LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date:
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 23:07:47 -0400
Reply-To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
From: "Baumle, Christopher J. (ELS-PHI)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:58:42 +0000

Joe Esposito answers these questions, and more, in his very
informative post on Scholarly Kitchen:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/06/27/even-sci-hub-management-headaches/?informz=1

Chris



From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:51:40 +0000

Reading the Nature article I see:

"The defendants’ “unlawful activities have caused and will continue to
cause irreparable injury to Elsevier, its customers and the public,”
Elsevier’s New York-based attorneys, DeVore & DeMarco, told the
court."

I can understand how one might make a case for harm to the publisher
(although proving it might be tricky) - but I’m struggling to think
what the case might be for harm to customers and the public. Am I
missing something obvious?

David

ATOM RSS1 RSS2