5 ms·

I'm very confused, why would she ever have to comply with orders of an Indian (or indeed, US) court if she resides in Europe?

by jorvi 5y ago

crazygringo 5y ago
It's explained in the original article.
skissane 5y ago
She doesn’t have to comply with the Indian court order. She chose to because she thinks she has a chance of winning the case. To her, a court ruling that SciHub is legal under Indian law would be a huge win. Obeying the court order increases the odds the court will rule in her favour. It is a calculated risk on her part.
tbabej 5y ago
She did not have to, but she voluntarily chose to, in order to have a shot of winning this case. If she didn't comply with the court's orders, I assume the chances of winning would plummet. From the article: > One reason is that Elbakyan believes she has a shot at winning the case, and her odds might improve if she plays by the rules. “I want the Indian court to finally support free access to science,” she said. If that happened, it would mark a significant victory for Sci-Hub, with reverberations likely beyond India. Victory remains a longshot, but Elbakyan thinks it’s worth the hassle and expense. She didn’t even bother to contest the two lawsuits in the United States.
- vslira 5y ago
  Can third parties (especially foreigners) finance legal battles in India? Can we donate?
  - manquer 5y ago
    You can donate to her directly. There is no hard restriction on how lawyers are paid . Judges may limit something in some specific cases etc, also they have paperwork to do for any foreign income for tax purposes. That's not unusal in many countries. There maybe optics problem occasionally if local issue gets international funding it can undermine support etc, here the other party copyright holders are also international and she /libgen is also not local, so perhaps not as much a problem her funding comes globally
lhoff 5y ago
It's explained in the article. She thinks there is a chance to win the case in India which would be a useful publicity stunt and therefore complies with the court order.
- skissane 5y ago
  > win the case in India which would be a useful publicity stunt It isn't just about publicity, it is also about legal precedent. In the English common law system, a judge is allowed to cite not just precedent from within their own country's legal system, but also precedent from courts in foreign common law jurisdictions. Foreign courts are not binding precedent, but a judge is allowed to say they are persuaded by the foreign court's reasoning. The propriety of citing foreign court judgements has become rather controversial in the US, but in England and other common law jurisdictions it is an accepted practice which few question. I doubt a legal precedent from India is going to persuade the courts of developed countries like UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Even though most of those are technically allowed to consider Indian court decisions (as a fellow common law jurisdiction), they rarely give Indian courts much heed in practice. But it may be much more influential with the courts of developing countries in Africa and elsewhere. That's what Elbakyan is trying to do, win a case in India and then use that as a springboard to winning cases in other countries too.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    And a digital safe haven in India would be pretty huge, and if it spreads to African nations that could open up more DNS registrars at the very least.
    - ta988 5y ago
      It would also be a good way for China and Russia to allow scihub to operate from their countries, just to send a big F#@% you to US (ACS) and Netherlands (Elsevier) who have been especially violent against sci-hub.
nzmsv 5y ago
She doesn't, but many people really really want to change this. See this discussion from a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27662701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27662701 The topic of borders and the Internet is a really weird one in general. Somehow the very same people who would like Alexandra to flout any laws will jump up and down and yell "Google should be forced to do what my country tells it". Personally I find this baffling.
- viraptor 5y ago
  You can recognise some laws are good for everyone and some as unethical - it's not an invalid position. For example (on an extreme end), I believe murder being illegal is right, but pot possession being illegal is not. In the less extreme middle, (and more contentious) I believe antitrust laws used against google are sometimes good and restrictions on access to / use of publicly funded research is not.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Everyone loves an underdog.
- trasz 5y ago
  Those are completely different situations. Google should obey countries they earn money from. Sci-Hub doesn’t make money.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  You should comply with the laws of the country your operating in, yes. Google has different versions of its offerings for different countries, as it should be. She changed scihub for everyone, though, not just Indians, that's the difference.

I'm very confused, why would she ever have to comply with orders of an Indian (or indeed, US) court if she resides in Europe?

by jorvi 5y ago

I'm very confused, why would she ever have to comply with orders of an Indian (or indeed, US) court if she resides in Europe?

crazygringo 5y ago

It's explained in the original article.

skissane 5y ago

She doesn’t have to comply with the Indian court order. She chose to because she thinks she has a chance of winning the case. To her, a court ruling that SciHub is legal under Indian law would be a huge win. Obeying the court order increases the odds the court will rule in her favour. It is a calculated risk on her part.

tbabej 5y ago

She did not have to, but she voluntarily chose to, in order to have a shot of winning this case. If she didn't comply with the court's orders, I assume the chances of winning would plummet. From the article: > One reason is that Elbakyan believes she has a shot at winning the case, and her odds might improve if she plays by the rules. “I want the Indian court to finally support free access to science,” she said. If that happened, it would mark a significant victory for Sci-Hub, with reverberations likely beyond India. Victory remains a longshot, but Elbakyan thinks it’s worth the hassle and expense. She didn’t even bother to contest the two lawsuits in the United States.

vslira 5y ago
Can third parties (especially foreigners) finance legal battles in India? Can we donate?
- manquer 5y ago
  You can donate to her directly. There is no hard restriction on how lawyers are paid . Judges may limit something in some specific cases etc, also they have paperwork to do for any foreign income for tax purposes. That's not unusal in many countries. There maybe optics problem occasionally if local issue gets international funding it can undermine support etc, here the other party copyright holders are also international and she /libgen is also not local, so perhaps not as much a problem her funding comes globally

lhoff 5y ago

It's explained in the article. She thinks there is a chance to win the case in India which would be a useful publicity stunt and therefore complies with the court order.

skissane 5y ago
> win the case in India which would be a useful publicity stunt It isn't just about publicity, it is also about legal precedent. In the English common law system, a judge is allowed to cite not just precedent from within their own country's legal system, but also precedent from courts in foreign common law jurisdictions. Foreign courts are not binding precedent, but a judge is allowed to say they are persuaded by the foreign court's reasoning. The propriety of citing foreign court judgements has become rather controversial in the US, but in England and other common law jurisdictions it is an accepted practice which few question. I doubt a legal precedent from India is going to persuade the courts of developed countries like UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Even though most of those are technically allowed to consider Indian court decisions (as a fellow common law jurisdiction), they rarely give Indian courts much heed in practice. But it may be much more influential with the courts of developing countries in Africa and elsewhere. That's what Elbakyan is trying to do, win a case in India and then use that as a springboard to winning cases in other countries too.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  And a digital safe haven in India would be pretty huge, and if it spreads to African nations that could open up more DNS registrars at the very least.
  - ta988 5y ago
    It would also be a good way for China and Russia to allow scihub to operate from their countries, just to send a big F#@% you to US (ACS) and Netherlands (Elsevier) who have been especially violent against sci-hub.

nzmsv 5y ago

She doesn't, but many people really really want to change this. See this discussion from a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27662701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27662701 The topic of borders and the Internet is a really weird one in general. Somehow the very same people who would like Alexandra to flout any laws will jump up and down and yell "Google should be forced to do what my country tells it". Personally I find this baffling.

viraptor 5y ago
You can recognise some laws are good for everyone and some as unethical - it's not an invalid position. For example (on an extreme end), I believe murder being illegal is right, but pot possession being illegal is not. In the less extreme middle, (and more contentious) I believe antitrust laws used against google are sometimes good and restrictions on access to / use of publicly funded research is not.
bawolff 5y ago
Everyone loves an underdog.
trasz 5y ago
Those are completely different situations. Google should obey countries they earn money from. Sci-Hub doesn’t make money.
thatguy0900 5y ago
You should comply with the laws of the country your operating in, yes. Google has different versions of its offerings for different countries, as it should be. She changed scihub for everyone, though, not just Indians, that's the difference.