From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:59:04 -0500

In partial response to Todd Puccio:

What happens if I download an article from Sci-hub on weekends, from
my home, without using the U. network... Am I still part of my
university? After all, I am also allowed to do consulting work, so
long as it is not on U. time. What is U. time?

Todd Puccio's point has ethical validity, but human beings are rarely
pure free agents or pure employees. And finding a way not to involve
one's institution while using Sci-hub is not a terribly challenging
problem.

The real ethical issue is whether breaking copyright law is
justifiable if placed in the context of publisher behaviour viewed as
unacceptable. That is where a term like "civil disobedience" comes
into play.

A publisher behaviour begins to be unacceptable when some of its
components contribute strongly to making the process of knowledge
creation sub-optimal. Remember that creating knowledge about our world
is among the noblest things that a human being can do. Interfering
with this objective for financial gain is not terribly ethical IMHO,
even though it may be legal.

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal


From: Todd Puccio <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:32:05 +0000

Robin Hood didn't have a boss.

======
From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>

To Richard, calling Sci-hub a form of civil disobedience is ludicrous;
to others like me, it is conceivable. Only time will tell. But civil
disobedience is not the only available metaphor. Perhaps it is a form
of direct action, or of guerrilla warfare. Many images are available
to apprehend such a situation. Robin Hood is another possibility
(http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science ).
=======

Regardless, even if SciHub is an act of civil disobedience or a Robin
Hood act we must keep in mind our own actions in relation to it.

Unless, the retriever of these SciHub articles is a free-agent acting
upon his/her own accord they are part of a larger organization.
A University, a school, a hospital, a research institute etc.

The actions of that person working on behalf of the organization's
goals reflect upon the whole organization.

Rosa Parks and Robin Hood represented themselves.  Their (currently)
illegal actions did not put any greater organization at risk.  They
were not acting on behalf of or towards the goal of a larger
organization.

It is _unethical_ to practice civil disobedience on behalf of your
employer without that employer's explicit support.

Todd Puccio
Director of Technical Services / Librarian
Nova Southeastern University
Health Professions Division Library
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33328
[log in to unmask]