5 ms·

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 cou

by 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 Foreign courts are not binding precedent, but a judge is allowed to say they are persuaded by the foreign court's reasoning.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.

5 ms·

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 cou

by 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.