4 ms·

US court grants Elsevier millions in damages from Sci-Hub

47 points by merraksh 9y ago

thewisenerd 9y ago
This article seems a bit late, or? Here's a tweet thread from May 17'th of this year; linked in the original artice, that would probably provide more info; https://twitter.com/SteveMcLaugh/status/865002008515719168 https://twitter.com/SteveMcLaugh/status/865002008515719168 This article is written by another journal, so, take the article with a bit of salt and pepper. just gonna leave these here, anyway: https://www.nature.com/ecommerce/subscribe.action?productId=nature https://www.nature.com/ecommerce/subscribe.action?productId=... http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/article-processing-charges-faqs/ http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/artic... http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/nature-journals/ http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/natur...
droithomme 9y ago
The article states that the judgement is regarding copyright infringement on 100 articles and the damages awarded are $15 million. It also notes that 28 million articles have been downloaded, so perhaps the true damages according to law, if all downloads were considered, should be 28e6*15e6/100 = $4.2 trillion. I wonder, how many of the 100 articles, or the 28 million for that matter, were written by staff at Elsevier? Well the number is zero articles of course. Then we might ask, how many of the 100 articles or the 28 million articles were written by anyone for whom Elsevier financially compensated? Again the number is zero articles of course. Yet Elsevier, who neither wrote nor paid for any of these articles they claim copyright to, is entitled to $4.2 trillion in damages. We might also ask, how many of the 28 million articles downloaded were done so by people who if they had not found it on scihub would have paid the $28 or $39 or $179 1 day or 3 day or 7 day "access pass" to read the single article? Perhaps it is a few. Perhaps before scihub there were up to dozens of people a month buying these access passes, across the many millions of articles Elsevier claims to own despite them never having authored them nor having financially compensated the authors. Who are the real thieving parasitical self-serving pirates here? Is it Elbakyan? Or is it Elsevier? Who is the scientist fighting for academic freedom and working to spread knowledge here? Is it Elbakyan? Or is it Elsevier?
- smueller1234 9y ago
  Could it maybe be that all or a good chunk of the damage ruling was punitive damages? Then your math resulting in trillions doesn't make sense. Caveat: not a lawyer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
- na85 9y ago
  I think everyone knows the answers to your rhetorical questions. But unfortunately laws don't work that way, particularly in the case of copyright.
- tzs 9y ago
  Statutory damages are based on the number of works infringed, not the number of infringing copies, so the calculation in your second paragraph is probably off.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    If we have 28e6 downloads, I would consider it very likely that a lot of these are unique works (by gut feeling along the lines of Zipf's law), so even if the number of unique works in that set is lower, it should be in the same ballpark.
Brian_K_White 9y ago
How much of this paywalled research was conducted even partly on public funds? It is absolutely a public good for me for any curious researchers to have unfettered access to as much human knowledge as possible. I guarantee we get more out of that than we do out of protecting a publishers business model.
ckastner 9y ago
Note that this was a default judgement: "Judge Sweet of the US district court in southern New York ruled in favour of Elsevier, in the absence of Elbakyan or legal representatives of any of the defendants."
pmyteh 9y ago
"Sci-Hub does not add any value to the scholarly community. It neither fosters scientific advancement nor does it value researchers’ achievements." Well, that's bollocks. Obviating the need to use seven-click uncookied login systems adds value to the scholarly community in itself. And that's just for those whose universities already pay for the journal. Fuck Elsevier and its trade associations.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  It's a judgement they will never be able to collect on. I honestly don't understand why they'd bother probably spending $100k in legal fees to get this judgement, but hey, who needs common sense when you can sue?!
  - intended 9y ago
    extradition options, I am guessing. Plus someone probably now has the ability to stall their accounts or transactions which travel through US jurisdictions.
    - charlesdm 9y ago
      Countries don't generally extradite their own citizens though, regardless of the claim. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through. Yes, they can possibly get certain accounts blocked, but don't they have anything else to do?
      - celticninja 9y ago
        Ummmm, yes they do, unfortunately.
    - chopin 9y ago
      Does the US judicial system support extradition requests for civil cases? Your system never ceases to amaze me.
  - justinclift 9y ago
meshr 9y ago
Doesn’t Elsevier understand that copyright law doesn’t work in Internet? They spent bunch of money on layers and got nothing but a piece of paper. They can’t even remove Sci-Hub from google.
- intended 9y ago
  The MPAA, and the RIAA laugh and say Hi. In the many years that have passed since Napster, the copyright and patent trolls have had decent runs. Copy right supporters in particular have converted their significant capital into lobbying and political power. Many laws currently enacted, even the fight for Net Neutrality today, traces its roots back to the successful political and legal remedies applied by the MPAA and RIAA. Take a look at the state of Pirate bay, and the various torrent trackers which have shut down. Constant applied effort makes people stronger, it will also kill Sci-hub eventually.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    It might kill sci-hub but it will just create: 1.Something stronger and more resistant to take down 2. Many differing sites offering the same services 3. Elsevier to change they way the operate so it is easier to buy direct from them that use sci hub or the like. Not sure about your point on the Pirate bay, the site is still up and running.
- inimino 9y ago
  This sort of naive "censorship doesn't work" optimism is one of the main reasons your side lost the copyfight.
  - meshr 9y ago
    I’m on the side of the law. But as I can see it doesn’t work. So it must be changed. The lawyers do useless work. They spent copyright’s time and money without any payback. Again, Elsevier only lost their money and got nothing. IMHO, the companies like google must be responsible here as they make money on piracy.
woodandsteel 9y ago
All the more reason to run Sci-Hub on ipfs.

47 points by merraksh 9y ago

This article seems a bit late, or? Here's a tweet thread from May 17'th of this year; linked in the original artice, that would probably provide more info; https://twitter.com/SteveMcLaugh/status/865002008515719168 https://twitter.com/SteveMcLaugh/status/865002008515719168 This article is written by another journal, so, take the article with a bit of salt and pepper. just gonna leave these here, anyway: https://www.nature.com/ecommerce/subscribe.action?productId=nature https://www.nature.com/ecommerce/subscribe.action?productId=... http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/article-processing-charges-faqs/ http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/artic... http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/nature-journals/ http://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/natur...

droithomme 9y ago

The article states that the judgement is regarding copyright infringement on 100 articles and the damages awarded are $15 million. It also notes that 28 million articles have been downloaded, so perhaps the true damages according to law, if all downloads were considered, should be 28e6*15e6/100 = $4.2 trillion. I wonder, how many of the 100 articles, or the 28 million for that matter, were written by staff at Elsevier? Well the number is zero articles of course. Then we might ask, how many of the 100 articles or the 28 million articles were written by anyone for whom Elsevier financially compensated? Again the number is zero articles of course. Yet Elsevier, who neither wrote nor paid for any of these articles they claim copyright to, is entitled to $4.2 trillion in damages. We might also ask, how many of the 28 million articles downloaded were done so by people who if they had not found it on scihub would have paid the $28 or $39 or $179 1 day or 3 day or 7 day "access pass" to read the single article? Perhaps it is a few. Perhaps before scihub there were up to dozens of people a month buying these access passes, across the many millions of articles Elsevier claims to own despite them never having authored them nor having financially compensated the authors. Who are the real thieving parasitical self-serving pirates here? Is it Elbakyan? Or is it Elsevier? Who is the scientist fighting for academic freedom and working to spread knowledge here? Is it Elbakyan? Or is it Elsevier?

smueller1234 9y ago
Could it maybe be that all or a good chunk of the damage ruling was punitive damages? Then your math resulting in trillions doesn't make sense. Caveat: not a lawyer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
na85 9y ago
I think everyone knows the answers to your rhetorical questions. But unfortunately laws don't work that way, particularly in the case of copyright.
tzs 9y ago
Statutory damages are based on the number of works infringed, not the number of infringing copies, so the calculation in your second paragraph is probably off.
- majewsky 9y ago
  If we have 28e6 downloads, I would consider it very likely that a lot of these are unique works (by gut feeling along the lines of Zipf's law), so even if the number of unique works in that set is lower, it should be in the same ballpark.

Brian_K_White 9y ago

How much of this paywalled research was conducted even partly on public funds? It is absolutely a public good for me for any curious researchers to have unfettered access to as much human knowledge as possible. I guarantee we get more out of that than we do out of protecting a publishers business model.

ckastner 9y ago

Note that this was a default judgement: "Judge Sweet of the US district court in southern New York ruled in favour of Elsevier, in the absence of Elbakyan or legal representatives of any of the defendants."

pmyteh 9y ago

"Sci-Hub does not add any value to the scholarly community. It neither fosters scientific advancement nor does it value researchers’ achievements." Well, that's bollocks. Obviating the need to use seven-click uncookied login systems adds value to the scholarly community in itself. And that's just for those whose universities already pay for the journal. Fuck Elsevier and its trade associations.

charlesdm 9y ago
It's a judgement they will never be able to collect on. I honestly don't understand why they'd bother probably spending $100k in legal fees to get this judgement, but hey, who needs common sense when you can sue?!
- intended 9y ago
  extradition options, I am guessing. Plus someone probably now has the ability to stall their accounts or transactions which travel through US jurisdictions.
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    Countries don't generally extradite their own citizens though, regardless of the claim. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through. Yes, they can possibly get certain accounts blocked, but don't they have anything else to do?
    - celticninja 9y ago
      Ummmm, yes they do, unfortunately.
  - chopin 9y ago
    Does the US judicial system support extradition requests for civil cases? Your system never ceases to amaze me.
- justinclift 9y ago

meshr 9y ago

Doesn’t Elsevier understand that copyright law doesn’t work in Internet? They spent bunch of money on layers and got nothing but a piece of paper. They can’t even remove Sci-Hub from google.

intended 9y ago
The MPAA, and the RIAA laugh and say Hi. In the many years that have passed since Napster, the copyright and patent trolls have had decent runs. Copy right supporters in particular have converted their significant capital into lobbying and political power. Many laws currently enacted, even the fight for Net Neutrality today, traces its roots back to the successful political and legal remedies applied by the MPAA and RIAA. Take a look at the state of Pirate bay, and the various torrent trackers which have shut down. Constant applied effort makes people stronger, it will also kill Sci-hub eventually.
- celticninja 9y ago
  It might kill sci-hub but it will just create: 1.Something stronger and more resistant to take down 2. Many differing sites offering the same services 3. Elsevier to change they way the operate so it is easier to buy direct from them that use sci hub or the like. Not sure about your point on the Pirate bay, the site is still up and running.
inimino 9y ago
This sort of naive "censorship doesn't work" optimism is one of the main reasons your side lost the copyfight.
- meshr 9y ago
  I’m on the side of the law. But as I can see it doesn’t work. So it must be changed. The lawyers do useless work. They spent copyright’s time and money without any payback. Again, Elsevier only lost their money and got nothing. IMHO, the companies like google must be responsible here as they make money on piracy.

woodandsteel 9y ago

All the more reason to run Sci-Hub on ipfs.