Let me just say that legality is not necessarily a good guide for morality. Plenty of things were legal historically, later to be seen as immoral. Or as unsustainably classed as illegal. The millions of downloads from Sci-Hub may at one point be seen as millions of 'votes' for the approach of making scientific knowledge freely available to everyone. Civil disobedience now; the norm later.

It should be noted that genuine open access articles don't need Sci-Hub for anything other than the convenience of finding articles all in one place and to easily download them, for that is also something Sci-Hub offers, even to those whose libraries have licences to subscription journals with all different and sometimes difficult to navigate web interfaces.

Jan Velterop

From: SANFORD G THATCHER <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:16:28 -0500

If you read my post carefully, you would understand that it was not I who was
characterizing Sci-Hub in terms of Marxist ideology. This is how Elbakyan
herself characterized what she was doing in an interview.

Sure, what she has done with Sci-Hub can be framed in multiple other ways, but
it strikes me as important to recognize how the founder herself represented
wbat she hoped her handiwork would accomplish.

Others on this list who were present at the UNT conference, like Kevin Hawkins,
can speak to whether what I heard is what I have stated here.

Sandy Thatcher



On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 01:39 AM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 23:55:15 +0100
>
>What Sci-Hub does is no-doubt against existing law. But framing it as a
>“Marxist attempt to destroy capitalism” is quite an exaggerated
>characterisation. It could also be framed as a resistance movement
>objecting to much that’s perceived as wrong with scholarly communication,
>particularly restricting access to scientific knowledge as a privilege for
>the wealthy instead of making it freely accessible as a common good for the
>world.
>
>Framing it as such, as a protest against injustice, will inevitably accept
>that illegal action may well be part of it, as it often is in such
>circumstances. Civil disobedience and actions that are considered illegal
>are inherent in most protest against injustice.
>
>If you’re into exaggerated comparisons, you may even compare it with, for
>instance, the actions of the colonies in the American revolution against
>the then existing law. Without those illegal actions the colonies would not
>have achieved the changes that led to their independence.
>
>Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop
>
>
>On 9 Dec 2018, at 20:45, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>From: SANFORD G THATCHER <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:25:07 -0500
>
>Thanks for reposting this earlier article. What it argues, of course, is
>that
>most of the harm comes by way of hacking, not the donation of access codes,
>but
>it does not deny that some of it comes about via donation.  The article does
>not, however, attempt to quantify what percentage each activity contributes.
>
>I hope that people are aware that Elbakyan is not just acting to free up
>scholarly resources. As a true Marxist zealot, she wants to see the entire
>capitalist system destroyed and replaced by a Marxian utopia reflecting the
>motto :From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
>needs."
>
>Let's not kid ourselves that she just wants to champion open access within
>an
>overall free-market system. Rather, she wants to see that system entirely
>uprooted and destroyed forever.  Anyone who voluntarily donates access
>codes in
>the belief that Elbakyan is just a champion of liberty is sadly mistaken.
>
>I base this characterization on an interview Elbakyan gave to an audience
>attending an open-access conference at the University of North Texas a few
>years ago.
>
>Sandy Thatcher

[SNIP]