Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - Elsevier Wants $15 Million 'Piracy' Damages From Sci-Hub and Libgen (torrentfreak.com)

lbalbalba writes: Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, is demanding $15 million in damages from Sci-Hub and LibGen, who make paywalled scientific research papers freely available to the public. A good chunk of these papers are copyrighted, many by Elsevier. Elsevier has requested a default judgment of $15 million against the defendants for their "truly egregious conduct" and "staggering" infringement. Sci-Hub’s efforts are backed by many prominent scholars, who argue that tax-funded research should be accessible to everyone. Others counter that the site doesn’t necessarily help the Open Access movement forward. Sci-Hub’s founder Alexandra Elbakyan defends her position and believes that what she does is helping millions of less privileged researchers to do their work properly by providing free access to research results.

Comment Re:Good: The Way Forward. (Score 1) 135

Well then why not sue the country responsible for setting up the conditions that enabled ISIS to be formed in the first place?

Well that would actually be a good idea. The only problem with it is that there is no *single* country responsible here. The entire world (including but not limited to the 'western' and 'islamic' country's) just stood by and let this happen. When the civil war broke out in Syria ~6-ish years ago, it should have been stopped right there and then. Instead, *everyone* had this 'not my problem' attitude, decided to turn away, and let it foster. In fact, the 'western' country's didn't even start caring about the issue whatsoever until the problem literally landed on their doorsteps, with refugees and terrorist attacks. Oh, *now* they want to solve it. And even now the proposed solution isn't even stopping the warfare in Syria and returning the country to a stable state: It is sought in stopping the refugees and terrorists from entering the 'western' country's; who gives a fuck what they do in Syria. 'Not my problem'.

Comment Re:New Scamming Technique (Score 1) 206

Can't they trace the money to the bank account? Find out who's bank account it is, etc?

Well I am not familiar with the details in this specific case, but judging by past scams I assume that they are using multiple bank accounts, and setting up other people in vulnerable groups (drug addicts, homeless people, etc.) to use their accounts for them. Then when you 'follow the money', you end up at the people that have been used by the scammers, and not the scammers themselves.

Comment New Scamming Technique (Score 5, Informative) 206

Slightly off-topic, but: Over here in Holland, the latest scamming technique is for criminals to send generic 'illegal download copyright infringement notices' (without specifying any particular download) letters to people via snail mail, claiming to be from 'DutchFilmWorks (DFW)', which clearly is not the sender of the letters. However, the company does exist, and is one of the largest (independent) movie distributors in Holland, which helps to make it seem like legitimate notice. The letters claim the fine is 100,- euro per illegally downloaded movie, but that the fine can be prevented by paying 50,- euro within eight days to the bank account number of the criminals. How many people have fallen for the scam is currently unclear.

Comment Studies may not include all influential factors. (Score 1) 331

If you are unable to reproduce the results of a certain study, it appears to me that there may just not be enough knowledge of all the factors that affect the end result. For example, if you study something believing the main factors that determine the outcome are 'A', 'B', and 'C', but do not have the insight (yet) that factor 'D' is also very influential, then factor 'D' may have value '1' for the original study but value '2' for the reproduction study, influencing the end result and resulting in the different outcomes. This does not mean that the 'scientific method' is incorrect, or that the research was 'fake' or 'sloppy'. It just means that more research is needed, to determine those missing factors that determine the results, leading to (more) accurate and reproducible studies.

Comment Re:Oh well... (Score 1) 280

So much for the feminazis out there claiming that there is no difference between a male and female brain, and that what constitute gender is nothing but a social construct.

Not 'identical', but 'equivalent' sums it up for me. And yes, I have heard feminists state this. Just because men and women are not the same, that does not mean that they do not have equal value.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...