6 ms·

It should also be noted that Elbakyan has suffered personally from her enormous contribution to science: she is currently living in fear of extradition to the U

by et2o 8y ago

It should also be noted that Elbakyan has suffered personally from her enormous contribution to science: she is currently living in fear of extradition to the United States, where scientific publishers have obtained several multi-million dollar judgments against her [Wikipedia].

amanzi 8y ago
I was wondering about that as I read this post. Under US copyright law, this would be no different to MegaUpload.
- Joakal 8y ago
  Under most copyright laws, lets assume worst case scenario for real life example of broken laws. If you send 100 wedding photos to your grandparents without paying photographer for copyright release. That's 100 instances of crime of copyright infringement per work, even if you didn't ask for money (commercial). In USA, each infringement is $250,000 and/or 5 years jail according to RIAA [1]. With 100, that's $25,000,000 fine and 500 years of jail if USA decides to prosecute you. Her judgment would make sense. [1] https://www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/ https://www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/
  - komali2 8y ago
    That's the dumbest fucking thing I've heard all day. How do we change this unreasonable law?
    - tomrod 8y ago
      Corporate interests have driven us to this broken, unworkable model. I think it may end up costing a lot to get things fixed, monetarily, time, and resource-wise.
    - syshum 8y ago
      You cant... the System that made the law is just as unreasonable and broken as the law.
    - Joakal 8y ago
      Join a political party or support them, one was formed due to copyright: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party EFF is a lobby/political group that tackles copyright issues: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/its-copyright-week-2019-join-us-fight-better-copyright-law-and-policy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/its-copyright-week-201... You can choose to donate, spread the word, join and contribute, etc. It's slow but works sometimes. “In 1987, over half[1] Australian households had a VCR, but it only became legal to record TV shows at home in 2006.". IIRC Politicians said their children were criminals for taping their cartoons.
      - Faark 8y ago
        Keep in mind that the US uses first-past-the-post voting for many elections, meaning the party with most votes takes the entire pie that was voted for. Thus not voting for one of the two biggest parties will help that other big one you like even less. Yes, this kind of system doesn't allow a diverse set of parties.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      I apologize for being so cynical, but based on our track record, it'll take a high-profile conviction that is so obviously and blatantly unjust and contrary to the public interest, that the mass media outrage machine tunes in. Sadly, if she gets extradited, this might just be that case.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      It's dumb because parent poster has seriously mis-represented the law.
      - mschuster91 8y ago
        No, he did not. The question is: is the government allowed to go for that course? Look into why "plea deals" have exploded in popularity. People get faced with the choice between pleading guilty and getting off with a light(ish) sentence even if they are innocent in reality, or having to face the "full force" of the law which can mean a sentence longer than the live span of whole generations. The "right to due process and a fair trial" may still be there, but are you free to choose the right to due process and a fair trial if you know you can end up for life?
        DanBC 8y ago
        > No, he did not Yes, he did. > Under most copyright laws, lets assume worst case scenario for real life example of broken laws. > If you send 100 wedding photos to your grandparents without paying photographer for copyright release. That's 100 instances of crime of copyright infringement per work, even if you didn't ask for money (commercial) This is not a crime, it isn't a criminal offence, and so the criminal sanctions do not apply. It's a civil tort. For the criminal sanctions to apply it has to meet the criteria of the crime, and that includes commercial infringement -- in the example you'd have to sell the wedding photos to the guests. Copyright law is stupid and it needs reform which is why it's important that people don't misrepresent what it actually says.
  - incompatible 8y ago
    Apparently if the retail value of the works is less than $2,500 then it's a misdemeanor, and its only punishable by up to a year in prison and/or a fine of a maximum $100,000.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    It's only a criminal offence if you do it as part of trade. If you distribute those photos but don't ask for money you're committing a civil offence, and the remedy is that you get sued (not prosecuted) and have to pay for the losses, and pay for the costs of the court case. If you sell the photographs you're now trading and that tips it into a criminal offence.
    - nybble41 8y ago
      That is how the law is phrased. However, as I understand it, people have successfully managed to argue that simply receiving a copy of the work as part of the infringement is sufficient "trade" on its own to qualify the infringement as a criminal offense. Under that interpretation there is no effective distinction between civil and criminal infringement.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        Please link to even a single case where that actually happened. You'll find that either people are monetizing the distribution; or they're distributing so much content the rights-holders claim it distorted the market. I'd agree that neither of these should be criminal offences, but neither of them involve "simply receiving a copy".
        nybble41 8y ago
        > or they're distributing so much content the rights-holders claim it distorted the market Sorry, I heard about the case years ago and don't have a link handy. However, that point by itself would be enough to undermine the original claim that only for-profit distribution is considered criminal.
- rovr138 8y ago
  > I run a few mirrors and other mirrors are run independently, //and Sci-Hub also uses accounts to access library resources provided by others.// The last part is the one that makes it different in my opinion. It’s not just people uploading material to share. Seems the platform accesses these systems and downloads from them what’s missing (not sure if metadata or if actual publications).
  - Y_Y 8y ago
    It's real publications. If you ask for an obscure or new paper that nobody has gotten before you can get routed through e.g. a Russian university library portal as if you were a student. Then sci-hub and apparently libgen will save copies to avoid doing it next time. The fact that all scientific articles have a doi number makes the whole system very simple.
  - vbezhenar 8y ago
    I just don't understand why publishers don't use technical measures to prevent downloads. Simple system would use recaptcha to prevent bot downloads and it would be hard to work around. Also they could just investigate and ban accounts that Sci-Hub uses to download papers (just ask rare paper via Sci-Hub and check which account just downloaded that paper). Of if they actually are fighting, it would be very interesting to read details.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      It's hard enough to access articles your institution has paid for as it is...
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Actual publications. The primary controversy is about how those credentials were obtained: they usually maintain they were donated, but some in the scholarly publishing industry maintain they were obtained through hacks (and also that Sci-Hub is a Russian plot to overthrow Western democracies, so take them with a grain of salt...).
comment_7171 8y ago
The Wikipedia page says says she has had default judgments entered against her in the United States for civil offenses. If I am not mistaken extradition requires criminal offenses, and usually only a limited number of offenses are deemed serious enough to be "extraditable". It also requires an extradition treaty. Does her country of residence have an extradition treaty with the United States? A Nature article some years ago mentioned she has no assets in the United States. The plaintiffs are therefore unlikely to ever collect any of the $15 million in damages.
- rakoo 8y ago
  Even if she can't be extradited, she definitely cannot travel to the US, which is a shame considering that most of what is happening in the digital space in general is still there.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    A lot of others probably would rather not visit the US even if they could, given the current political climate and the whole security theater surrounding the borders.
    - henryackerman 8y ago
      raises hand I'd love to visit the US sometime, but right now I'd rather not go there for the reasons you mentioned. The only exception would be if my job required it.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  > Does her country of residence have an extradition treaty with the United States? I think she lives in Russia now, so no. If not that, it's Kazakhstan, of which I don't know whether it has such a treaty. In any case, if she is "extraditable", that would still severely limit her travel options, I suppose.
- mandelken 8y ago
  Kim Dotcom is facing extradition to US (where he has never been) over copyright charges, so definitely "extraditable" as you say. Luckily for her there are no US drone strikes in Kazakhstan...

by et2o 8y ago

amanzi 8y ago

I was wondering about that as I read this post. Under US copyright law, this would be no different to MegaUpload.

Joakal 8y ago
Under most copyright laws, lets assume worst case scenario for real life example of broken laws. If you send 100 wedding photos to your grandparents without paying photographer for copyright release. That's 100 instances of crime of copyright infringement per work, even if you didn't ask for money (commercial). In USA, each infringement is $250,000 and/or 5 years jail according to RIAA [1]. With 100, that's $25,000,000 fine and 500 years of jail if USA decides to prosecute you. Her judgment would make sense. [1] https://www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/ https://www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/
- komali2 8y ago
  That's the dumbest fucking thing I've heard all day. How do we change this unreasonable law?
  - tomrod 8y ago
    Corporate interests have driven us to this broken, unworkable model. I think it may end up costing a lot to get things fixed, monetarily, time, and resource-wise.
  - syshum 8y ago
    You cant... the System that made the law is just as unreasonable and broken as the law.
  - Joakal 8y ago
    Join a political party or support them, one was formed due to copyright: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party EFF is a lobby/political group that tackles copyright issues: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/its-copyright-week-2019-join-us-fight-better-copyright-law-and-policy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/its-copyright-week-201... You can choose to donate, spread the word, join and contribute, etc. It's slow but works sometimes. “In 1987, over half[1] Australian households had a VCR, but it only became legal to record TV shows at home in 2006.". IIRC Politicians said their children were criminals for taping their cartoons.
    - Faark 8y ago
      Keep in mind that the US uses first-past-the-post voting for many elections, meaning the party with most votes takes the entire pie that was voted for. Thus not voting for one of the two biggest parties will help that other big one you like even less. Yes, this kind of system doesn't allow a diverse set of parties.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    I apologize for being so cynical, but based on our track record, it'll take a high-profile conviction that is so obviously and blatantly unjust and contrary to the public interest, that the mass media outrage machine tunes in. Sadly, if she gets extradited, this might just be that case.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    It's dumb because parent poster has seriously mis-represented the law.
    - mschuster91 8y ago
      No, he did not. The question is: is the government allowed to go for that course? Look into why "plea deals" have exploded in popularity. People get faced with the choice between pleading guilty and getting off with a light(ish) sentence even if they are innocent in reality, or having to face the "full force" of the law which can mean a sentence longer than the live span of whole generations. The "right to due process and a fair trial" may still be there, but are you free to choose the right to due process and a fair trial if you know you can end up for life?
      - DanBC 8y ago
        > No, he did not Yes, he did. > Under most copyright laws, lets assume worst case scenario for real life example of broken laws. > If you send 100 wedding photos to your grandparents without paying photographer for copyright release. That's 100 instances of crime of copyright infringement per work, even if you didn't ask for money (commercial) This is not a crime, it isn't a criminal offence, and so the criminal sanctions do not apply. It's a civil tort. For the criminal sanctions to apply it has to meet the criteria of the crime, and that includes commercial infringement -- in the example you'd have to sell the wedding photos to the guests. Copyright law is stupid and it needs reform which is why it's important that people don't misrepresent what it actually says.
- incompatible 8y ago
  Apparently if the retail value of the works is less than $2,500 then it's a misdemeanor, and its only punishable by up to a year in prison and/or a fine of a maximum $100,000.
- DanBC 8y ago
  It's only a criminal offence if you do it as part of trade. If you distribute those photos but don't ask for money you're committing a civil offence, and the remedy is that you get sued (not prosecuted) and have to pay for the losses, and pay for the costs of the court case. If you sell the photographs you're now trading and that tips it into a criminal offence.
  - nybble41 8y ago
    That is how the law is phrased. However, as I understand it, people have successfully managed to argue that simply receiving a copy of the work as part of the infringement is sufficient "trade" on its own to qualify the infringement as a criminal offense. Under that interpretation there is no effective distinction between civil and criminal infringement.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Please link to even a single case where that actually happened. You'll find that either people are monetizing the distribution; or they're distributing so much content the rights-holders claim it distorted the market. I'd agree that neither of these should be criminal offences, but neither of them involve "simply receiving a copy".
      - nybble41 8y ago
        > or they're distributing so much content the rights-holders claim it distorted the market Sorry, I heard about the case years ago and don't have a link handy. However, that point by itself would be enough to undermine the original claim that only for-profit distribution is considered criminal.
rovr138 8y ago
> I run a few mirrors and other mirrors are run independently, //and Sci-Hub also uses accounts to access library resources provided by others.// The last part is the one that makes it different in my opinion. It’s not just people uploading material to share. Seems the platform accesses these systems and downloads from them what’s missing (not sure if metadata or if actual publications).
- Y_Y 8y ago
  It's real publications. If you ask for an obscure or new paper that nobody has gotten before you can get routed through e.g. a Russian university library portal as if you were a student. Then sci-hub and apparently libgen will save copies to avoid doing it next time. The fact that all scientific articles have a doi number makes the whole system very simple.
- vbezhenar 8y ago
  I just don't understand why publishers don't use technical measures to prevent downloads. Simple system would use recaptcha to prevent bot downloads and it would be hard to work around. Also they could just investigate and ban accounts that Sci-Hub uses to download papers (just ask rare paper via Sci-Hub and check which account just downloaded that paper). Of if they actually are fighting, it would be very interesting to read details.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    It's hard enough to access articles your institution has paid for as it is...
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Actual publications. The primary controversy is about how those credentials were obtained: they usually maintain they were donated, but some in the scholarly publishing industry maintain they were obtained through hacks (and also that Sci-Hub is a Russian plot to overthrow Western democracies, so take them with a grain of salt...).

comment_7171 8y ago

The Wikipedia page says says she has had default judgments entered against her in the United States for civil offenses. If I am not mistaken extradition requires criminal offenses, and usually only a limited number of offenses are deemed serious enough to be "extraditable". It also requires an extradition treaty. Does her country of residence have an extradition treaty with the United States? A Nature article some years ago mentioned she has no assets in the United States. The plaintiffs are therefore unlikely to ever collect any of the $15 million in damages.

rakoo 8y ago
Even if she can't be extradited, she definitely cannot travel to the US, which is a shame considering that most of what is happening in the digital space in general is still there.
- userbinator 8y ago
  A lot of others probably would rather not visit the US even if they could, given the current political climate and the whole security theater surrounding the borders.
  - henryackerman 8y ago
    raises hand I'd love to visit the US sometime, but right now I'd rather not go there for the reasons you mentioned. The only exception would be if my job required it.
Vinnl 8y ago
> Does her country of residence have an extradition treaty with the United States? I think she lives in Russia now, so no. If not that, it's Kazakhstan, of which I don't know whether it has such a treaty. In any case, if she is "extraditable", that would still severely limit her travel options, I suppose.
mandelken 8y ago
Kim Dotcom is facing extradition to US (where he has never been) over copyright charges, so definitely "extraditable" as you say. Luckily for her there are no US drone strikes in Kazakhstan...