Tue, 27 Jun 2017 22:54:26 -0400
|
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:49:15 -0400
Is the point that you are just sticking a hole in the rhetoric or are
you seriously suggesting that anyone benefits from illegal activity?
If you are just noting that the rhetoric belongs to the genre of
stupid pontificating, I will remind you that if you want to clean up
that mess, you will need an army and several centuries. But if the
underlying issue is not important--that breaches of the law undermine
our social institutions--then this is a more serious discussion than
access to scholarly material. I really don't think it's wise to be
cute about this.
Joe Esposito
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:48 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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
|
|
|