Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Swedish ISP punishes Elsevier for forcing it to block Sci-Hub by also blocking Elsevier
[...] Unfortunately for Swedes and for science, the Swedish Patent and Market Court (which never met a copyright overreach it didn't love) upheld the order, and Bahnhof, a small ISP with limited resources, decided not to appeal (a bigger, richer ISP had just lost a similar appeal).
Instead, Bahnhof now blocks attempts to visit Sci-Hub domains, and Elsevier.com, redirecting attempts to visit Elsevier to a page explaining how Elsevier's sleaze and bullying have allowed it to monopolize scientific publishing, paywalling publicly funded science that is selected, reviewed and edited by volunteers who mostly work for publicly funded institutions.
To as[sic] icing on this revenge-flavored cake, Bahnhof also detects attempts to visit its own site from the Patent and Market Court and redirects them to a page explaining that since the Patent and Market Court believes that parts of the web should be blocked, Bahnhof is blocking the court's access to its part of the web.
Related Stories
Sci-Hub Pledges Open Source & AI Alongside Crypto Donation Drive
Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan has launched a donation drive to ensure the operations and development of the popular academic research platform. For safety reasons, donations can only be made in cryptocurrencies but the pledges include a drive to open source the project and the introduction of artificial intelligence to discover new hypotheses.
[...] A new campaign launched by Elbakyan on Saturday hopes to encourage people to contribute to the site's future, promising "dramatic improvements" over the next few years in return.
In addition to offering enhanced search features and a mobile app, Sci-Hub is pledging developments that include the open sourcing of the project. Also of interest is the pledge to introduce an artificial intelligence component that should make better use of the masses of knowledge hosted by Sci-Hub.
"Sci-Hub engine will [be] powered by artificial intelligence. Neural Networks will read scientific texts, extract ideas and make inferences and discover new hypotheses," Elbakyan reveals.
The overall goal of the next few years is to boost content availability too, expanding from hosting "the majority of research articles" available today to include "any scientific document ever published."
Related: Sci-Hub Bounces from TLD to TLD
Sci-Hub Proves That Piracy Can be Dangerously Useful
Paywall: A Documentary About the Movement for Open-Access Science Publishing
Swedish ISP Punishes Elsevier for Forcing It to Block Sci-Hub by Also Blocking Elsevier
Library Genesis Seeding Project Helps to Decentralize Archive of Scientific Knowledge
Scientists to be Heard in High-Profile Publisher Lawsuit Against Sci-Hub in India
Futurism has done an interview over e-mail with Alexandra Elbakyan who founded Sci-Hub ten years ago. Over that time, it has become both widely used and well-stocked, having picked up momentum in 2016. There are now over 87 million research articles in its database, though not evenly distributed over academic disciplines.
As of September, Sci-Hub has officially existed for 10 years — a milestone that came as a lawsuit to determine if the website infringed on copyright laws sits in India’s Delhi High Court. Just a few months prior, Elbakyan tweeted that she was notified of a request from the FBI to access her data from Apple. And before that, the major academic publisher Elsevier was awarded $15 million in damages after the Department of Justice ruled that Sci-Hub broke copyright law in the U.S.
But that ruling can’t seem to touch Sci-Hub. And Elbakyan remains absolutely unrepentant. She advocates for a future in which scientific knowledge is shared freely, and she’s confident that it’s coming.
Futurism caught up with Elbakyan to hear what’s next. Over email, she explained her vision for the site’s future, her thoughts on copyright law, and more. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
The article goes on to report that she had expected copyright law to be corrected long before so much time had passed. In many ways Sci-Hub can be seen as a form of push back against the academic publishing houses which are infamous for abusive practices and pricing. The cost of research, writing, editing, peer-review, and more are all borne by the researchers and their institutions with little beyond distribution borne by the publisher. The big publishing houses then sell access back to the same researchers and institutions at rates that a small and decreasing number can afford.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @05:21AM (33 children)
As always, you can't impose a monopoly without the aid of a (the?) monopoly on violent imposition.
Big Government corrupts business, not the other way around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:15AM
Corruptions like Corporate Personhood, patents and copy-"rights".
(Score: 2, Touché) by sjames on Monday November 05 2018, @06:27AM (28 children)
So you're advocating for strong gun control because it's guns, not people using guns, that kill people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:34AM (20 children)
As the 2nd Amendment states very clearly [wikipedia.org]:
A well armed population is a polite population; a lack of politeness is an asymmetry in armaments. The Cold War proved this on the grand scale, too.
Goodbye, SoylentNews. Enjoy your echo chamber.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:45AM (1 child)
Lol, liar.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @09:03AM
Liar, or not, having echo in your chamber suggests excessive headspace, which could lead to dangerous pressures and a possible "banana barrel split", which is quite unpleasant, and possibly resulting in one less Trump voter. I would get that checked, and not vote in the mid-terms, just in case. In case your case has excessive head-space.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @09:42AM
I upvote you damn near every time. You're not alone VIM-man.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 05 2018, @10:24AM (2 children)
I think your knee jerked a bit there. Think harder, then post.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @01:08PM
I don't think it was his knee he was jerking when he wrote that...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @04:28PM
Read the AC's reply until you understand it.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday November 05 2018, @12:43PM (10 children)
Explain New York then.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Oakenshield on Monday November 05 2018, @02:50PM (9 children)
Perhaps you should not have stopped reading and you might have had your answer.
a lack of politeness is an asymmetry in armaments.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday November 06 2018, @04:53AM (8 children)
So if no one is armed, you get maximum politeness? And if people are unequally armed you get minimum politeness?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 06 2018, @05:08AM (7 children)
No, he's trying to hide his own insecurity behind tough-sounding talk. It says a lot about people who say "an armed society is a polite society," because what that implies is that 1) they only reason they're "polite" is they're afraid of injury or death, and 2) if that threat weren't there, they'd be "impolite." Also 3) they think everyone else in the country is as much of a spineless, antisocial moral nullity as they are.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday November 06 2018, @05:52AM
True, but your bluntness will never make people think. Probably nothing will but coming from an unarmed society, I'm polite. (Of course there are also impolite unarmed societies)
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday November 06 2018, @02:48PM (5 children)
Unfortunately, I am all too aware that much of the country is witless, amoral, self destructive and naïve. The underlying issue is asymmetric power and as a female, it's something you should completely understand unless that MeToo thing was much ado about nothing.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 06 2018, @04:12PM (4 children)
Oh yes, I understand *all* about asymmetric power. It's one of the reasons I'm actually pro-gun-ownership, I just want people to stop being fucking stupid about it. I may or may not possess a concealed carry license and a .22 myself. Not saying one way or another. No one but me needs to know unless they attempt a rape or robbery.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday November 06 2018, @06:53PM (3 children)
So you claim to support gun ownership yet you want to call me a "spineless, antisocial moral nullity" for pointing out the obvious that there aren't very many of those rapes and robberies occurring at the gun range. I also find it interesting that I can freely admit I have no concealed carry permit, nor do I own any handguns at all but you scrutinize me to be spineless and antisocial, fearing injury or death whereas you imply that you do carry concealed but apparently are not subject to the same assessment. Perhaps you should do some personal introspection before you make snap judgments about others lest they reflect back upon you.
Apparently this is another one of those "rules for thee, not for me" cases.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 07 2018, @05:39AM (2 children)
Oh blow it out your ass. I'm going to call you spineless and antisocial *if* you think the only thing stopping people in the main from rape and robbery is the fear of a high-speed vitamin L injection. If you aren't that simpleminded and bestial, then you can ignore those insults, as they're not meant for you. If you are, then they apply.
I'm under no illusions about what that weapon means and what the implications of carrying it are. I don't think most people truly understand what it is to carry (potential) deaths, plural, on their person, how horrible and scary it is and how awful, therefore, the surrounding world is in order to make someone even consider doing such a thing. If we have fallen, as a nation, to the point that only fear of permanent injury or death stops us from committing violent crime, then we're well and truly fucked.
THAT is my beef here. Anyone who thinks this way is a threat to civilized society, because it means that 1) they think existence is at BEST a zero-sum game, 2) humans can never, ever raise ourselves above the moral level of, say, chimpanzees no matter how much our technology advances, and 3) despite 1 and 2 they don't have the presence of mind to place limits on the most dangerous bits of that technology because "MUH FREEDUMBZ."
Do you truly not see the contradiction in there, and the self-defeating, despairing nihilism of it all?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Wednesday November 07 2018, @05:41PM (1 child)
I thought the quote was that an armed society is a polite society, not non-violent or crime free. Regardless, we *have* fallen as a society. We have the largest prison population in the world. We have daily road rage incidents. There are people being shot over items of insignificant value. Fights break out over perceived insult to ego. Way too many people place no value on the lives of others.
You would like to think that your handgun will protect you if you are attacked, when in reality you are statistically unlikely to have time or opportunity to produce it when most needed. However, if it were known by the attacker in advance that you were armed, you would be much less likely be attacked. Bullies choose not to victimize those who are able to defend themselves. This is the point. You can try to throw in sociological or psychological justifications of why this should not be, but reality wins.
You certainly have proven your point though being armed and one of the most impolite humans I have ever met. Next time, make an effort to debate without jumping straight to ad homonyms.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 09 2018, @05:26AM
Oh cry harder, asshole. I'm not "nice," and have not been "nice" for several years now. This is what you jerkoffs call "not being politically correct," innit? Odd how your kind are the flakiest of snowflakes despite all the tough talk. If you can't stand the heat, get off the pot, as the saying doesn't go.
Now, you seem reasonably intelligent, and you have at least a partial grasp on the problems at hand. You mention, in the middle of that list, "people being shot over items of insignificant value." What, precisely, are these people being shot with? Please think about that in context of the rest of your post.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @02:16PM (2 children)
A well regulated militia
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @04:24PM
The Founders are saying that in order to keep a state free, you need to be able to form not only a militia, but a militia that is well equipped with high-quality weapons composed of regular, industrial parts. You can't rely on farmers with pitchforks.
Ergo, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why? Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:09PM
it's not an restriction it's a goddamn explanation. also, the "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulation by the federal gov either. it meant well trained and ran (by citizens). all you cowardly authoritarians like to talk about not needing "assault weapons" for hunting and that's more dishonesty. the founders would have shot you in the ass for even suggesting something so stupid, as the 2a was for protecting your right (and duty) to rebel against treacherous government and they meant "of current military and police use", and they said so. hunting and self defense were considered givens. they never imagined the slaves calling themselves citizens that we have today and the need to explain that you should be able to bag your own game without begging for a license from some parasite in the state capital. if you traitors win seats and pass gun laws that go too far, you're going to find out what the 2a is for.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Monday November 05 2018, @08:53AM (4 children)
After doing so, for the first time ever *drum rolls* I'm seriously reconsidering my moderation. Maybe you're not a troll. Maybe you're just a dumbass.
Because it struck me, there is some sort of logic to what you're saying.
Guns are tools. The fallacy in 'gun control' is trying to prohibit useful tools, rather than simply prohibit their misuse. You're calling the government a tool, and you're implying it's being misused?
The government, in a /western liberal democracy/ at least, is supposed to be a tool of the citizens, certainly. The point is coherent to that point. Yes, institutions intended to be tools for good are being misused.
But the difference is enormous. Guns are not people - they don't take action on their own, to preserve their own position, to perhaps increase their pay and influence? No guns are inanimate objects. They can never bear blame for anything - if they fail, it is because of an error made by their designer, their manufacturer, their maintainer, or their end user.
The government, on the other hand, is composed of people. Each of whom has presumably been taught and tested throughout their life on the basic concepts of the society they are supposed to be serving. It can fail on the same levels - it can have a flaw in design, in implementation, in adaption to changing circumstance, or by otherwise losing the general consent (天命.)
But it's still people. It's not an inanimate object, behind which we *must* look to find a conscious decision. No, it's literally a beast composed of living human carcasses.
You'd find a better parallel in comparing it to a big corporation, than a proper tool. Try appealing to sympathy for the poor government employee, who tries his best to present a sane outer face while simultaneously satisfying multiple incompatible and ill-considered demands from different sets of bosses (or the same set of bosses in different annual incarnations or whatever) if you want to invoke any real sympathy for the gov very far from the Potomac.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Monday November 05 2018, @09:04AM (1 child)
Arik, you are a verbose monospaced fool. Just let it go, please. I may have to mod you counter-troll mod.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Arik on Monday November 05 2018, @09:31AM
Phillistinos,
"you are a"
Be careful! Absolute phrasing with the verb 'to be' can cause you to think like an animal! CATegorically and DOGmatically!
"verbose"
/me nods and rolls his eyes skyward, shrugging his shoulders.
"monospaced"
/me tilts his head towards his left shoulder, brows furrowing, puzzled.
"fool."
/me shrugs helplessly, nods.
Countermod me if you wish, I tried to undo his mod already, I'm more interested in his reply than thine.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 05 2018, @10:22AM (1 child)
Indeed, government, like a gun may be considered to be a tool. And this was a serious misuse of a tppl. You may have missed the way I pointed out a serious disconnect that takes place in the mind of a person who is pro gun but anti government when they claim that tool is blameless in the former case but the tool carries all of the blame in the second.
Considering that you see the point but couldn't resist the troll mod, I'm guessing something in that line of reasoning makes you uncomfortable.
I do see your point as well. Government doesn't go blameless in this case, but neither does Elsevier. Of course, I would likewise remind the strict gun control advocate that the person holding the gun is hardly blameless for the gun violence.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday November 05 2018, @02:10PM
You're misunderstanding, I didn't see your point until after modding.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @08:01PM
"So you're advocating for strong gun control because it's guns, not people using guns, that kill people?"
I would advocate for strong gun control because that's the only thing that will at least try to verify the quality of the person receiving the gun in question, thus hopefully preventing the people using guns to kill people won't be receiving the gun to do their dirty work. Will they still kill people? Maybe. Depends entirely on how determined or lazy they are. But people don't suddenly say "Fuck, I can't get a gun. Let's go kill people I don't like." nearly as much as "Fuck, I got a gun. Let's go kill people I don't like."
Bottom line, if you're a person that can be trusted with a gun, you're likely not going to affected by gun control laws. (And I'm not bringing racism into this with how african americans and the like will be unfairly judged etc since most of the people that bitch about gun control laws are white men.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 08 2018, @03:40PM
I'm pretty sure it is the mix of the two. As it is harder to outlaw humans than it is to outlaw guns, let's go with removing the guns from the equation.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 05 2018, @04:27PM (2 children)
Hey, dipshit, when corporations become powerful enough, they become de facto government entities. Get this through your head. Your entire twisted little shibboleth relies on a line of demarcation that doesn't actually exist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @07:01PM (1 child)
Essentially, you're saying "We need a government to save us from a government." You're admitting that your government idea is the failure mode of my idea.
You know what, though? Thank god for competition in the world; thank god there has never been One World Government—even among explicitly authoritarian organizations, competition is what has kept the peace, a peace which has only grown more stable as these organizations have been forced to adopt increasingly capitalistic principles of interaction.
Competition: The ultimate form of checks and balances; the ultimate separation of powers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 06 2018, @05:01AM
Er, no. YOU are the hypocrite here, not me. Hypocrisy, projection, and willful ignorance are the gibbertarian Holy Trinity and you're one of the single most pathological examples I've ever met.
Catch a fucking clue, asshole: power goes to power, money goes to money, wealth goes to wealth, and the accretion is a positive feedback loop. Get beyond a certain level of wealth and power, and there is no longer any line between government and private entity, not least because of all the disgusting, incestuous mixing between the two.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday November 05 2018, @05:22AM (18 children)
There's no moral ambiguity here. One thing is for the betterment of mankind and the progress of science, one thing is for the $2.5 billion/year profit of the fucking RELX group.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @05:31AM (17 children)
The reason there is any confusion at all is because there is such a poorly defined system of property rights, all the way down to the one-size-fits-all, arbitrary and capricious taxation through which large portions of any given project may be funded.
Privatize research entirely, and we'll ironically achieve a much more useful and much cheaper sharing of information.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday November 05 2018, @05:39AM (4 children)
Ah the old libertarian canard of "if you just make all the things that are bad now 1000x worse, they'll definitely get much better." No. You make a bare assertion, it's not coherent, and I reject it with only marginally more effort than the zero you put into deciding it was true.
Sharing information with the whole planet is a necessary component of scientific advancement, and hoarding information as property of any kind is directly opposed to science's mission.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @05:46AM
I agree with you: "Sharing information with the whole planet is a necessary component of scientific advancement".
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of resources to make your lunch, let alone engage in scientific research.
You CANNOT ignore accounting. You have to do serious accounting. That is the only way.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:19AM
I agree with you: "Sharing information with the whole planet is a necessary component of scientific advancement".
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of resources to make your lunch, let alone engage in scientific research.
You CANNOT ignore accounting. You have to do serious accounting. That is the only way.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @07:38AM
I agree with you: "Sharing information with the whole planet is a necessary component of scientific advancement".
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of resources to make your lunch, let alone engage in scientific research.
You CANNOT ignore accounting. You have to do serious accounting. That is the only way.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @07:57AM
I agree with you: "Sharing information with the whole planet is a necessary component of scientific advancement".
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of resources to make your lunch, let alone engage in scientific research.
You CANNOT ignore accounting. You have to do serious accounting. That is the only way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday November 05 2018, @05:53AM (4 children)
This isn't about privatization of research, this is about a company whose function is purely parasitic.
At one time, there was a significant cost involved in the process of printing documents. Elsevier has never paid for the editorial costs of publishing, and the cost of publishing on the Internet is close to zero. Elsevier thrives because of a perceived notion that their publications are somehow the only way to ensure authoritative scientific papers are published. It's parasitic.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:21AM (3 children)
Elsevier is part of the existing paradigm of poorly defined property rights.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday November 05 2018, @07:26AM (2 children)
Kill this concrete parasite first, we'll deal with the nebulous 'paradigm of poorly defined property rights' after.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday November 05 2018, @08:31AM (1 child)
I'm not saying it is the worst possibility.
It's not the best though, and that's for certain.
Under the existing paradigm what they do makes perfect sense. And they are parasites, beyond any doubt.
If this does not cause you to question the paradigm itself, then what would?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 05 2018, @10:06AM
By mergers and acquisitions, the number of big parasites in scientific publishing are small.
If my assertion is right (I might be wrong, but I don't think I'm very far away), in this case this may work well enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:42AM (5 children)
Or we could criminalize the privatization of any and all research that received even a dollar of government funding. Public funds = public information. That doesn't mean the organizations who did the research can't profit from it (e.g., patents and formula copyrights), but the research and results should be immediately belong in the public domain.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:46AM (1 child)
Why would you want to live in a world in which you give the Men with Guns so much power?
That's just crazy.
How about you stop stealing money from people in the first place?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @12:25PM
What? Stop stealing money? Then how am I supposed to pay the Men with Guns?
Look, the first rule of fight club is steal money and give it to the guys with the guns. After that nothing else matters.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @09:51AM (2 children)
It would almost certainly be a case of Civil and not Criminal law if all research that recieved public funds were required to be entered into the Public Domain. Further, in the Pulbic Domain, anyone would be free to privatize and profit from the research, just like all the pulbishers of public domain books do. Also, it strikes me as odd to require the research papers to be Public Domain, but then allow patenting of the research. Public funding should be like a cancer to profiteers and reserved for the General Good.
(I believe what you are referring to is Free or Open Access, rather than Public Domain)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @12:22PM
Not if a federal law criminalizing this behavior was passed that had a minimum sentencing requirement that included jail time.
If "public domain" is the wrong term then pick another one that means "available to one and all". It should be available to everyone. Plus, it could/should/would be on a government research website available to one and all.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 05 2018, @07:10PM
Patenting would just mean that the owner of the patent would have a limited-time monopoly on products made from patented aspects of the research. Patents are public information anyway. A large part of the purpose of research is to increase the general store of knowledge, and that is not reduced by allowing patents based on the knowledge gained from the funded research.
The government might insist, as part of the terms of the funding, that the government share in the monetary gains of the patent, or that no patent be applied for.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday November 05 2018, @10:12PM
How exactly? What you'll end up with is research solely for the purpose of maintaining the economic status quo. Corporation X will fund research on Corporation X's products. It will be proprietary information, only shared if then once its profitability has been bled dry. Publicly funded research is ostensibly research for research's sake, with the goal of expanding and advancing knowledge for all.
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Monday November 05 2018, @06:17AM (3 children)
In addition to the first TorrentFreak article summarized by Boing Boing [torrentfreak.com], there was a second one, ISP Shows How to Unblock The Pirate Bay (and Other Sites) [torrentfreak.com], with additional information. Mainly it shows that Bahnhof's press release gives details on how its subscribers can easily evade the blocking order themselves.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @01:21PM (2 children)
When I first found some of my usual web sites blackholed [wikipedia.org] realized that the isp dns where also changed to localhost.
So the easy fix for me was to use my TOR proxy and a Proxy Auto-Configuration [wikipedia.org] proxy.pac file for the browser to automatically and transparently redirect all sites with a tampered dns thru TOR.
A side effect is that usually I'm late to realize that some site has been blackholed because it never stopped working.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @01:29PM
Missed the
at the end of FindProxyForURL if no matches (while simplifying the code, my proxy.pac is much more complex).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @08:04PM
I redirect lookups to the autoritative name servers of the domain with pdnsd (I hear unbound is nice too).
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Monday November 05 2018, @07:55AM (10 children)
We ban Gab, we de-platform mother(in-law) fucking NaZis, [rationalwiki.org] we cut off at the knees the goddamned vampire publishers of academic papers! And, punch Elsevier in the face. They are now a positive force against the disemination of knowledge, the exact opposite of what they started out to be. Every entity on the Internet needs to ban them, but more importantly, institutions, university libraries, need to delete these bastards from the universe of knowledge.
If they want to play fair at some point, we might let them release the thralls they hold in thralldom. Or not. Death to Elsevier! May they never again be referenced by any self-respecting academic! Oh, and boycott the aparthied state of Israel! No conferences, no journals, no soccer or rugby! Make the racist bastards pay!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @09:49AM (9 children)
Are you just satirizing the viewpoints that you seem to argue for? It sure seems like that lately. Protestation of censorship != suppression of speech.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Monday November 05 2018, @10:01AM (8 children)
Ah, Waif of the Future! It may all be too much for you to comprehend, how the Elsevier came to hold such power, and how Nazis came back from the dead. But pay attention. This corporation sued an author for distributing his own work. If copyright is meant to incentivise the dissemination of knowledge, corporations like this have passed over to the dark side.
As for Nazis? Fascists? Trump? Amazing, do not you think, that these types have to seize printing presses and force the former owners to print their mindless drivel, much as Gab and Dailystrummer have been trying to force companies to host and DNS route their vile putrescence onto the Web. Not the same thing? How so, oh brave and intrepid AC?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @03:54PM (2 children)
Blocking Elsevier in /protest/ of their RESTRICTING ACCESS TO DATA that they don't like and saying we /should/ RESTRICT ACCESS TO DATA that we don't like, are contrary positions to hold. If you can't see that, try thinking for once instead of just drooling directly into the comment box.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday November 05 2018, @04:43PM (1 child)
You are absolutely correct, however..
*most* research is not about "how to acquire and train authoritarian followers and take over government".
Most chemistry research, anyway.
(Score: 3, Funny) by looorg on Monday November 05 2018, @05:05PM
Are you sure? Isn't most chemistry about either maintaining or breaking bonds. I'm sure there could be applications there for the violent exothermic reaction that eventually overthrows a government ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @01:40AM (4 children)
You are trying to be funny, but we must defeat the ISP and work to make censorship technically impossible. Discussing whether we should develop this tech is truly stupid. We simply must do it. The people that take your postings seriously are nuts. That's why I never will :-)
(Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:21AM (3 children)
Obviously you could never take a post of mine seriously, since you plainly do not understand them. Let me try to make it simple for you. Elsevier is claiming that a website should be de-platformed because copyrights. See? Do you understand now where the censorship comes in? It is property, imaginary property. Now the fact that the ISP said, "OK, we will block them. But we will also block you." Turnabout is fair play, my luscious and squishy AC! And you have understood what I am calling for completely wrong. I do not say "censor that Nazi"! Instead I say "Concentrate fire on the enemy lines! Paint for airstrike! Punch the Nazis in the face." See? No censorship at all, just good ol' American Anti-fascism!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @04:22PM
Violent reaction to speech is fascism. Violence in only justified in the defense of freedom. You draw first blood, you're the bad guy. And in this case also, the ISP is the bad guy. Censorship is always evil. Elsevier is just mouthing off (kinda like you do). The people (ISP) that acquiesce to them are the evil ones.
The reason I don't take you seriously is because you are just being silly, looking for a reaction. I would call it trolling, but that's too negative. The funny mod works best for you, for levity's sake. Gotta keep things positive.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07 2018, @04:16PM
Oh! Moderation, eh? Whatever works, babe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 08 2018, @03:46PM
I'm not neccesarily disagreeing with you, but are you like this IRL ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @09:02AM
Elsevier is in the business of making money. Then you have scientific societies whose mission it is to promote their field. Instead of making the research papers available to everyone, they sell journal subscriptions as a profit center and act as gatekeepers to the field.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @09:48AM (5 children)
I'm more surprised that an ISP stood up to Elsevier. I had the impression ISPs wouldn't be bothered since research should be a tiny insignificant fraction of internet traffic. Either way, hats off to Bahnhof!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @02:02PM
First they came... [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday November 05 2018, @04:47PM
AND in case Elsevier gets pissed off, Bahnhof already has its own nuclear bunker [bahnhof.net]! How cool is that!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:15PM
my thoughts exactly. very rare indeed. maybe as Generation Whore retires more people with crazy ideas about freeing information will take the reigns and we can show these pigs who's boss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @08:57PM
Not surprising at all. The smaller the fish the bigger the threats.
Big isps could have some leverage and economy of scale. It may temporarily hurt their bottom line but always will stay afloat.
Small isps would have none but significant and unproductive costs. Won't just hurt, in the long run is a dead sentence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @07:49PM
It is exactly the kind of thing Bahnhof does.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Monday November 05 2018, @12:48PM (3 children)
Considering that Elsevier is mostly for academics, I don't know if there is large amount of private citizens in Sweden or elsewhere that uses their publications since they are quite expensive. All the Swedish universities are on their own private network (sunet.se) and are completely unaffected by this whole thing. So it seems like it's fairly pointless tit for tat bullshit just to get some publicity. If this hadn't been publicized like this I doubt anyone, or very many people, would even have noticed it.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday November 05 2018, @02:12PM (2 children)
If academics are all on their own private network, why go to the trouble of getting a court order to get a private citizens ISP to block an academic site, seems like it's fairly pointless bullshit just to get some publicity?
(Score: 3, Informative) by looorg on Monday November 05 2018, @05:01PM
This is the part I'm not really getting either. It somehow seems futile and that there should be other reasons behind this. It could be part of a wider series of lawsuits, currently the same lawyers using orders from the same court are trying to make the largest ISP in Sweden (Telia) block TPB and some other movie hosting sites and such and Telia told them to fuck off and see you in court. They are to large to be bullied by puny lawyers. I guess if they can force a smaller ISP to block they can somehow use that to show that it's a possible and reasonable thing to do (from their perspective).
https://computersweden.idg.se/2.2683/1.708743/domstol-telia-blockera-piratebay [computersweden.idg.se]
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcomputersweden.idg.se%2F2.2683%2F1.708743%2Fdomstol-telia-blockera-piratebay&edit-text= [google.com]
(can't find a news piece about it in English but google translate to the rescue and it gives a somewhat basic translation and idea of the case.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 06 2018, @02:58PM
Eh, I see people post scientific studies in Facebook comments. Sometimes academics want to access these from home, either to do work outside of the office or to work on hobby ideas or just to argue with their friends and family.
Previously, they could use Sci-Hub, no problem. With Sci-Hub blocked, they're more likely to turn to Elsevier. Of course, someone has to pay for that, but I'm guessing there's some mechanism where universities/corporations could pay for personal access by their employees. But if the ISP blocks Elsevier too, that won't work. Probably the solution then becomes a VPN back to the university, but then they can likely use the existing university access rather than paying Elsevier extra for personal accounts.
Elsevier wouldn't be paying to fight this battle if they didn't expect to profit from it in the end. Cutting them off from their potential customers seems like a decent way to make that plan backfire. One ISP alone isn't going to do it, but maybe the idea can spread...