I really hate to sound like I'm defending Elsevier, but is it really unreasonable to assume that a large corporation that has built itself on an entire multibillion dollar company would be opposed to being toppled by piracy?
I am 100% for Sci-Hub; I think it and sites like Arxiv are the natural evolution of professional journals and the future of academic publications. But I do understand why Elsevier is fighting this. It's not a disconnect, it's not like they don't see the writing on the wall, they just want secure their benefits as long as they can and enjoy the good life while it lasts. If their lawyers succeed, then there's no worry, the party continues.
If they fail, at least they have plenty to rest on. If they're going to lose it all by not fighting, then it makes perfect sense to bet it all by fighting, because with Sci-hub and distributed systems (Tor, bit torrent), there is no winning in the long run. At least, not living with the revenue they are now.
So you don't have to be ignorant or emotional to make such a decision, you just have to make a calculated gamble and figure out which is going to hurt the least in the long run all things considered.
I agree, large companies like Elsevier generally do not care about low magnitude piracy, but something like SciHub is probably to them an existential threat, and something they would throw everything at.
The music industry saw a revival of sorts, with Spotify and other streaming services offering a reasonably priced and extremely convenient alternative to piracy. That sort of an arrangement, while still not ideal, is probably the best Elsevier can hope for in the long term - provided they can offer a sufficiently interesting alternative to scihub.
>> is it really unreasonable to assume that a large corporation that has built itself on an entire multibillion dollar company would be opposed to being toppled by piracy?
That position is not what is "unreasonable", their existence is what is unreasonable. The fact that a company like Elsevier needs to be toppled by piracy at all is unreasonable.
The legal framework that has allowed Elsevier to profit from public research is unreasonable
>>But I do understand why Elsevier is fighting this.
I also understand why a serial killer would fight going to prison, that does not make the serial killer reasonable, ethical or just
>>If their lawyers succeed, then there's no worry, the party continues.
I disagree here, if their lawyers succeed then they do a great disservice to humanity, and further entrench copyright law, possibly even expanding it with legal precedent
The core problem seems to me that ethics has way too low impact on university courses, no matter if in STEM, finance, law or everything else.
For example, it is certainly justified for a lawyer to defend a serial killer (after all the right to representation in court is a basic human right, or at least should be) but a company has no moral right to legal assistance. No lawyer is bound by code or law to assist a company - but many do because of individual profit and ignore the loss that society has to shoulder.
I am 100% for Sci-Hub; I think it and sites like Arxiv are the natural evolution of professional journals and the future of academic publications. But I do understand why Elsevier is fighting this. It's not a disconnect, it's not like they don't see the writing on the wall, they just want secure their benefits as long as they can and enjoy the good life while it lasts. If their lawyers succeed, then there's no worry, the party continues.
If they fail, at least they have plenty to rest on. If they're going to lose it all by not fighting, then it makes perfect sense to bet it all by fighting, because with Sci-hub and distributed systems (Tor, bit torrent), there is no winning in the long run. At least, not living with the revenue they are now.
So you don't have to be ignorant or emotional to make such a decision, you just have to make a calculated gamble and figure out which is going to hurt the least in the long run all things considered.