The court awarded $15 million damages to the scientific publisher on the basis of 100 articles published by Elsevier that had been made available without permission on Sci-Hub and a similar site called LibGen. At the time of writing, Sci-Hub claims to hold 62 million scientific research papers – probably a majority of all those ever published – most of which are unauthorized copies. According to a report in the scientific journal Science last year, it is Elsevier which is most affected by Sci-Hub’s activities:

“Over the 6 months leading up to March [2016], Sci-Hub served up 28 million documents. More than 2.6 million download requests came from Iran, 3.4 million from India, and 4.4 million from China. The papers cover every scientific topic, from obscure physics experiments published decades ago to the latest breakthroughs in biotechnology. The publisher with the most requested Sci-Hub articles? It is Elsevier by a long shot – Sci-Hub provided half-a-million downloads of Elsevier papers in one recent week.”

Those figures help to explain why Elsevier has been pursuing Sci-Hub doggedly for some years. Back in December 2015, the same New York judge who has just awarded the $15 million to Elsevier issued a preliminary injunction against the site’s operator. Access to the original domain – sci-hub.org – was suspended, but it carried on using a different domain. Its servers, meanwhile, remain beyond the reach of US law, since they are located in Russia. In the age of VPNs, attempts to block the site are similarly pointless.

This might seem to be an ordinary cat-and-mouse story of a pirate site being pursued by affected copyright holders, and evading various legal moves to shut it down. But there’s an important difference here.

Most of the papers published by Elsevier and the other academic publishing houses and found on Sci-Hub were written by scientists and academics whose research grants were paid for by the public. Once written those papers were submitted to a relevant journal, where an editor or editorial board chose which ones should be considered for publication. To that end, the papers were passed to referees who scrutinized them as part of the peer review system, whereby fellow academics read the text, and judge whether it deserves to be published as is, or needs revisions and corrections. Typically, neither editorial boards nor peer reviewers are paid for their work, which is carried out as a kind of academic responsibility accepted by all as part of the job, and done for the greater good of society.

That is, most of the work writing, checking and editing a paper is carried out completely for free. The only costs that academic publishers incur are typically for production, which are limited if publication is purely digital, as is increasingly the case. Given the extremely efficient nature of the academic publishing system, it will come as no surprise to learn that leading companies in the sector – including Elsevier – have consistently achieved profit margins between 30% and 40%, levels almost unheard of in other industries.

Such elevated profit margins have come as the prices paid by academic libraries to subscribe to titles have increased rapidly. While the cost of living increased by 73% between 1986 and 2004, the expenditure by research libraries on subscriptions to academic journals went up by 273% in the same period. The trend has continued since then. This is not because academic libraries have been given larger budgets. On the contrary, they are finding it harder and harder to pay exorbitant subscription costs because of what is known as the “serials crisis”, and are often forced to drop some titles.

It was this inability to access key academic papers that prompted the neuroscience researcher Alexandra Elbakyan, who was born in Kazakhstan, to set up Sci-Hub in 2011. As she explained in a submission to the New York judge hearing the Elsevier case against her:

“When I was a student in Kazakhstan university, I did not have access to any research papers. These papers I needed for my research project. Payment of 32 dollars [the typical cost to access one paper] is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating them. Later I found there are lots and lots of researchers (not even students, but university researchers) just like me, especially in developing countries. They created online communities (forums) to solve this problem. I was an active participant in one of such communities in Russia. Here anyone who needs research paper, but cannot pay for it, could place a request and other members who can obtain the paper will send it for free by email. I could obtain any paper by pirating it, so I solved many requests and people always were very grateful for my help. After that, I created sci-hub.org website that simply makes this process automatic and the website immediately became popular.”

Although the judge was unmoved by Elbakyan’s argument, academics around the world have flocked to her site. And not just from countries unable to afford expensive subscriptions. As the 2016 research published in Science revealed, users in the US were then collectively the fifth largest group of downloaders, and some of the most intense Sci-Hub users are to be found at US and European universities.

In part, that’s probably because Sci-Hub is much easier to use than most academic libraries, which require complex sign-on procedures, and restrictive license agreements. But another reason seems to be a common feeling among researchers that all this knowledge should be freely available on a site like Sci-Hub. After all, most of the work was paid for by the public, so it seems wrong that libraries and individuals must pay again to read the papers.

The reason why Elsevier and other academic publishing houses are able to claim copyright for papers written by others is because the authors are persuaded to assign licenses that let publishers sue on their behalf, whether or not the researchers would agree. As one of the most perceptive observers of this world, Richard Poynder, pointed out recently in an important essay, academic publishers have effectively weaponized copyright. They are able to extract extremely high levels of profit, with widespread access to the knowledge they publish relegated to a secondary consideration, and there is little researchers can do about it.

It seems unlikely that Elsevier will ever see any of the $15 million awarded by the court – Sci-Hub is run on a shoestring, and other than a few servers probably has no resources worth seizing. However, that has not stopped the American Chemical Society filing its own suit against Sci-Hub this week, although it is not clear what it hopes to achieve by doing so. While Russia refuses to enforce US courts’ rulings, Elbakyan is probably safe from extradition – although wisely she keeps her physical location a secret.

The fact that a global academic publishing company could be awarded millions in damages against someone trying to help other scientists to spread and access publicly-funded knowledge – exactly as science is supposed to work – is an indication of how broken copyright is today. Until that massive problem is fixed, Sci-Hub will remain what one leading academic called a “necessary, effective civil disobedience“.

About Glyn Moody

Glyn Moody is a freelance journalist who writes and speaks about privacy, surveillance, digital rights, open source, copyright, patents and general policy issues involving digital technology. He started covering the business use of the Internet in 1994, and wrote the first mainstream feature about Linux, which appeared in Wired in August 1997. His book, “Rebel Code,” is the first and only detailed history of the rise of open source, while his subsequent work, “The Digital Code of Life,” explores bioinformatics – the intersection of computing with genomics.

source: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/06/global-publishing-giant-wins-15-million-damages-researcher-sharing-publicly-funded-knowledge/

Read also

Open access: All human knowledge is there—so why can’t everybody access it?

We paid for the research with taxes, and Internet sharing is easy. What’s the hold-up?

The post Global publishing giant wins $15 million damages against researcher for sharing publicly-funded knowledge- by Glyn Moody appeared first on Void Network.

The post General Strike-Riots / Greece 15 December 2010 appeared first on Void Network.

It is common knowledge in the areas of social sciences, especially social anthropology, that reality constituted symbolically, that the meaning that people give to the world does not reflect a deeper essence of things but is the product of the relationship between what we are talking about and the importance we attribute to it. In this sense, two people can understand the same situation, relationship or event in different ways without necessarily mean that one of them understands the ‘thing’ “correctly” while the other “wrong.”
“Logos” are the words and the meaning we attach to them. As a body of knowledge or opinions about something, “Logos” follows a specific reasoning, but is also a symbolic figure, a way to talk about things in a particular categorization of the world. The various misconceptions or misunderstandings that we see every day especially in the public political discourse stemming in part by it: that different people use the same words or terms to speak about different “things”. What does the word “State” means for someone who runs to avoid the police attack on a demonstration and what means for a minister lying to an expensive limousine? What does “security” means for a 15 years old and what for a police officer? What does it mean when we say «Freedom»? Or «Equality»? Who determines what «Freedom» is and how this becomes Free Action? Especially on historical experience and interpretation, usually a set of meanings is what determines the one or the other understanding of a specific event. Thus, the neo-conservative reflexes of some may be led them to understand the recent uprising of last December as a symptom of a society in decline and a state unable to respond to the will of those who run on ‘absurd’ wrath against property. On the other hand, the libertarian way of approaching the same events observe in them a much-needed break with forces that oppress the individual and the society. The dominant logos of the government and the corporate media-“consequential and moralistic from above” – conflicts with the heterogeneity of those who still dare to speak for the revolution, a process that in Western political culture is equivalent to a different society. The collision of these two “worlds” illustrates the ways in which the meanings are subject to constant renegotiation according to the motives, purposes and ideas of the people. At the same time we observe that culture is a set of meanings which stem from multiple reasons and experiences that create multiple ways to exist in the world.Culture is itself an area of conflict, change and devising of existing meanings. “There are so many ways to live!” … Are they? Although we can not act or think outside the cultural-historical context in which we live, we can gradually transform the content of the «words» of this world through our actions and decisions. In this way we can walk towards the reclaiming of our lives.
‘Community’, ‘comradeship’, ‘mutual aid’, ‘solidarity’, ‘play’, ‘dissent’ are some of the “words” to which we have to give new content because they can probably give rise to actions, thoughts and feelings that will warm our hearts again and bring us closer to the people we love, closer to the social conditions that we want to live. In the age of solitude, of apathy and isolation of human beings our culture may be transformed more fertile through the words and acts of the lovers, the insurgents, the furious for life and freedom, the utopians and the daring dreamers.

text by

Panos Papadimitropoulos / Void Network

[Laboratory for Kosmo-Political Consciousness]

Αποτελεί κοινή γνώση στους χώρους των κοινωνικών επιστημών, και ιδιαίτερα της κοινωνικής ανθρωπολογίας, ότι η πραγματικότητα συγκροτείται συμβολικά, ότι δηλαδή το νόημα που οι άνθρωποι δίνουν στον κόσμο δεν αντικατοπτρίζει μια βαθύτερη ουσία των πραγμάτων αλλά είναι προϊόν σχέσης ανάμεσα σε αυτό για το οποίο μιλάμε και τη σημασία που εμείς του αποδίδουμε. Υπό αυτήν την έννοια, δύο άνθρωποι μπορούν να κατανοούν την ίδια κατάσταση, σχέση ή γεγονός με διαφορετικούς τρόπους χωρίς αναγκαστικά να σημαίνει ότι ο ένας από τους δύο αντιλαμβάνεται το ‘πράγμα’ «ορθά» ενώ ο άλλος «λανθασμένα». «Λόγος» είναι οι λέξεις και το νόημα που δίνουμε σε αυτές. Ως ένα σώμα γνώσεων ή απόψεων για κάτι, ο «Λόγος» ακολουθεί μια συγκεκριμένη συλλογιστική αλλά αποτελεί ταυτόχρονα ένα συμβολικό σχήμα, έναν τρόπο να μιλήσουμε για τα πράγματα σύμφωνα με μια ορισμένη κατηγοριοποίηση του κόσμου. Οι διάφορες παρανοήσεις ή η ασυνεννοησία που καθημερινά παρατηρούμε ιδίως στο δημόσιο πολιτικό λόγο πηγάζουν εν μέρει και απ’αυτό: ότι διαφορετικοί άνθρωποι χρησιμοποιούν τις ίδιες λέξεις ή όρους για να εννοήσουν διαφορετικά «πράγματα». Τι σημαίνει η λέξη «Κράτος» για κάποιον που τρέχει να αποφύγει την επίθεση της αστυνομίας σε μια διαδήλωση και τί για έναν υπουργό ξαπλωμένο σε μια ακριβή λιμουζίνα; Τι σημαίνει «ασφάλεια» για έναν 15χρονο και τι για έναν αστυνομικό; Τι σημαίνει όταν λέμε «Ελευθερία»; Ή «Ισότητα»; Ποιος καθορίζει τι σημαίνει «Ελευθερία» και με ποιο τρόπο αυτό γίνεται Ελεύθερη Πράξη;
Ιδιαίτερα όσον αφορά την ιστορική εμπειρία και ερμηνεία, συνήθως ένα σύνολο νοημάτων και εννοιολογήσεων είναι εκείνο που καθορίζει τη μία ή την άλλη πρόσληψη ενός γεγονότος. Έτσι, τα νέο-συντηρητικά αντανακλαστικά ορισμένων μπορεί να τους οδήγησαν στο να αντιληφθούν την πρόσφατη εξέγερση του περασμένου Δεκέμβρη ως σύμπτωμα μιας κοινωνίας που παρακμάζει και ενός κράτους που αδυνατεί να αντιδράσει στη βούληση εκείνων που κινούνται με ‘παράλογη’ καταστροφική μανία εναντίον περιουσιών. Από την άλλη μεριά, η ελευθεριακή οπτική προσεγγίζει τα ίδια γεγονότα από τη σκοπιά μιας πολυπόθητης ρήξης με δυνάμεις που καταπιέζουν το άτομο και την κοινωνία.
Ο κυρίαρχος λόγος του κράτους και των μέσων μαζικής ενημέρωσης- «σοβαροφανής και από τα πάνω ηθικοπλαστικός» – συγκρούεται με την ετερογένεια όσων ακόμη τολμούν να μιλήσουν για την επανάσταση, για μια διαδικασία που στη δυτική πολιτική κουλτούρα ισοδυναμεί με μια διαφορετική κοινωνία. Η σύγκρουση των δύο αυτών «κόσμων» καταδεικνύει τους τρόπους με τους οποίους τα νοήματα υπόκεινται σε συνεχή επαναδιαπραγμάτευση ανάλογα με τα κίνητρα, τους σκοπούς και τις ιδέες των ανθρώπων. Την ίδια στιγμή καταδεικνύεται ότι ο πολιτισμός, ως σύνολο νοημάτων τα οποία πηγάζουν από πολλαπλούς λόγους και εμπειρίες που συγκροτούν πολλαπλούς τρόπους να υπάρχει κανείς μέσα στον κόσμο, αποτελεί ο ίδιος ένα πεδίο σύγκρουσης, μεταβολής αλλά και επινόησης ήδη υπαρχόντων νοημάτων. «Υπάρχουν τόσοι πολλοί τρόποι να ζήσει κανείς!»…Υπάρχουν ?
Αν και δεν μπορούμε να δράσουμε ή να σκεφτούμε έξω από το πολιτισμικο-ιστορικό πλαίσιο στο οποίο ζούμε, μπορούμε σταδιακά να μεταμορφώνουμε μέσω της πράξης το περιεχόμενο των λέξεων προς την κατεύθυνση της επανοικειοποίησης της ζωής μας. «Κοινότητα», «συντροφικότητα», «αλληλοβοήθεια», «παιχνίδι», «αμφισβήτηση» είναι μερικές από τις «λέξεις» στις οποίες οφείλουμε να δώσουμε νέο περιεχόμενο διότι πιθανότατα αυτές μπορούν να γεννήσουν πράξεις, σκέψεις, συναισθήματα που θα ζεστάνουν ξανά τις καρδιές μας και θα μας φέρουν πιο κοντά με τους ανθρώπους που αγαπάμε, πιο κοντά στις κοινωνικές συνθήκες που θέλουμε να ζήσουμε. Στην εποχή της μοναξιάς,της απάθειας και της απομόνωσης των ανθρώπων ίσως ο πολιτισμός να μετασχηματίζεται πιο γόνιμα μέσα από το λόγο και τις πράξεις των ερωτευμένων, των εξεγερμένων, των λυσσασμένων για ζωή και ελευθερία, των ουτοπιστών και των τολμηρών ονειροπόλων.

κείμενο :

Πάνος Παπαδημητρόπουλος / Κενό Δίκτυο

[Εργαστήριο Κοσμο-Πολιτικής Συνείδησης]

The post What Does it mean When We Say “Freedom” ? by Panos Papadimitropoulos / Void Network appeared first on Void Network.