From: Richard James <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:48:59 -0500

Ann- I agree wholeheartedly. A lot of commentators are conflating
laziness with necessity. I would think that the vast majority of
scholars who are promoting the use of sci-hub could get the
information they want legitimately, but with a slight delay, through
any number of means- the only difference being that these means are a
couple of clicks more costly. Legitimizing and promoting intellectual
property theft undermines Open Access, threatens the profession (and
definitely the para-profession), and opens institutions to a number of
legal and technical threats.

Also, I suppose that Wiley, Wolters, Elsevier etc. and the myriad
publishers whose support enables Crossref and the DOI Foundation to do
their work have got to start wondering at some point about the
downside of providing the tools that enable sci-hub to operate.
Requiring libraries to implement more secure authentication, ending
PDF as we know it in favor of more restrictive and harder to use
formats, and pretty much whatever they want to do to make their
property more secure and our lives harder- all of these things have
got to be on the table at some point.



On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:39 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:19:49 -0500
>
> Further to Jean-Claude's message below re. Sci-hub's actions as civil
> disobedience:  yes, Sci-hub does break the law, in this case copyright
> laws (of most nations).
>
> Am I the only librarian who's troubled by "the devil made me do it"
> argument that a number of library people are advancing here (the devil
> in this case being the publisher(s))?
>
> For example, from a recent SPARC interview:  "Well, I think
> researchers take for granted that they're - they've been forced into a
> system of workarounds to try to get access to the articles that they
> need to do their research."
>
> So, when a scientist/scholar could go to an eprints site, or library
> doc delivery/ILL services, or ask colleagues for copies (and other
> long-standing legitimate ways of security access to those works that
> aren't locally available) does that qualify as "being forced" to
> something that makes breaking the law preferable?  "Driven" is another
> word I've seen.
>
> Do we as librarians really believe that large-scale copyright
> infringement is a good thing, that it's right, and a means to a better
> future?
>
> Ann Okerson
>
> **********
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: SciHub (was: Elsevier cracks down on pirated articles)
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:34:28 +0000
> >
> > A couple of quick points:
> >
> > 1. OA does not collide with copyright. Sci-hub is not OA; it is civil
> > disobedience (http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/02/sci-hub-as-necessary-effective-civil-disobedience/);
> >
> > 2. The notion of sustainability is very slippery. If it means finding
> > stable financing, including public stable financing, I I have no
> > objection. If it means finding a way to recover costs or, worse, make
> > profits, then I object.
> >
> > As far as scientific publishing is concerned, copyright is needed only
> > to the extent that it is needed to make CC-by work. Without copyright,
> > there is obviously no need for a licensing scheme.
> >
> > Jean-Claude Guédon