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.