Yes, scientists have everything to gain from their work being as visible as possible. And many themselves rely on Sci-Hub to get papers for which their lab don'

Yes, scientists have everything to gain from their work being as visible as possible. And many themselves rely on Sci-Hub to get papers for which their lab don't pay expensive access to. And they don't receive money when their papers are bought. The loosing ones are publishers and they kind of deserve it if you ask me. They make scientists pay with money to publish their work, and with time for unpaid reviews, and yet they make a profit out of it, which, for the record, is often paid with public money on both sides. This is quite clever when you think about it. Publishers had their use when we needed publications to be printed on papers but now their role is more arguable. Should private publishers collapse, scientists would figure out a way to publish their papers another way and that might be for the best. (edit since you added your second paragraph: hopefully using something like the "free and open source platform for publishing and peer reviewing run by a non-profit organisation, financed as a public project" that you mention)