[gooseus]

I support Scihub and all efforts to make the body of human knowledge and scientific research freely available to all humans... especially if any of the research has been funded by taxpayer dollars.

I believe that at most, these journals should enjoy a limited copyright that expires after a short time (1-10 years?) after which the papers should be freely available.

That being said, this is disappointing to me:

> Sci-Hub was made aware of the legal proceedings but did not appear in court. As a result, a default was entered against the site.

This response creates no opportunity to argue a compelling case for why scientific knowledge should not remain pay-walled by publishers and/or establish new legal frameworks for copyright of scientific knowledge.

Here is a bonus article from Priceonomics I'm a big fan of (that I'm sure has been shared here before) about why paywalled science is Bullshit:

https://priceonomics.com/post/50096804256/why-is-science-beh...

[ArchReaper]

>This response creates no opportunity to argue a compelling case for why scientific knowledge should not remain pay-walled by publishers and/or establish new legal frameworks for copyright of scientific knowledge.

You somehow think this would have been the correct platform to do that? While being a target of a copyright-infringement lawsuit?