Sci-Hub sued in India
Sci-Hub is being sued by Elsevier, again, this time in India. Two other large publishers are also on the suit. Sci-Hub has been getting sued in lots of Western countries over the past 6 years and losing default judgments because they didn’t really defend. In India, they have a better shot: 1. The founder Alexandra Elbakyan is actually mounting a defense this time 2. India has comparatively lenient copyright law 3. India is poor enough that the "public interest" angle is multiplied manyfold due to Elsevier’s absurd profit margin and prices Last, it's higher-stakes than normal, because in India the plaintiffs have requested a dynamic injunction. This is a recent legal mechanism that would let the plaintiffs obtain court injunctions against ISPs serving any Sci-Hub domain with very little effort on very short notice. This might make it vastly more difficult for Indians to access Sci-Hub than e.g. US citizens after it was ruled illegal here. I am helping with Sci-Hub’s legal defense in the small ways possible, along with Stag Lynn and formerly John Steidley. [ETA: I first heard about this case through Elizabeth Van Nostrand—thank you!] The next hearing is Tuesday, November 16th, but the case has been going for over a year and will likely continue on for at least a few weeks longer. This post will primarily cover the larger situation, but first I wanted to state our two needs: We would like to hear from contacts willing to write or sign onto amicus briefs on behalf of Sci-Hub. High-level academics are especially useful and likely would have to do the least work. Please reach me at connorflexman at gmail if you are interested in this possibility for yourself or another. We’ve focused on the legal side so far, while ignoring media. If you are interested in joining the project as lead or co-lead of a media thrust for a month, email me at the same. It won’t happen unless we get another person or two. Causal impact from media is complicated and hard to cash out but
costlessly,
I think this diagnosis is an important and true option. (And thanks for the write-up!) However, I find myself deeply wishing the treatment was focused more on something objective, rather than "convincing" yourself the pain isn't from real tissue damage—especially since the diagnosis is so probabilistic.
What happens if you are wrong about the tissue damage? My own experiences with chronic pain have in fact all come after what I am quite sure was real and significant tissue damage (one exception). And I have had numerous other experiences in sports of assuming some small-to-medium pain was not significant tissue damage, then playing through it and aggravating it in ways I believe were also... (read more)