From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 09:19:38 -0400

As a follow-on to the current Sci-Hub discussion, I have posted a
piece on Sci-Hub's management issues on the Scholarly Kitchen:

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

Joe Esposito

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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