Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 08 2017, @01:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the I'm-sure-yandex.ru-will-get-right-on-it dept.

After losing a lawsuit filed by the American Chemical Society (ACS) due to failure to appear, Sci-Hub has been ordered to pay the ACS $4.8 million. But the district court's ruling also states that the Sci-Hub website should be blocked by ISPs, search engines, and domain name registrars:

The American Chemical Society (ACS) has won a lawsuit it filed in June against Sci-Hub, a website providing illicit free access to millions of paywalled scientific papers. ACS had alleged copyright infringement, trademark counterfeiting and trademark infringement; a district court in Virginia ruled on 3 November that Sci-Hub should pay the ACS $4.8 million in damages after Sci-Hub representatives failed to attend court.

The new ruling also states that internet search engines, web hosting sites, internet service providers (ISPs), domain name registrars and domain name registries cease facilitating "any or all domain names and websites through which Defendant Sci-Hub engages in unlawful access to, use, reproduction, and distribution of the ACS Marks or ACS's Copyrighted Works."

"This case could set precedent for the extent third-parties on the internet are required to enforce government-mandated censorship," says Daniel Himmelstein, a data scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who recently analyzed how many journal papers Sci-Hub holds.

Sci-Hub hosts millions of unpaywalled, full academic papers.

Previously: Elsevier Cracks Down on "Pirate" Science Search Engines
The Research Pirates of the Dark Web
Sci-Hub, the Repository of "Infringing" Academic Papers Now Available Via "Telegram"
Elsevier Wants $15 Million Piracy Damages from Sci-Hub and Libgen
US Court Grants Elsevier Millions in Damages From Sci-Hub
Sci-Hub Faces $4.8 Million Piracy Damages and ISP Blocking


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:04PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:04PM (#594039)

    Instead, ISPs should blackhole all traffic to and from the district court of Virginia and search engines should remove references as well.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Touché=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:21PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:21PM (#594047) Journal

    Why this is a good idea:
    * Search engines are not obligated to index anything
    * even ISPs really can discriminate traffic thanks to the anti net neutrality Republicans. Maybe ISPs can't "blackhole" traffic, but they can "shape" and rate limit traffic for "network management" purposes.

    It's funny how that anti net neutrality sword can cut the other way.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @06:00PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @06:00PM (#594173) Journal
      Ok, why is some judge punishing parties who have nothing to do with a court case? Sounds to me instead like an argument to reset the court case since now we have more parties with standing in the case who weren't properly notified of the case before it started. That's grounds for a mistrial IMHO.

      Why this is a good idea

      You didn't actually give a reason why this was a "good idea" even as sarcasm. The capability to discriminate on search results and internet traffic is not an obligation to do so. Let us keep in mind that the judge could still command this even in the presence of net neutrality laws.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday November 08 2017, @06:48PM

      by sjames (2882) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @06:48PM (#594189) Journal

      And of course, 0 is just a very low rate.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:40PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:40PM (#594055)

    Where's anonymous with a righteous ddos when you need them?

    • (Score: 2, Troll) by c0lo on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:47PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:47PM (#594095) Journal

      Where's anonymous with a righteous ddos when you need them?

      My guess? Partying heavily with the 🎈🍸 Dick niggers 🍺🎈

      (thanks, TMB)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford