3 ms·

Yes, but the “any domain with sci-hub in it can be taken down without further legal action” is not standard for actions against domains; usually it is seizure o

by rdl 9y ago

Yes, but the “any domain with sci-hub in it can be taken down without further legal action” is not standard for actions against domains; usually it is seizure or other action against specific domains. Cloudflare isn’t a monopoly/chokepoint to the extent that actions against domain registries (via registrars) are.

220V_USKettle 9y ago
Taken down or siezed?
oh_sigh 9y ago
Does this bode poorly for my go-to site to talk about my favorite celebrity, pesci-hubbub.com ?
- dane-pgp 9y ago
  This is an important point, although in practice the publisher would not go after your talk site, even if they are seemingly given the legal power to do so, meaning that the legal system never corrects itself from issuing these overly broad injunctions (until it's too late and someone deliberately abuses this weakness). What's more worrying is what happens when the publishers go back to court to complain that Sci-Hub are changing their name to avoid the block, from sci-hub -> sky-hab -> psy-hob -> buy-tub -> fly-tab -> ... At what point does the court just empower the publisher to shut down any site they choose, like a DMCA takedown request?
  - gruez 9y ago
    > At what point does the court just empower the publisher to shut down any site they choose, like a DMCA takedown request? It's not that big of a problem as you think. even if there's no stipulation that it can only be used to shut down the science paper sharing site operated by Alexandra Elbakyan, it's the intent that matters. using it to shut down [unrelated site] will likely land them in hot waters with the judge.
    - tinus_hn 9y ago
      If they shut down a competitors site and then claim it was just a mistake they will probably not be in trouble at all but they would cause a lot of trouble for their competitor.
    - Sacho 9y ago
      Of course, the Plaintiffs have no reason to do this to a random joe - it's more interesting when it happens to someone the ACS would be legitimately interested in pursuing. Reading the language of the injuction and amendment, it seems that the focus isn't even so much on sci-hub itself, but rather protecting the copyrighted material of the ACS. It seems like Ebalkyan could host a sci-hub-sans-acs.org with materials not copyrighted by the ACS. It also seems that you can't really trick it by having say, Ms Janina Kowalska registering centrum-nauki.org and serving all the content that appears on sci-hub. I'm also not clear on the specific mechanics behind the injunction. Let's say that Ebalkyan does create sci-hub-sans-acs.org and claims all the copyrighted works are removed, can they still block it preemptively? Does Ebalkyan have to submit evidence that she's removed the copyrighted works? Can they demand action against anyone else that "seems" to be sci-hub? Is there a level of evidence they must meet? It kinda sucks to be ignorant of a legal system which can have so much impact in your life...

by rdl 9y ago

220V_USKettle 9y ago

Taken down or siezed?

oh_sigh 9y ago

Does this bode poorly for my go-to site to talk about my favorite celebrity, pesci-hubbub.com ?

dane-pgp 9y ago
This is an important point, although in practice the publisher would not go after your talk site, even if they are seemingly given the legal power to do so, meaning that the legal system never corrects itself from issuing these overly broad injunctions (until it's too late and someone deliberately abuses this weakness). What's more worrying is what happens when the publishers go back to court to complain that Sci-Hub are changing their name to avoid the block, from sci-hub -> sky-hab -> psy-hob -> buy-tub -> fly-tab -> ... At what point does the court just empower the publisher to shut down any site they choose, like a DMCA takedown request?
- gruez 9y ago
  > At what point does the court just empower the publisher to shut down any site they choose, like a DMCA takedown request? It's not that big of a problem as you think. even if there's no stipulation that it can only be used to shut down the science paper sharing site operated by Alexandra Elbakyan, it's the intent that matters. using it to shut down [unrelated site] will likely land them in hot waters with the judge.
  - tinus_hn 9y ago
    If they shut down a competitors site and then claim it was just a mistake they will probably not be in trouble at all but they would cause a lot of trouble for their competitor.
  - Sacho 9y ago
    Of course, the Plaintiffs have no reason to do this to a random joe - it's more interesting when it happens to someone the ACS would be legitimately interested in pursuing. Reading the language of the injuction and amendment, it seems that the focus isn't even so much on sci-hub itself, but rather protecting the copyrighted material of the ACS. It seems like Ebalkyan could host a sci-hub-sans-acs.org with materials not copyrighted by the ACS. It also seems that you can't really trick it by having say, Ms Janina Kowalska registering centrum-nauki.org and serving all the content that appears on sci-hub. I'm also not clear on the specific mechanics behind the injunction. Let's say that Ebalkyan does create sci-hub-sans-acs.org and claims all the copyrighted works are removed, can they still block it preemptively? Does Ebalkyan have to submit evidence that she's removed the copyrighted works? Can they demand action against anyone else that "seems" to be sci-hub? Is there a level of evidence they must meet? It kinda sucks to be ignorant of a legal system which can have so much impact in your life...