6 ms·

I don't want to be that guy, but nothing here seems outlandish. A website is actively violating US law, didn't show up to defend itself, and now facing an injun

by lykr0n 9y ago

I don't want to be that guy, but nothing here seems outlandish. A website is actively violating US law, didn't show up to defend itself, and now facing an injunction. The same happens for foreign entities that do not comply with US law. I'll be interested to see how far this goes, and if any ISPs start blocking the site. With the whole Net Neutrality debate, I'm curious to see if the ISPs change their stance when they start getting ordered to block sites.

wccrawford 9y ago
The blocking of the site by ISPs and search engines is the bad part, IMO. Other than that, it seems pretty standard. And it's kind of dumb, because they could just get a new domain name, like many of the other torrent sites do. It's effectively worthless.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  It's also a first amendment violation. Do US ISPs currently actively block any websites? US ISPs do have mandatory monitoring, which means you can get to child porn sites, but you immediately get reported for it.
- avh02 9y ago
  I grew up in a country where certain websites (you know, like adult sites) are blocked, I'm not comparing this to that exactly, but isn't it strange to be told that your ISP is hereby not allowed to provide you access to a website? Especially when nobody unanimously agrees that it's a bad thing? (I'm not here to argue the ethics/morality of it, but pointing out that it has proponents on both sides) I mean, I know blocking some content is the norm in many countries (lots of European countries do it for various purposes (nazi content, child porn, etc, that are almost unanimously considered 'bad')). Isn't this a drastic new step for the US? (again, I don't exactly keep up with this, but this seems new to me)
  - tomjen3 9y ago
    Dane here. Our ISPs blocked a lot of sites and claimed they were all cp, but when the list (or partial they wouldn't comment) got leaked on wikileaks it turned out to be also a bunch of gay sites as well as a dutch company selling trucks for warehouses - not exactly dressed, but also not CP. So I wouldn't trust the integrity of any system which we are being denied information about.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    It is pretty abnormal for the US, but not unheard of. The problem is, that mostly the only ones impacted are the people who were committing copyright infringement and they are a very small minority of the total population, poorly funded, and not a viable voting bloc. It is going to be a tough battle. However, we have alternative means to reach the site.
  - mnm1 9y ago
    Strange? Yes, it's strange that the first amendment be ignored by the courts themselves when ordering such a clearly unconstitutional injunction. It basically boils down to the government telling ISPs and other sites what legal text they can and cannot write on their sites. I cannot think of a clearer, more direct violation of the first amendment.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish copyright. That puts it on equal footing to the First Amendment, and being more specific than the First Amendment gives it precedence.
- PenguinCoder 9y ago
  This is the key takeaway from the article. As much as I agree that researches deserve fair compensation for their work; I also believe gate-keeping academic knowledge is also wrong. It's not surprising that the US legal system found against Sci-hub. Issuing the legally binding statement, that blocking a site by ISP and search engine level, is the real problem. It sets a very tenuous precedent.
  - landryraccoon 9y ago
    How do researchers get paid under the current system? My understanding is that the journals do not pay the scientists that produce the articles. Am I mistaken in this?
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      You're not mistaken - journals don't pay researchers or reviewers. If they did, I'd be significantly less upset by their practices. As is, they get their product (papers) and their skilled labor (reviews) for free. Elsevier had a 36% profit margin last year, which is a pretty clear signal that they don't face sincere costs or competition.
    - vanattab 9y ago
      They are paid ether by their respective universities/institutions/companies and/or they pay themselves from the grant money they were awarded for a specific project.
      - Chaebixi 9y ago
        But the key point is that they're not paid by the publisher for the publication, they're paid to produce the publication by others. The publisher is just gets it for (basically) free and then profits off the fees.
        KGIII 9y ago
        In fact, you may very well also be paying to get your research published. They get you coming and going.
jimnotgym 9y ago
>A website is actively violating US law, didn't show up to defend itself, Presuming, of course, that the US has jurisdiction over the whole internet.
HarryHirsch 9y ago
Yes, yes, we all understand that Scihub is thumbing the nose at copyright. On the other hand, how is the nation served by scientific journals held behind excessive paywalls? What Elsevier are really doing is using public resources to keep their income going. That can't be correct either.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  "immoral but not illegal" as usual
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    Don't get me started. I just got off the phone discussing tenure requirements with the chair of a very bad department at a 4-year school in the Southern US. The criterion is a certain number of publications. Student performance at that institution is so terrible that you either use pay-to-publish journals (can't call them predatory, if you publish there you are the customer, not the prey) or you use Elsevier's bottom-of-barrel publish-anything journals. This is the game you have to play to keep the income going, and Elsevier enables it, now with the help of the State Department, on the backs of the taxpayer.
snowpanda 9y ago
I agree. However, what seems strange to me is the blanket order against all the entities that weren't present in court: ISPS, Search Engines, Web Hosting providers, Domain Registrars and Registries[1]. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that the lawsuit started off as ACS vs. John Does Sci-Hub/Alexandra Elbakyan, and ended as ACS vs. every ISP out there. Just seems strange to file a verdict against ISPs, without providing them the chance of being a defendant, or at the very least part of the lawsuit. Not that most of them would care about blocking a website, but on principle it seems odd. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/images/acsorder.pdf https://torrentfreak.com/images/acsorder.pdf
Bartweiss 9y ago
ISP level blocking seems inherently objectionable. I agree that "trying to get injunctions against sites breaking US law" is mundane regardless of whether one agrees with the law, but that's not really my concern here. Generally pursuit of actors outside US jurisdiction is either abandoned or done in partnership with foreign governments (e.g. trade secrets theft). What's deeply alarming is the movement towards a UK-style system of ISP blocks against objectionable foreign content.
notyourday 9y ago
This is the icky part: * by appearing in the US court defenders would put themselves into the court's jurisdiction. It is a virtual certainty that the defendants will lose. * by not appearing in the US court the defendants would get a default judgement against them. A third party might claim that a court ordering ISP blocking becomes a kangaroo court, but that third party has no standing in the case and unless for some strange reason a judge decides to do more than just follow a default procedure whatever is asked in the lawsuit would be granted to the plaintiff. Edit: In theory, a plaintiff can ask as a part of a relief to make a defendant walk around a block for three hours, making donkey noises and if a defendant does not show up it may very well end up being awarded as a part of a default judgement. By appearing, the defendant most likely can get this part of the remedy tossed but at the same time by appearing the defendant would place itself into court's jurisdiction. So it is a no win case for a defendant.

by lykr0n 9y ago

wccrawford 9y ago

The blocking of the site by ISPs and search engines is the bad part, IMO. Other than that, it seems pretty standard. And it's kind of dumb, because they could just get a new domain name, like many of the other torrent sites do. It's effectively worthless.

djsumdog 9y ago
It's also a first amendment violation. Do US ISPs currently actively block any websites? US ISPs do have mandatory monitoring, which means you can get to child porn sites, but you immediately get reported for it.
avh02 9y ago
I grew up in a country where certain websites (you know, like adult sites) are blocked, I'm not comparing this to that exactly, but isn't it strange to be told that your ISP is hereby not allowed to provide you access to a website? Especially when nobody unanimously agrees that it's a bad thing? (I'm not here to argue the ethics/morality of it, but pointing out that it has proponents on both sides) I mean, I know blocking some content is the norm in many countries (lots of European countries do it for various purposes (nazi content, child porn, etc, that are almost unanimously considered 'bad')). Isn't this a drastic new step for the US? (again, I don't exactly keep up with this, but this seems new to me)
- tomjen3 9y ago
  Dane here. Our ISPs blocked a lot of sites and claimed they were all cp, but when the list (or partial they wouldn't comment) got leaked on wikileaks it turned out to be also a bunch of gay sites as well as a dutch company selling trucks for warehouses - not exactly dressed, but also not CP. So I wouldn't trust the integrity of any system which we are being denied information about.
- KGIII 9y ago
  It is pretty abnormal for the US, but not unheard of. The problem is, that mostly the only ones impacted are the people who were committing copyright infringement and they are a very small minority of the total population, poorly funded, and not a viable voting bloc. It is going to be a tough battle. However, we have alternative means to reach the site.
- mnm1 9y ago
  Strange? Yes, it's strange that the first amendment be ignored by the courts themselves when ordering such a clearly unconstitutional injunction. It basically boils down to the government telling ISPs and other sites what legal text they can and cannot write on their sites. I cannot think of a clearer, more direct violation of the first amendment.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish copyright. That puts it on equal footing to the First Amendment, and being more specific than the First Amendment gives it precedence.
PenguinCoder 9y ago
This is the key takeaway from the article. As much as I agree that researches deserve fair compensation for their work; I also believe gate-keeping academic knowledge is also wrong. It's not surprising that the US legal system found against Sci-hub. Issuing the legally binding statement, that blocking a site by ISP and search engine level, is the real problem. It sets a very tenuous precedent.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  How do researchers get paid under the current system? My understanding is that the journals do not pay the scientists that produce the articles. Am I mistaken in this?
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    You're not mistaken - journals don't pay researchers or reviewers. If they did, I'd be significantly less upset by their practices. As is, they get their product (papers) and their skilled labor (reviews) for free. Elsevier had a 36% profit margin last year, which is a pretty clear signal that they don't face sincere costs or competition.
  - vanattab 9y ago
    They are paid ether by their respective universities/institutions/companies and/or they pay themselves from the grant money they were awarded for a specific project.
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      But the key point is that they're not paid by the publisher for the publication, they're paid to produce the publication by others. The publisher is just gets it for (basically) free and then profits off the fees.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        In fact, you may very well also be paying to get your research published. They get you coming and going.

jimnotgym 9y ago

>A website is actively violating US law, didn't show up to defend itself, Presuming, of course, that the US has jurisdiction over the whole internet.

HarryHirsch 9y ago

Yes, yes, we all understand that Scihub is thumbing the nose at copyright. On the other hand, how is the nation served by scientific journals held behind excessive paywalls? What Elsevier are really doing is using public resources to keep their income going. That can't be correct either.

agumonkey 9y ago
"immoral but not illegal" as usual
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  Don't get me started. I just got off the phone discussing tenure requirements with the chair of a very bad department at a 4-year school in the Southern US. The criterion is a certain number of publications. Student performance at that institution is so terrible that you either use pay-to-publish journals (can't call them predatory, if you publish there you are the customer, not the prey) or you use Elsevier's bottom-of-barrel publish-anything journals. This is the game you have to play to keep the income going, and Elsevier enables it, now with the help of the State Department, on the backs of the taxpayer.

snowpanda 9y ago

I agree. However, what seems strange to me is the blanket order against all the entities that weren't present in court: ISPS, Search Engines, Web Hosting providers, Domain Registrars and Registries[1]. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that the lawsuit started off as ACS vs. John Does Sci-Hub/Alexandra Elbakyan, and ended as ACS vs. every ISP out there. Just seems strange to file a verdict against ISPs, without providing them the chance of being a defendant, or at the very least part of the lawsuit. Not that most of them would care about blocking a website, but on principle it seems odd. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/images/acsorder.pdf https://torrentfreak.com/images/acsorder.pdf

Bartweiss 9y ago

ISP level blocking seems inherently objectionable. I agree that "trying to get injunctions against sites breaking US law" is mundane regardless of whether one agrees with the law, but that's not really my concern here. Generally pursuit of actors outside US jurisdiction is either abandoned or done in partnership with foreign governments (e.g. trade secrets theft). What's deeply alarming is the movement towards a UK-style system of ISP blocks against objectionable foreign content.

notyourday 9y ago

This is the icky part: * by appearing in the US court defenders would put themselves into the court's jurisdiction. It is a virtual certainty that the defendants will lose. * by not appearing in the US court the defendants would get a default judgement against them. A third party might claim that a court ordering ISP blocking becomes a kangaroo court, but that third party has no standing in the case and unless for some strange reason a judge decides to do more than just follow a default procedure whatever is asked in the lawsuit would be granted to the plaintiff. Edit: In theory, a plaintiff can ask as a part of a relief to make a defendant walk around a block for three hours, making donkey noises and if a defendant does not show up it may very well end up being awarded as a part of a default judgement. By appearing, the defendant most likely can get this part of the remedy tossed but at the same time by appearing the defendant would place itself into court's jurisdiction. So it is a no win case for a defendant.