From: Todd Puccio <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:56:26 +0000
If you download from SciHub on your home network on the weekend ....
and use that article for your _university related research_ , yes,
your University could still be at risk. And many judges would agree
Faculty and Researchers are not "on the clock" type of employees. At
least not here in the USA.
The time or place of infraction is not the issue. The purpose is the issue.
If you download an article from SciHub while on the Clock and on the
network of the University, the University is at risk --- Yes, we got
And - I am adding that if you download from SciHub on your home
network on the weekend .... and use that article in your _university
related research_, yes your University could still be at risk.
And - The fact that the University could use a good defense in saying
they did not foster or encourage the infraction - sure the
organization may be found innocent...
- but this does nothing to help the issue that in the meantime, the
University has to expend time and resources in defending itself at
Director of Technical Services / Librarian
Nova Southeastern University
Health Professions Division Library
3200 S. University Drive
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33328
[log in to unmask]
From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:47:27 -0500
In response to Todd Puccio,
I have no quarrel with the general thrust of Todd's argument.
The time element was introduced because, indeed, it could help (or
mask) what the purpose was. Thank you for helping to clarify.
If I download something from Sci-Hub from my personal computer at
home, on a weekend, and a publishers sues my university, the
university will simply say: this has nothing to do with us. And I
suspect most judges would agree with that.
Université de Montréal