow be associated with the defendant.

      Despite all the panic and FUD being spread by previous comments, I was hoping I would see someone who actually read what was in the summary. Yes, those "in active concert or participation" are required to stop.

      That's not Comcast, unless Comcast is selling services to Sci-Hub. That excludes any ISP, unless ditto. ISPs are, for the vast majority, not involved in this injunction. They don't have to block nuthin. Sci-Hubs ISP is. They know they're selling services to Sci-Hub, or ought to know it.

      Search engines are an interesting question. Does scraping the content of a website mean you are "in active concert" with them? Does providing links to them as the result of a search? I'd say "no" and "yes".

      ISPs have no way of knowing what domain names SciHub engages in unlawful access, etc,

      You were doing so well, and then snipped this out of context. We've already figured out that ISPs aren't required to do anything because they aren't "in active concert with", therefore, it doesn't matter if they can or cannot know what domain names Sci-Hub uses. The sentence is long, I know, but at the very beginning it says who the rest of the sentence applies to.

      thus there is no way to implement the order.

      Who cares? They don't have to do anything.

      As for the people who are unhappy that "people in the US" will have to pay for access to ACSs products while the rest of the world doesn't, why is it free? Is it because Sci-Hub has been found to be breaching copyright law by providing free access to ACS paid content? Would you be making the same complaint if an international trucking company that stole truckloads of Apple watches and was handing them out for free around the world, was then caught and put out of operation in the US? After all, people in the US would be required to pay for Apple watches while people in the rest of the world can still get them for free.

      The point being, the only reason that people in the rest of the world are getting stuff for free is because someone is breaking the law to give it to them. The law was enforced in the US, so in the US you can't get it for free anymore.

  2. MMMM initial reaction by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    Bite Me! do these individuals know how the internet works?

    I know, I am just an old curmudgeon ;)

    1. Re:MMMM initial reaction by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      Yes, of course. Someone will email clandestine links to these papers, which will install malware, which will add your computer to a botnet, which will email out clandestine links to these papers.

    2. Re:MMMM initial reaction by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Say what you will. The concept of Walled Gardens with Paywalls for research papers is wrong! And if there are options they are crushed by the man!

      This is about the main issue!

    3. Re:MMMM initial reaction by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free speech is the freedom for YOU to speak. It doesn't mean that everyone else has to give you everything they write for free.

    4. Re: MMMM initial reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many researchers publish directly there. The ACS has moved to squash the peoples' access to free scientific research. They may be responsible for putting science back decades and all the deaths that entails.

    5. Re:MMMM initial reaction by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      They pay to edit it (many papers need lots of editing, scientists are often terrible writers). Then they coordinate the peer reviews. It is then published in print and online, on servers someone has to pay for. Wouldn't you expect them to charge money to someone for all this?

    6. Re:MMMM initial reaction by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Bite Me! do these individuals know how the internet works?

      Actually in legal circles many or most lawyers and judges barely know how to use computers and how the internet works. And the reality of the US legal system is that it's not really set up to reach the correct decision, it's actually set up to reach a decision of some kind. Lawyers don't care at all when they lose if they get paid because they can try to get their clients to appeal and - win for the lawyers - the appeal process brings in more money.

      In any event, I figure this one will be appealed and it will likely go to the Supreme Court and we'll eventually get a final decision here. If it ends end up being a free speech issue over a copyright issue, and I think it could, this decision will get overturned. All judges are subject to political and personal biases of various kinds and the verdict you get at higher court levels is mostly due to this rather than the true merits of the case, although if one side does have really bad lawyers, that can be the main factor in the final outcome.

  3. Try the library by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    It's a great place to get access to all sorts of scientific journals.

    1. Re:Try the library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try the library

      Have you ever actually done that?

      As an academic researcher, no single library can afford even a quarter of the journals a researcher might need in their field.

      Do you know what grad students do to get their degree? Cheat. They use abstracts and hope nobody notices or they go to places like above and get the information they need illegally.

      The problem has only become worse as journals increase their rates, their number, and universities providing fewer subscriptions every year.

      It's as if the only people that post on higher-education articles either have their hand in the pot or are uneducated themselves.

    2. Re:Try the library by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You go to a research computer, and access scientific journals online. A decent size library will have subscriptions.

    3. Re: Try the library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The information available through those channels is far too slow and available for far too short a time, and is barely indexed effectively. You are holding back humanity and literally killing people through your ignorance, greed, and incompetence.

    4. Re:Try the library by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try the library ... It's a great place to get access to all sorts of scientific journals.

      I was looking for just one recent article in Science recently.

      I tried the libraries - all that I could reach without cutting work. (I work at a startup, with weird and extended hours, which eliminates, for example, those at Stanford U that are accessible to non-students).

      Nobody had budgeted for the service, so the paper wasn't available.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:Try the library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You go to a research computer, and access scientific journals online. A decent size library will have subscriptions.

      And what they don’t have, you can get through intra library loan.

      Good luck with that. Here's an example of how it works in the real world: At the start of the year I was six months deep into a big project when a very large study came out on the same subject. Naturally I needed a copy or my work would be sunk.

      Neither of my two universities had a copy and none were available to loan.

      Sometimes you can contact authors and get a copy, maybe a pre-edit one, but not in this case. It was a very-large group effort and the rights were not sufficient for any one person to give edit copies of the whole thing.

      Four months later it landed on rental and purchase services. 24 hour access for 48 dollars. It was 300 pages long so that's a no. 120 dollars for purchase. It even was a physical copy, bound and fulfilled through amazon for some reason. But my budget does not allow for 120 dollar purchases for one citation when I'm expected to have closer to a hundred.

      So I went to sci hub and downloaded it for nothing. They even had the graphs in full-color, something the hardcopy did not have, and an addendum for all the data and sources used.

      Science is not some trivially easy or quick activity, but the people that do it must make it look easy and do their work quickly or be surpassed. I really don't understand why people make one-line comments here pretending to have first-hand knowledge of the process.

    6. Re:Try the library by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Many journals are cutting the print editions. It's kind of weird they lasted as long as they did. Many resources aren't available in the print version anyway. Online supplementary figures are very common, movies and programs are obviously not printable, and some journals are even putting additional text in "Supplementary" sections. Which makes no sense whatsoever in the online-only versions.

      Also, you're assuming libraries have full access, which is nonsense. Why would journals give all access to public libraries?

      Anyway, our tax dollars pay for the research. Researchers like those that access most of the journal articles volunteer time both in writing and in reviewing the research papers. Why the fuck shouldn't researchers be able to access the papers? The internet has made most of the useful functions of for-profit science journals obsolete, they're almost entirely parasitic now. There's no function they serve that outweighs researchers being able to access papers at our convenience.

    7. Re:Try the library by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 5, Informative

      You go to a research computer, and access scientific journals online. A decent size library will have subscriptions.

      And what they don't have, you can get through intra library loan.

      Have you ever tried that one? When I was looking at getting some papers that way, I was told it'd be a 6 week wait (for electronic copies) if you're lucky and things go fast. You are are dependent on a library accepting your request, and overall the system seems to be designed with the assumption that nobody using it might actually have any need for any information in a timely manner. (The one time I did use it, it was for something I wanted to read for my own reasons, and I would not have been able to check its status--basically, the only thing I'd get is notice of when it came in. I don't even know if there is a fail state--or if my request would linger in the system until the heat death of the universe if nobody accepted it.)

      ACS could do a lot by having access to the papers it owns be cheap or even free to members--and making sure students who could join are aware of this particular benefit.

    8. Re: Try the library by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Shills be shillin'!

    9. Re: Try the library by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      No you don't.

    10. Re:Try the library by SumDog · · Score: 2

      I log into both my undergrand and graduate libraries every few months to keep my account active. Most universities let graduated alumni have access for life.

    11. Re:Try the library by Raisey-raison · · Score: 3, Informative

      Speaking from experience many academic libraries cannot afford the extortionate fees charged by the journals. As far as community libraries go, I recently went into one and asked them if I could access Nature or Science and they laughed at me. And it was the largest community library for about 10 miles.

      Try going to community college and trying to write a paper that relies on articles from journals that it does not subscribe to. Even Harvard says it cannot afford the fees. It's a classic case of abuse of IP. https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

      The problem is only getting worse. And if you are not affiliated with an academic institution you are screwed. Some university libraries won't even let in members of the public and you invariably need a university login to use the computers if you are able to freely enter. http://www.dailytexanonline.co...

      The general price of consumer goods went up by 73 percent between 1986 and 2004, but the price of serials increased by 273 percent, according to Tufts University. Congress gets big campaign contributions from the publishers so there is no realistic option for those who want to access research they already largely payed for via taxes. Unless you come with a realistic alternative you cant criticize sci-hub.

    12. Re:Try the library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyway, our tax dollars pay for the research. Researchers like those that access most of the journal articles volunteer time both in writing and in reviewing the research papers. Why the fuck shouldn't researchers be able to access the papers?

      Actually, legally, they should, when you think about it, for at least a good chunk of these papers.

      In many cases, there is at least one American on the list of authors. That author is probably paid by a university that gets a substantial amount of its funding from the government. As they are making the research as part of their job (they don't get paid directly, but research is assumed to be a duty of being a professor), they are ultimately doing the work as an agent of the United States government. Work from the US government is generally considered public domain at the time of creation, and AFAIK the main exception to that is military-sensitive secrets.

      While this does not preclude the big publishers from distribution for a fee, it also should not preclude others from distributing their work.

      Of course, none of this gets into the blatant disaster and gross infringement of personal rights that copyright is today, but that's another part of this twisted mess that goes far beyond academic papers and stretches from retardation of scientific progress to fundamentally undermining rights on real property (e.g. tractors that are DRM'd).

    13. Re:Try the library by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I have very rarely come across a research paper where typing the title into DDG didn't give me a link to the preprint on the author's home page. The only exceptions have been more obscure older papers that haven't been digitised (and in most of those cases emailing the authors has worked - and in a few cases has resulted in being given the original TeX sources so that I can tweak them to work with pdflatex and get a nicely searchable version, rather than the original PostScript that was intended solely for printing).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Try the library by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      That doesn't usually work, because work by subcontractors of the US government is subject to copyright and most research is done by subcontractors and not employees of the government.

      That said, any work that is either funded by almost all of the UK research councils, or intends to be included in the next REF[1] must be either green or gold open access. Green means that the preprint is uploaded to the institution's open access repository, which guarantees that it will make it publicly accessible in perpetuity, though it may be embargoed for a short period. Gold means that the publisher makes it available without cost from their own site, under a license that permits redistribution of the downloaded version. Most (all?) publication venues make the bibliometrics available for free, even if they charge for the articles, so if you find any UK authors on the list then you can probably get a copy from their host institution at a stable long-term download location.

      Even without any of that, most reputable researchers put preprints on their own web pages because a big part of their evaluation as researchers is how many people cite their work, and anything that makes their work easier to access increases their impact.

      [1] Research Excellence Framework (horrible name), the thing that ranks UK universities and departments and determines, among other things, how much money they'll get in the next REF period for their block grant.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re: Try the library by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      He's probably a professor of Santorum Studies.

    16. Re:Try the library by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Do you know what grad students do to get their degree? Cheat. They use abstracts and hope nobody notices or they go to places like above and get the information they need illegally.

      Or you just ask the author and he provides a preprint. We have boxes of those stuffed on shelves here, all awaiting a simple request. And now they are electronic and don't take up any shelf space. With Open Access, you don't even need to ask, you go to the Open Access repository.

      The problem has only become worse as journals increase their rates,

      And the number of "free" electronic journals increases daily. I usually get three or four requests a week to send some e-journal a paper or three.

      It's as if the only people that post on higher-education articles either have their hand in the pot or are uneducated themselves.

      Or they know the expense of doing journals right and know about the legal ways of getting copies of articles for free.

    17. Re:Try the library by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Congress gets big campaign contributions from the publishers so there is no realistic option for those who want to access research they already largely payed for via taxes.

      Ahh, them sneaky federal agencies, putting Open Access requirements into their grants, bypassing that evil Congress bought and paid for by the publishers. What a corrupt system.

      Unless you come with a realistic alternative you cant criticize sci-hub.

      Yeah, we can criticize activities that are based on the theory that "information wants to be free (as in beer)" and "I have a right to whatever I want, even if I have to take it illegally." Given the real other ways of getting papers for free, I'd say it's realistic.

    18. Re:Try the library by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      They do - https://www.acs.org/content/ac...

      That's confirmation that it's a perk of membership--but I can tell you flat-out that if they're making much of an effort to let potential new members know about it, that's a distinct change from when I was getting my biochem degree. This is literally the first I heard of this particular perk. Now to see what the membership fees for me would be...

  4. KnOwledge by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't we be sharing knowledge so that as many people as possible can innovate? If you want to profit from an idea, that's what a patent is for.

    Doesn't availability and accessibility increase the utility of the knowledge? Am I missing something here?

    Isn't this one of the main reasons the internet was invented? To share knowledge.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:KnOwledge by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 3, Informative

      Before Science, discoveries where kept private as secret property for power and profit.

      That was called Alchemy. As "Intellectual property" monopolies continue to expand, we will naturally continue to regress towards a similar state of stagnation relative to our potential.

    2. Re:KnOwledge by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Isn't this one of the main reasons the internet was invented? To share knowledge.

      Still a lot of interests out there who would prefer the internet had never happened.

  5. tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sci-hub is on tor

    scihub22266oqcxt.onion

    So I guess this court action will result in a whole new group of people getting on tor.

    1. Re:tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Works Cited page is going to look awesome. Retrieved dd-mon-yyyy from https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/ . . .

    2. Re:tor by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Sci-hub is on tor

      scihub22266oqcxt.onion

      So I guess this court action will result in a whole new group of people getting on tor.

      I've never had a personal need for Tor before this, but I'm downloading it now.

    3. Re:tor by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And here I was, about to post "onion link in 5, 4, 3..."

      I think I really have to get up earlier.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:tor by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Works Cited page is going to look awesome. Retrieved dd-mon-yyyy from https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion...

      When you cite a work in a paper, you cite where it was published, not how you got your copy. E.g., if you take the legal route and ask an author for a preprint, you don't cite it is "[Fnordly, A.S.] Personal communication.", you cite the journal it appeared in.

      You don't have to be a subscriber to "Analytical Chemistry" to cite papers that appear in it. You don't even have to have a copy of the paper in your possession.

  6. I fought the law and the law won by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

    The law is written by politicians and it's backed by force. Just because you don't think it's right doesn't mean squat. Run afoul of it and you will likely be sanctioned, especially when money is at stake and your opponents have deep pockets. Aaron Swartz realized this too late, when the law credibly threatened to put him in jail for decades, and he decided end his existence on his own terms instead.

    Until you can convince a politician that you can personally benefit him, those that can (lobbyists - professional persuaders), and those that can bring money and votes to his benefit, he's not going to pay you a lick of attention. And seriously, how many outside of the academic community care about this? A handful of angry post-baccalaureates sure isn't going to persuade any pol to switch sides.

    It's absurd that taxpayer funded research, done ostensibly for the advancement of society, is not available publicly. But it's the law. And until you can change the law, you're pissing into the dark. And somewhere in the dark is an electrified fence.

    Try and change the law. But follow it until you can change it, cause brother, it got teeth. And it don't care what you think of it.

    1. Re:I fought the law and the law won by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      11/04/17 was Aaron Schwartz day...despite his short life ,we will be remembering his name, not unlike Achilles.

      The Aaron Schwartz tragedy, really, was that the young man was clowning a system (MIT) that had rewarded such behavior in the past, rather than punished it. I think he was caught off guard.

      Many neophytes to the criminal justice system misinterpret the phrase up to 85 years incarceration. First time white collar offenders rarely serve time, unless probation failure is in the offing.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:I fought the law and the law won by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      The Aaron Schwartz tragedy, really, was that the young man was clowning a system (MIT) that had rewarded such behavior in the past, rather than punished it. I think he was caught off guard.

      The system bit back this time because there was money involved.

      It's interesting, we have laws because otherwise, it would be the rule of the jungle. The biggest, strongest and most ruthless would be calling the shots according to their whims. As happens in many dictatorships. We all benefit from the predictability, security and autonomy (freedom) the law allows. It improves all of our welfare.

      But what happens when a small group subverts the law, and begins using it as a method to extract rents or to control, outside the bounds of justice, other people? I guess as long as the cost imposed by this subversion is perceived to be small, and the net result of the law is perceived to be positive, the law can continue.

      But... what happens when the system itself that writes the law is openly subverted, and presents itself as being for sale to the highest bidder? What happens when the politicians entrench themselves via gerrymandering and rigged primaries? What happens when the system stops being responsive to the populace in general? I guess we're starting to see.

    3. Re:I FOUGHT THE LAW AND THE LAW WON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's the point of copy/pasting a comment made a half hour earlier a few threads down?

    4. Re: I FOUGHT THE LAW AND THE LAW WON by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      The courts had better hope those US citizens who flout the rules by using sci-hub don't compound their crimes by using a VPN.

      What you cannot enforce, do not command.
      Sophocles

    5. Re:I fought the law and the law won by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 2

      THE LAW IS THE LAW, RULES ARE RULES

      What is your point? "Follow the law no matter what even if it's wrong?" That seems like a big jump from "don't get caught breaking it". The law is applied discretionarily and always has been and always will be. You're just running your mouth for no reason. Let me give some better advice: Break bad laws every single time you think you can get away with it and keep at it. Our society is deeply corrupt and we need to do something about it. Democracy has been broken. You will need to take radical steps to fix it.

    6. Re:I fought the law and the law won by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah, communism is far more blunt than that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: I FOUGHT THE LAW AND THE LAW WON by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I kinda have a problem with the court directing third parties, who have no real involvement, to take some kind of affirmative action in order to support the Court's ruling.

      It also smacks of a kind of illegal gag order.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:I FOUGHT THE LAW AND THE LAW WON by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The law might actually say that the ISPs are immune not only from punishment but even from having to have significant involvement in the case.

      It remains to be seen if the Judge has these powers, but very possibly the answer will be "no."

  7. Sure, Try To Criminalize Attaining Knowledge by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    ...and rely on the nerds seeking it to apply your edicts. Fucking morons.

  8. Both the summary and article are simply wrong by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 5, Informative

    For all the reasons I explained in my post when the magistrate judge's decision came out, this order likely cannot apply to ISPs, search engines, etc., because they weren't involved in the lawsuit (i.e., didn't have their proverbial day in court), and aren't in "active concert or participation" with Sci-Hub.

    Sure enough, the actual decision here says: "ORDERED that any person or entity in active concert or participation with Defendant Sci-Hub and with notice of the injunction, including [basically every player involved in providing internet services], cease facilitating access...."

    This is basically like saying "everyone to whom the injunction applies must obey it (if ACS can prove they knew about it)," which pretty much says nothing.

    First, no individual ISP, search provider, DNS provider, etc. etc. is obligated to do anything until ACS provides them with legal notice of the injunction or otherwise proves they actually saw it (ACS can't just say "Your Honor, it's been all over the news -- they HAD to have heard about it").

    Second, ACS would have to show that the party was not just agnostically providing access to / search results for / DNS records for / etc., Sci-Hub just like any other website, but that the party was actually colluding with Sci-Hub. ACS would be very unlikely to be able to do this in my view, and it would be expensive for them to try (some of the smaller players might just fold to avoid the bother, but the larger ones are unlikely to want to set a precedent of just rolling over and implying they're subject to a court order in a case to which they were not a party and had no opportunity to defend their interests).

    In short, any blocking would be strictly voluntary, and I'd be fairly surprised if we see a whole lot of that.

    1. Re:Both the summary and article are simply wrong by cdogg4ya · · Score: 2

      Mod this up! It would be a tremendous over-reach by the judicial to make it such that unrelated parties to the action would have to take action that would cost time and money to support a third party judgement.

    2. Re:Both the summary and article are simply wrong by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Providing legal notice to a corporation is actually very easy; they have a registered address you can send that stuff to.

      And they have options for mailing where you can prove if they received it.

    3. Re:Both the summary and article are simply wrong by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, but I'm not sure of your point since I didn't say it was hard to provide notice to a given entity whose identity you know.

      The issue is one of scale: you have to figure out exactly what companies are involved in providing various internet services, determine the exact legal entities of those companies that provide those services, serve all of them, and then file proof of service with the court. That's a lot of work in exchange for a very uncertain outcome. Yes, you can serve the big boys easily enough, but as I mentioned before those are the ones that seem less likely to block based solely on notice.

    4. Re:Both the summary and article are simply wrong by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sending notice to corporations is not difficult, expensive, or a lot of work. Notifying an individual can be easy, or a lot of work, so it is understandable that a person might only remember, "golly, service is hard!" But corporations are required to have an address that receives that stuff. So it is not hard, is not a lot of work.

    5. Re:Both the summary and article are simply wrong by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      So it is not hard, is not a lot of work.

      Great -- since it's so easy, please provide the full and complete list of entities ACS would have to serve to completely shut off access to Sci-Hub over the Internet (for the sake of this exercise, charitably assuming that all entities would immediately block Sci-Hub based only on receipt of the injunction, which in the real world would not be the case). I'll wait.

    6. Re:Both the summary and article are simply wrong by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I said it is not hard, I didn't mean that even you can do it. You can't even figure out how many corporations are listed in a list of corporations!

      What I meant was, you could hire any idiot off the street to do it; in real life the secretary at the law office does it. And a paralegal checks it before it gets mailed.

      Your attempt at sarcasm with "I'll wait" just makes you look stupid; you can wait all day, please hold your breath too! You didn't need to wait for anything, there are two lists; the companies the judge named, and list of parties to the case. The reason people are talking about the case isn't because "oh no how do you notify the parties" it is that "uh those named aren't parties to the case!" Knowing who they are isn't hard; the judge can write "everybody on planet Earth" and it translates to "nobody" if he didn't list anybody that is a party to the case. Now, if the case is against 7 billion Does, then that would be different. But they have to clarify that at the early stages.

      Since you don't really understand why people are talking about it, you probably shouldn't get too hung up trying to talk about the details.

    7. Re:Both the summary and article are simply wrong by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      the companies the judge named

      That's a null set. Maybe you should try reading the order itself rather than media articles about it.

      and list of parties to the case

      And that's Sci-Hub. Since they didn't even bother to show up to defend against a default judgment, I suspect even you can figure out how much of an effect an injunction against them is going to have.

      The reason people are talking about the case isn't because "oh no how do you notify the parties" it is that "uh those named aren't parties to the case!"
      * * *
      Since you don't really understand why people are talking about it

      Actually, I was the one that brought up that issue weeks ago -- let your eyes slowly but deliberately wander back to the top of this thread and read the very first sentence in my post. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

  9. I FOUGHT THE LAW AND THE LAW WON by BeauHD+(mod) · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The law is written by politicians and it's backed by force. Just because you don't think it's right doesn't mean squat. Run afoul of it and you will likely be sanctioned, especially when money is at stake and your opponents have deep pockets. Aaron Swartz realized this too late, when the law credibly threatened to put him in jail for decades, and he decided end his existence on his own terms instead.

    Until you can convince a politician that you can personally benefit him, those that can (lobbyists - professional persuaders), and those that can bring money and votes to his benefit, he's not going to pay you a lick of attention. And seriously, how many outside of the academic community care about this? A handful of angry post-baccalaureates sure isn't going to persuade any pol to switch sides.

    It's absurd that taxpayer funded research, done ostensibly for the advancement of society, is not available publicly. But it's the law. And until you can change the law, you're pissing into the dark. And somewhere in the dark is an electrified fence.

    Try and change the law. But follow it until you can change it, cause brother, it got teeth. And it don't care what you think of it.

  10. Something Stinks... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yet many of the same scientists and the same university libraries that decry the barriers to access of the pay-to-play journals still feed the monster. Yes, yes, "publish or parish", and the library "must" carry these subscriptions. Or something like that.

    The key will be to establish "open source" peer-reviewed journals that are backed by the biggest names in science and the major universities. That at this point it hasn't happened makes me think that the biggest names in science and the major universities like the way things are now...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Something Stinks... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, "publish or parish", and the library "must" carry these subscriptions.

      Um yes? If this matters to you then *you* should be lobbing whoever it is you need to lobby to make science funding not depend on the impact of the journals that scientists publish in.

      Until that's sorted, you're asking scientists to sacrifice their careers.

      The key will be to establish "open source" peer-reviewed journals that are backed by the biggest names in science and the major universities.

      You mean like the funding bodies that demand that any work published from their funding be published open access?

      That at this point it hasn't happened makes me think that the biggest names in science and the major universities like the way things are now...

      You're mistaken. But think: what's the incentive? Why would they favour status quo?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Something Stinks... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      The key will be to establish "open source" peer-reviewed journals that are backed by the biggest names in science and the major universities. That at this point it hasn't happened makes me think that the biggest names in science and the major universities like the way things are now...

      When my University created a brand new graduate program in a new category, it only graduated one person out of that program initially. By making that program ridiculously difficult to get into, and ridiculously difficult to get a degree from, it made it so that the new program would be ranked by outsiders ridiculously high.

      Now, I don't know much about scientific journals, but I wouldn't be surprised if they took a similar approach. A journal's reputation doesn't create itself in a day. Making a journal "open access" or "open source" doesn't magically make it good. And if a grad student is used to trusting one particular journal for his particular scientific field, he's going to want to publish in that same journal (instead of publishing in an unknown journal, even if it's backed by his own University).

    3. Re:Something Stinks... by redalertbulb · · Score: 3, Funny

      "publish or parish" Happens all the time. I know plenty of researchers who have left academia to pursue a career in the church.

    4. Re:Something Stinks... by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 1

      "publish or parish"

      So if you crash and burn as a grad student, you should explore the priesthood?

      --
      Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
    5. Re:Something Stinks... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if you crash and burn at the priesthood, at least switch to a different priesthood!

  11. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    or was that corporate profits?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. Who's gonna pay for it? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    One of the only reasons Public Us get any funding anymore is so businesses can swoop in, take the research and profit from it. Unless you can somehow get the public at large to stop voting against the tax cuts and voting for the wars that defund education (good luck) then it's going to have to be a for profit enterprise.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Who's gonna pay for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, we're in a consensual relationship and I'm helping to support their kids.

    2. Re:Who's gonna pay for it? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      Are you kidding? The Us--public and private--have the same parasitic administration issues that the K12s system does, with the added issues caused by students who typically don't quite realize that loans are not free money--so they'll decide hey, let's go to the more expensive school because its students all get 'free' ponies (and not that other one which spends it money on research & quality instruction) and then they'll be wondering why the fuck they've got so much debt afterwards.

      Plus, not all the Us are particularly research-oriented, and the heavily research-oriented ones are actually pretty sucky places to go as a student--students are annoying distractions from doing research there. (I went to one nicely in the middle...and will generally not bother sticking around if the offer seems too good, because I don't want to bother trying to figure out what's off.)

      'Publish or perish' just amplifies all the problems involved here, too, because it acts to punish those in academia who want to get their research done to the point where applications are developed, unless they're in one of the handful of fields where you reach that part as part of the paper. Stop the system from only caring that you're publishing lots of papers, even if the research quality is shit. You want the importance placed on the quality and importance of the papers--right now? It doesn't matter if that one paper you published is top-notch work and going to be cited in your field's textbooks, it's only one paper, and they'd rather have the person who has published lots of eminently forgettable low-quality papers.

      Until this is fixed? It will not matter one infinitely small bit how much money is getting poured into the system. Damn near nobody is able to invest the time and effort required--more money, therefore, will simply go to generating more papers, still generally leaving developing applications to business.

  13. Let the mirroring commence! by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

    Time for a game of whack-a-website!

  14. fuck you, pleb, that's why by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    An ignominious judge sez: "Scientific knowledge is a prerogative of the rich and well connected. Those who cannot pay must remain in ignorance. IT'S DUH LAW!!!1!!"

    1. Re:fuck you, pleb, that's why by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, those who cannot know have to believe, and those that have to believe are easier to control.

      Even Pol Pot knew this. And every religion since the dawn of mankind.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Next time Sen. Cornyn introduces the bill, email by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every few years Senator Cornyn (R Texas) introduces a bill requiring federally funded research to be made available to freely online. Every few years, the fine folks who post on Slashdot ignore the bill, as does everyone else other than the publishers who oppose it. Every few years the bill dies with no broad support from the public.

    Next time Senator Cornyn introduces the bill, please send a quick email or phone call to your senators and house reps, supporting the bill. Thanks.

  16. The search engine blockade shouldn't matter by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 2

    All the people interested in technical papers and willing to rely on a let's say not official source like this do already know about Sci-Hub. The site does have its own search functionality and, in principle, there is no need to rely on search engines or in any other external resource to browse through their own information.

    On the other hand, that blockade might affect Sci-Hub in case they didn't develop their own search and relied on an existing search-engine, what is a surprisingly common approach. Bear in mind that most of websites including a relevant number of contents use databases which, basically, are search engines. Even if you want to make things really cheap, simple and quick, you could build a simple form directly communicating with the in-built search engine of the given database (don't forget about SQL injection!!!).

    Renouncing to (or, at least, blindly trusting for-profit companies, whose businesses aren't precisely objectivity and technical correctness, to make the right decisions) privacy, reliability or similar and getting something on exchange might be justifiable. Performing these actions by default and getting even worse results seems quite stupid. No idea what Sci-Hub has done on this front, but there are quite a few sites performing such nonsensical actions; and I am not just talking about small websites where searching is a secondary concern. It is almost scary how much power certain companies/data sources have got mostly through laziness and undeserved blind trust.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  17. Welcome aboard by FilatovEV · · Score: 1

    Learn to use frigate browser extension (or other ways to bypass blocking): https://fri-gate.org/

  18. Re:Missing the Obvious by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I somehow doubt that researchers, who usually live by the creed of "publish or perish" (because your name and what papers hang on it are usually your capital as a researcher) don't want to publish. Quite the opposite.

    But when you're dependent on money, your research is usually not yours...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Just in case you were wondering by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You were wondering why the US, which was the absolute leader in science and technology until not that long ago, is falling behind in technology and why insane ideas like flat earth, hollow earth or creationism that are subject to ridicule or the plot of silly comedies at best outside "God's own country" can be taken serious and even taught at schools (in science classes, not classes dealing with mythology)?

    Now, this is certainly not the only reason. But a good display of what's wrong here.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Just in case you were wondering by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You were wondering why the US, which was the absolute leader in science and technology until not that long ago, is falling behind in technology and why insane ideas like flat earth,

      Yeah! Mod this UP! All the ignorance is because people cannot go to Sci-Hub and read all the science stuff they're pirating on behalf of the fundamentalist and non-science people! Yeah! That's it!.

      Now, this is certainly not the only reason. But a good display of what's wrong here.

      No, it's not any of the reason, and it displays nothing but the concept that "anything I want must be handed to me". You can't go to the library, or send an email to the author of an article to ask for a copy, that's too hard.

    2. Re:Just in case you were wondering by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Found the person who never spent a minute in research.

      To give you an idea what you're suggesting: Imagine that for every href-link you wish to follow, you'd have to send the webpage author an email requesting the address of the link, or find the dead-tree edition of it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. What about arXiv? by gazelam · · Score: 1

    Lots and lots of researchers have been making their work separately available on arXiv for many years. The coverage is not 100% of published research, but I recently attended a conference and virtually all of the papers presented were posted to arXiv and a link was provided. Seems to me that the days of sequestered and economically controlled/distributed research are very much limited.

    1. Re:What about arXiv? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      There is a lot that isn't on Arxiv. Biosciences have BioRxiv ; Geoscience is developing EarthArXiv ; I'd be very surprised if there are not others.

      Unsurprisingly, there are moves by publishers to try to undermine the trend.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  21. So what now? by jtalle · · Score: 1

    Maybe they could upload everything onto Archive.org?

  22. Blockchain to the rescue! by denis.goddard · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should publish the material on a censor-proof blockchain like LBRY https://lbry.io/

  23. Consequences by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

    1. I will think twice before submitting to any journal of American Chemical Society or Elsevier. As long as I can ignore the litigators without hurting my research group's publications too much, I will. (This means no longer publishing in Elsevier's glorious Journal of Modern Optics. Good riddance.)
    2. Long live sci-hub. I use it daily, for convenience. I recomment it to collaborators who are not yet aware of it. (My universitiy's library has subscriptions, but it takes time to VPN and login and respond to requests.)
    3. I now budget open-access fees into my grant applications.

    Problem solved. Next obsolete technology, please.

    --
    17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.