From: STEPHEN BARR <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:31:00 +0000

I have not read the judgement issued by the court in this case, but I
expect that the sums granted are based not on the argument of damage
to the public which David refers to, but on the statutory damages
available under US copyright for wilful (or, in the US, willful)
breach of copyright - up to 150,000 USD per work infringed.    While
views may differ on the extent to which Sci-Hub is damaging, it is
definitely wilful/willful.

Stephen Barr

 *******

From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:32:22 +0000

I am seriously asking what the “irreparable injury” is to Elsevier’s
customers and to the public.  Joe's answer implies that it is the
existential damage to society whenever a law is broken.  I guess I was
expecting something more specific.

Other answers have suggested that the injury is the collapse of the
subscription basis and the damage that would do to the scientific
process - but is the claim being made that Elsevier has stopped
producing any subscription journals as a result of Sci-Hub’s activity?

Another answer I’ve seen is that the in the process of getting content
Sci-Hub is also gaining usernames and passwords which might be used to
hack institutional systems.  But I can’t see that this was part of the
argument used by Elsevier’s lawyers.  I assume because it is not a
copyright issue?

Looking back at the original complaint from June 2015, it would appear
that Elsevier was making the claim that Sci-Hub was causing
"irreparable injury to Elsevier and its publishing partners”, mainly
by depriving them of revenue.  As I say, that is a claim that I can
understand.  There is one mention of customers ("Defendants have
undertaken the acts complained of herein with knowledge that such acts
would cause harm to Plaintiffs and their customers in both the
Southern District of New York and elsewhere.”) but no description of
the harm done to them.  And no mention of harm to the public.  This
appears to be a new argument - but I am no lawyer and have not read
all the papers.

I realise that given my history there may be a suspicion that I am
asking these questions somehow in defence of Sci-Hub.  I’m not.  I
don’t support any model of scholarly communications that relies on
wholesale breaking of copyright law.  I am genuinely trying to
understand the argument.