"Copyright must be reformed"

In my opinion, this is a very important and interesting incident. But here you need to understand the context. The huge popularity of Sci-Hube did not arise from scratch, but due to the deep inadequacy of the Institute of Copyright to the realities of the modern information society. This economic and legal regime, which worked perfectly in the XVII-XIX centuries and then contributed to the development of culture, today has become its brake. This is quite clearly stated for about two decades (example, see [1]). But before, it was always possible to argue that supposedly opponents of copywriter simply want to listen to music and watch TV shows.

An example of SCI-Hub, the main users of which were scientists, showed that copying is a narrow place in the development of science. And science is a much more important public institution than a copy. Science lies literally in the very basis of our civilization; Copyright is just an auxiliary tool for managing cash flows that serve intellectual activity. If science and copyright came together in Klint, then there is no question who should give in. Because the copy is for science, not a science for a copy.

However, the copy of the copy is an extremely inflexible tool supported by the most powerful corporate lobby and fixed by the most conservative legal instrument - international conventions, which are almost inaccessible to adjusting democratically. That is why counteracting a copy in those areas where its manifestations are especially harmful, is often partisan. By the way, partisan resistance is a much more adequate metaphor for anticopyerite movement than sea piracy. This is precisely the movement in defense of public interest and for changing the existing orders, and not brutal robbery for self -serving purposes.

Nevertheless, an adequate, completely socialized person, as a rule, will not go to partisans. Even recognizing all the injustice and inefficiency of existing copy-thorough orders, he will try to somehow adapt to them and achieve success, without entering into conflict with the law, even if it is obviously bad. And while counteraction of copywriter is partisan in nature, here a lot will depend on people not quite adequate. This is sad, but natural.

Many were deeply and unpleasantly surprised by the lock, which was imposed throughout Russia by the creator of the Sci-Hub Alexander Elbakeyan. Some even saw in this an internal contradiction with its own mission: how can you, setting yourself a goal to ensure everyone's right to access important information, block someone for ideological reasons, and even more so due to personal resentment? But Alexandra never hid her hostility to liberal ideas, which include the idea of ​​human rights. It is inspired by a radical communist ideology, which poses public interests obviously above personal, and the revolutionary will of the leader is above the law.

Having “punishing” the whole country by closing access to scientific anticopulant communism, it demonstrates its strength, gains political points among her ideological adherents. In the circle of blocked users, SCI-Hub immediately sounded criticism addressed to those who "annoyed the benefactor." But this is as wrong as criticizing journalists for caricatures on the prophet or women for “provoking rapists” with mini-skirts. The idea to force all people to keep silent about their views so that the noble partisan from resentment does not ban the whole village as a collective punitive measure - this is not only humiliating and utopian, but also replaces one evil (copy) by another (ideological censorship). So this whole situation was largely predetermined by the very nature of the project and the partisan format of the modern confrontation of the copy.

I believe that we must express gratitude to Alexander Elbakyan for presenting the whole world a vivid confirmation of the viciousness of copying as a legal and economic institution, and for several years ensured the possibility of bypassing some harmful restrictions on this institution. But at the same time, we must understand that it is impossible to build normal society on inappropriate laws and partisan instruments to circumvent them.

This situation should be considered as a powerful signal to politicians, economists, computer scientists, sociologists, lawyers and legislators that the need for the fundamental reform of the copywriter has risen and overheated. The creators of intellectual products, of course, have the right to reward for their work. But the mechanism for obtaining this remuneration due to artificial restriction of the turnover of public cultural information is hopelessly outdated and should be replaced by other mechanisms.

Such mechanisms exist, but they are not yet well examined. This is largely due to the fact that even such economic and legal studies themselves meet the resistance from the copy of the copyright lobby. It is necessary to reduce our susceptibility to copying propaganda and widely explore the entire spectrum of alternative copyright of legal and economic regimes for ensuring intellectual activity. Otherwise, we are doomed all the time to depend on the mercy of powerful copying stakeholders and eccentric anticopuraty partisans.

Alexander Sergeev,
Scientific journalist

1. Https://web.archive.org/web/20020502100359/http://www.iworld.ru/ifree/