5 ms·

It allows for open-access of the epitome of human progress, which is something unavailable to low-income communities. It's copying data, not stealing from a mus

It allows for open-access of the epitome of human progress, which is something unavailable to low-income communities. It's copying data, not stealing from a museum, so it's not as if any journal is losing much, if anything. There's no real ethical downside - allowing people who wouldn't normally have access to research helps to reduce inequality, and allows human progress to advance a lot quicker than if it weren't open. There are brilliant people of which have no access to research, who could - and would - more likely do something with it than not. Given that we all pay for science, [0] from people in the lowest drudges of poverty, to people in the highest skyscrapers in New York, we should all have access to it. Imagine you paid taxes meant to improve roads in your area, but ended up going to a place hundreds of miles away from you. You'll never get to use these roads, and you'll be told you're unethical and unlawful if you even consider using them. It wouldn't be very fair, would it? [0] https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays

lsh 9y ago
Unless the article has been published as open access under a CC-BY (or similar) licence, it's not open access, please don't confuse the two. I agree with you in spirit - tax payer funded research outputs should be publicly available - but this is what got Aaron Swartz: it is unlawful.
- Mononokay 9y ago
  I never said the research was open-access, I said it allowed open-access to research. There's a difference, and although it's just positioning, it makes quite a difference in the meaning of a sentence.
Fins 9y ago
One could easily come up with quite a few ethical arguments against Sci-Hub -- it's there to stick it to the "West". It has nothing to do with science, human progress, or anything as lofty. Basically, just another department of the Olgino Troll Factory. That it lets you freely access some scientific materials regardless of whether the rights owner (or authors, for that matter) agree to it or not is just a minor side-effect.
- folli 9y ago
  If the Scientific Publication Mafia is your definition of the "West", then, yes, let's stick it to the "West". Anyway, is there any proof that Sci-Hub is part of the Kremlbots, besides Alexandra Elbakyan being from Kazakhstan?
  - SXX 9y ago
    She have strong pro-Putin view and tend to ban anyone who dont agree with her, even banned all Russian IPs from Sci-Hub last year because of some political discussions on social networks. Though this doesn't change the fact project itself is very useful and obviously it's her own personality problems rather than some conspiracy.
    - skrebbel 9y ago
      She obviously doesn't share the NYTimes Western Standard World View, but to say that blocking all Russian IPs is pro-putin is a bit of a shortcut, no? The world isn't just "pro west" vs "pro Putin" and from what I can tell, Elbakyan has a nuanced standpoint.
      - oytis 9y ago
        Reducing "the West" to NYTimes seems to me as a much more severe oversimplification. Alexandra's viewpoint does not only contradict NYTimes, it contradicts basically the whole political spectrum of liberal democratic countries, except maybe radical left and radical right (die AfD and die Linke and the respective media in German context for example). Of course her standpoint is not without nuances, and so is everyone's. But it is still not incorrect to call her anti West and pro Putin, and I believe she herself would not object this definition. And of course that's not to diminish her positive role in protecting the freedom of humanity by maintaining SciHub. It is really thouht-provoking that otherwise non-free countries still contribute to common freedom by being less involved into copyright-protection system.
      - SXX 9y ago
        I didn't wanted to explain here why exactly she banned it since I believe no one on HN will truly interested in authoritarian state internal politics, but it's important in this case. Few years ago Kremlin marked non-profit Dynasty Foundation [1] that was for years funding science and educational institutions as "foreign agent" and stated that that reason for that is foreign funding. Of course it's was complete bullshit because organization was funded by single person: Dmitry Zimin (founder of one of three largest Russian telecoms). Real reason for that Kremlin action was funding of some politics-related book publishing and lectures. For non-profit "foreign agent" mark in practice bring regulation that almost impossible or too expensive to comply with. So Dmitry Zimin just decide to close non-profit. Then most of people in Russian science community who still live and work in Russia have strong liberal views. Obviously they wasn't too happy about that since it's one one of few non profits in Russia that was actually funding science and education for real. Very few rich people in Russia ever donated anything to science or education so it's a big loss. Elbakyan "nuanced standpoint" was such that Kremlin doing good job and since Sci-Hub users from Russia didn't agree she just decide to ban whole country. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_Foundation

lsh 9y ago

Unless the article has been published as open access under a CC-BY (or similar) licence, it's not open access, please don't confuse the two. I agree with you in spirit - tax payer funded research outputs should be publicly available - but this is what got Aaron Swartz: it is unlawful.

Mononokay 9y ago
I never said the research was open-access, I said it allowed open-access to research. There's a difference, and although it's just positioning, it makes quite a difference in the meaning of a sentence.

Fins 9y ago

One could easily come up with quite a few ethical arguments against Sci-Hub -- it's there to stick it to the "West". It has nothing to do with science, human progress, or anything as lofty. Basically, just another department of the Olgino Troll Factory. That it lets you freely access some scientific materials regardless of whether the rights owner (or authors, for that matter) agree to it or not is just a minor side-effect.

folli 9y ago
If the Scientific Publication Mafia is your definition of the "West", then, yes, let's stick it to the "West". Anyway, is there any proof that Sci-Hub is part of the Kremlbots, besides Alexandra Elbakyan being from Kazakhstan?
- SXX 9y ago
  She have strong pro-Putin view and tend to ban anyone who dont agree with her, even banned all Russian IPs from Sci-Hub last year because of some political discussions on social networks. Though this doesn't change the fact project itself is very useful and obviously it's her own personality problems rather than some conspiracy.
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    She obviously doesn't share the NYTimes Western Standard World View, but to say that blocking all Russian IPs is pro-putin is a bit of a shortcut, no? The world isn't just "pro west" vs "pro Putin" and from what I can tell, Elbakyan has a nuanced standpoint.
    - oytis 9y ago
      Reducing "the West" to NYTimes seems to me as a much more severe oversimplification. Alexandra's viewpoint does not only contradict NYTimes, it contradicts basically the whole political spectrum of liberal democratic countries, except maybe radical left and radical right (die AfD and die Linke and the respective media in German context for example). Of course her standpoint is not without nuances, and so is everyone's. But it is still not incorrect to call her anti West and pro Putin, and I believe she herself would not object this definition. And of course that's not to diminish her positive role in protecting the freedom of humanity by maintaining SciHub. It is really thouht-provoking that otherwise non-free countries still contribute to common freedom by being less involved into copyright-protection system.
    - SXX 9y ago
      I didn't wanted to explain here why exactly she banned it since I believe no one on HN will truly interested in authoritarian state internal politics, but it's important in this case. Few years ago Kremlin marked non-profit Dynasty Foundation [1] that was for years funding science and educational institutions as "foreign agent" and stated that that reason for that is foreign funding. Of course it's was complete bullshit because organization was funded by single person: Dmitry Zimin (founder of one of three largest Russian telecoms). Real reason for that Kremlin action was funding of some politics-related book publishing and lectures. For non-profit "foreign agent" mark in practice bring regulation that almost impossible or too expensive to comply with. So Dmitry Zimin just decide to close non-profit. Then most of people in Russian science community who still live and work in Russia have strong liberal views. Obviously they wasn't too happy about that since it's one one of few non profits in Russia that was actually funding science and education for real. Very few rich people in Russia ever donated anything to science or education so it's a big loss. Elbakyan "nuanced standpoint" was such that Kremlin doing good job and since Sci-Hub users from Russia didn't agree she just decide to ban whole country. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_Foundation