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]