3 ms·
I support Scihub and all efforts to make the body of human knowledge and scientific research freely available to all humans... especially if any of the research
by gooseus 9y ago
I support Scihub and all efforts to make the body of human knowledge and scientific research freely available to all humans... especially if any of the research has been funded by taxpayer dollars.
I believe that at most, these journals should enjoy a limited copyright that expires after a short time (1-10 years?) after which the papers should be freely available.
That being said, this is disappointing to me:
> Sci-Hub was made aware of the legal proceedings but did not appear in court. As a result, a default was entered against the site.
This response creates no opportunity to argue a compelling case for why scientific knowledge should not remain pay-walled by publishers and/or establish new legal frameworks for copyright of scientific knowledge.
Here is a bonus article from Priceonomics I'm a big fan of (that I'm sure has been shared here before) about why paywalled science is Bullshit:
https://priceonomics.com/post/50096804256/why-is-science-behind-a-paywall https://priceonomics.com/post/50096804256/why-is-science-beh...
- someonewhocar3s 9y agoYou should wonder what kind of judge would punish Sci-Hub in absence, given the US is like as not to imprison and disproportionally fine whomever is sent to represent Sci-Hub. This is not the 1800's anymore. You can't expect someone to /want/ to come to YOUR court to HELP YOU apply YOUR LAW in YOUR NATION, especially not with the HUGE RISKS!
- ArchReaper 9y ago>This response creates no opportunity to argue a compelling case for why scientific knowledge should not remain pay-walled by publishers and/or establish new legal frameworks for copyright of scientific knowledge. You somehow think this would have been the correct platform to do that? While being a target of a copyright-infringement lawsuit?