4 ms·

I know this has been talked to death, but there's an aspect I haven't seen addressed. This piece says "and in disregard of the rules imposed on distribution by

by dalke 11y ago

I know this has been talked to death, but there's an aspect I haven't seen addressed. This piece says "and in disregard of the rules imposed on distribution by the copyright holders." Others say something similar. How many of those articles in SciHub are not covered by copyright? For example, if the author is a US government employee, then there is no copyright. I've seen many articles with a footnote that says it isn't covered by copyright because of that, though I can't tell if it's even 1%. There are also articles which are just the schedule for an upcoming meeting. (This is especially true in the older literature.) These aren't covered under copyright because there is no creative input. I don't think it's enough to be really significant, but it does make me wonder what the reaction would be to a no-copyright-applies version of Sci-Hub. It would still be in "disregard of the rules imposed on distribution by the" distributor, but at least it would help tease out which complaints are due to copyright infringement and which are due to breaking a distribution agreement.

jrochkind1 11y ago
> For example, if the author is a US government employee, then there is no copyright. Mind-twistingly, it's not covered by copyright _in the U.S._, but probably is in other countries.
- dalke 11y ago
  If that were the case, then the publishing companies are violating copyright law as there is no copyright transfer agreement from the author or employer.
  - jrochkind1 11y ago
    I don't really know what you mean. But here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_th... Which says: "This act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries." With a couple cites. You can google more about it too. It is the U.S. government's position that they do hold copyright to such works in other countries, and I believe they have generally succesfully enforced their copyright in other country's courts. (I don't know if they have ever failed in other country's courts, on the grounds that U.S. law says the U.S. goverment can't hold copyright? I'm not sure what bearing such a U.S. law would have in another country's courts, which is the whole idea).

by dalke 11y ago

jrochkind1 11y ago

> For example, if the author is a US government employee, then there is no copyright. Mind-twistingly, it's not covered by copyright _in the U.S._, but probably is in other countries.

dalke 11y ago
If that were the case, then the publishing companies are violating copyright law as there is no copyright transfer agreement from the author or employer.
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  I don't really know what you mean. But here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_th... Which says: "This act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries." With a couple cites. You can google more about it too. It is the U.S. government's position that they do hold copyright to such works in other countries, and I believe they have generally succesfully enforced their copyright in other country's courts. (I don't know if they have ever failed in other country's courts, on the grounds that U.S. law says the U.S. goverment can't hold copyright? I'm not sure what bearing such a U.S. law would have in another country's courts, which is the whole idea).