From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:49:15 -0400 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