5 ms·

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

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.

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.