From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 10:32:55 -0400 The short answer is that, because Sci-Hub did not respond, the court's findings are based solely on Elsevier's allegations. Elsevier, of course, as do all litigants, argues one-sidedly that the public interest is wholly conterminous with its own interests. Because Sci-Hub did not reply, the Court has no other facts or arguments with which to reason. So their findings are basically Elsevier's allegations. Laura ---------------------------------- Laura Quilter / [log in to unmask] 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