標題：Sci-Hub最近的法律戰對學術研究代表了什麼？
內文：
Sci-Hub, the popular website that offers access to millions of pirated research papers and books, is no stranger to legal action. But, for the first time, the site is defending its operations in court, in a copyright case filed in India by a group of major publishers.
Sci-Hub，著名的網站提供竊取而來數以百萬計的研究文章和書籍為人下載，對於法律的攻防一點都不會不熟悉。
Ps. 我對於這裡pirated的用法，感覺有些已經認定為pirate的說法，有點質疑。
In a lawsuit presented in Delhi’s high court, the American Chemical Society, Elsevier and Wiley say that the site infringes their copyright, and ask the court to instruct Internet service providers in India to block access to it.
在德里高等法院的一件訴訟，美國化學學會，Elservier (愛思唯爾)與Wiley(威立)共同提出這一個網站侵犯了它們的版權，必且要求法院應該對於其在印度的網路服務提供者中斷它的連線。
Sci-Hub’s founder Alexandra Elbakyan argues that, in India, copyright is “not applicable in cases such as Sci-Hub, when [material] is required for science and education”.
Sci-Hub創辦人Alexandra Elbakyan反駁，在印度，版權規定並不適用於Sci-Hub，因為是做科學與教育使用。
Legal experts say that there is a chance the court will rule in Sci-Hub’s favour, because of a key aspect of the country’s copyright law. The case hinges on the definition of ‘fair dealings’, which in the past has enabled institutions in India to lawfully reproduce academic textbooks and other copyrighted material for use in education.
法律專家表示有可能法院判決會傾向Sci-Hub，因為印度國家的關鍵版權法律。這一個案件糾纏於定義－公平處理 (fair-dealings)，在過去使印度的機構可以合法的重製學術教科書以及其他版權物品為教育所使用。
If Sci-Hub wins, it could force publishers to rethink their business models in a similar way to how the music industry changed in response to the arrival of the Internet, says Arul George Scaria, a legal scholar at the National Law University, Delhi. Attitudes towards Sci-Hub in other countries could change on the basis of India’s ruling, and the outcome could even influence similar cases in future.
如果Sci-Hub勝訴，將可能迫使出版商重新思考他們的商業模式，就類似音樂產業因應網路時代的來臨所做改變，Arul George Scaria說 (印度德里國立法律大學法學專家)。印度的法院判決將影響著其他國家對於Sci-Hub的處理態度，並且這結果將會影響未來其他的類似案件。
Pirate site 盜版網站
Previously, publishers have sued Sci-Hub and Elbakyan in several countries, and access has been blocked, or is due to be blocked, in 11 countries, including Germany, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
在過去，出版商曾經在一些國家告過Sci-Hun以及Elbakyan；在11國家，包含德國、法過、瑞典，以及英國，有些國家已經斷網，或即將斷網。
In lawsuits filed in recent years by Elsevier and the American Chemical Society, US judges ruled that Sci-Hub infringed the publishers’ copyrights and owed them US$15 million and $4.8 million, respectively. Elbakyan did not appear in court, or offer any legal representation for the site during those cases, and the fines have so far not been paid.
近年的Elservier (愛思唯爾)與美國化學學會的法律訴訟，美國法官判決Sci-Hub侵犯了出版商的版權，並且判賠個別美金一千五百萬和四百八十萬。Elbakyan並沒有出庭，或委派任何法律代表出席，並且這些罰鍰也尚未償付。
“Pirate sites like Sci-Hub threaten the integrity of the scientific record, and the safety of university and personal data,” the publishers behind the case in India told Nature in a statement. “They compromise the security of libraries and higher-education institutions, to gain unauthorized access to scientific databases and other proprietary intellectual property, and illegally harvest journal articles and e-books.” The publishers also allege that Sci-Hub uses stolen user credentials and phishing attacks to extract copyrighted journal articles illegally.
「海盜網站就像Sci-Hub威脅著科學紀錄的完整性，以及大學和個人資料的安全」，印度訴訟的出版商告訴Nature。「它們妥協了圖書館以及高等教育機構的保全，以取得未經過授權的科學資料庫，和其他智慧財產的所有權，且非法的收穫期刊文章還有電子書」。出版商更控訴Sci-Hub偷竊使用者個人資訊和使用釣魚方法非法攻擊具有版權的期刊文章。
Elbakyan says that these are “empty accusations” that “have absolutely no content of evidence behind them”. She denies that Sci-Hub is a threat to science, or to the security of academic institutions. “Open communication is a fundamental property of science and it makes scientific progress possible. Paywalled access prevents this,” Elbakyan adds. “That is a threat, and not Sci-Hub.”
Elbakyan說這些全然都是空穴來風的指控，並且完全沒有證據支持。她否認Sci-Hub對於科學或學術機構是個威脅。「公開透明的對話是科學的基礎，並且它將推使科學前進；但付費牆阻礙了它，」Elbakyan補充，「這才是威脅，而不是Sci-Hub！」
The site has proved popular among researchers, who say their institutions cannot afford costly journal subscriptions. India accounts for the third-largest proportion of Sci-Hub’s users, and when publishers brought the Delhi case in December 2020, a group of lawyers offered Elbakyan legal representation.
Sci-Hub在研究者之間盛行不證自明，因為他們所代表的機構無法承擔高昂的期刊訂閱費用。印度使用者佔了第三大Sci-Hub的全球使用者，且當出版商在2020年12年狀告Sci-Hub時，一群律師提供Elbakyan法律協助。
“There are serious questions of access to knowledge that the court ought to take into account,” says Lawrence Liang, a legal scholar at Ambedkar University Delhi, who isn’t part of the defence team but helped to rally support for Sci-Hub from scientists.
「法院需要考量有關於獲取知識的嚴肅問題」，Lawrence Liang (Ambedkar University Delhi法律學者)說到；他不是被告訴訟團隊的成員但協助整合來自科學家們的支持。
Fair dealings? 公平處理嗎？
The defence will argue that Sci-Hub’s activities are covered by the list of exemptions in India’s Copyright Act of 1957. One of these is that ‘fair dealings’ of a work can be used for private or personal use, including research.
被告方將提出Sci-Hub所進行的活動泛屬於印度1957年版權法所條列的例外狀況。其中一個論述就是關於『fair dealings (公平處理)』可以被使用在私人或個人使用，包含研究。
Academic publishers have fallen foul of this section of the act before. In 2012, five publishers — including Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press — unsuccessfully sued the University of Delhi and its photocopying shop for alleged copyright infringement in course packs made at the institution. These packs contained photocopies of passages and chapters from textbooks and, in some cases, copies of entire books that were produced for students, many of who could not afford to buy the originals.
學術出版商曾敗訴因為這一法條段落的規定。在2012年，五家出版商－包含Oxford University Press (牛津大學出版社)以及Cambridge University Press (劍橋大學出版社)－控告University of Delhi (德里大學)失敗，有關於大學內的影印店非法版權侵犯印製上課資料。這些資歷包含了影印出自於教科書的段落和章節，並且有些案例是複印給學生的整本書，因為他們沒有錢可以負擔原文書。
The judge ruled that the university and the photocopying shop were not infringing the copyright of the books’ publishers, because one of the exemptions listed in the copyright act includes reproducing work “by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction”. A key part of the case was evidence submitted to the court by students and teachers stating the need for the photocopies. This was allowed because there was deemed to be sufficient national interest in the ruling.
法官的判決判定大學與影印店並沒有侵犯書本出版商的版權，因為法條的其中一項例外是包含了『老師或學生在課程下所指示的重製』。這案件的關鍵是由學生和老師所呈交給法庭的證據說明了複印的需求。這行為被允許因為被視為有足夠的國家利益來進行判決。
Liang was involved in that case, and says that India’s fair-dealing provisions could be broad enough to facilitate the kind of access that Sci-Hub gives to articles. As with the textbooks, national interest in the case means that affected parties can submit evidence to the court. Earlier this year, 20 of India’s top scientists argued that the country’s scientific community “stands to be gravely prejudiced” if the case goes against Sci-Hub.
Liang參與這一個按鍵，並說印度的公平處理原則 (fair-dealing provisions)可能可以延伸到Sci-Hub所提供研究文章的下載。就跟教科書一樣，國家利益在這案件裡面也影響著受影響的一方可以上承證據給法院。今年初，20位印度的頂尖科學家聯合聲明說，這個國家的科學社群將「嚴肅地選邊站」如果這個案件傾向判決Sci-Hub敗訴。
The scientists say in a document — known as a petition — submitted to the court that the case could have an “adverse impact on access to scientific knowledge, and so on science and technology research in India”.
這些科學家在一份文件說，就所知應該是一份呈給法院的請願書，這一個案件將可能會有著「對於科學知識負面的影響，連帶影響著印度的科學與科技」！
“Access to information is crucial for researchers. When the information is hidden behind paywalls, that curbs innovation,” says Shahid Jameel, a virologist currently at the University of Oxford, UK, who signed the petition. Computational biologist Rahul Siddharthan at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences in Chennai, India, adds that “apart from a small number of elite institutes in India, most cannot afford to subscribe” to journals.
「資訊的獲得對於研究者是致關重要！當資訊被隱藏在付費牆之後，將會有礙於創新」，Shahid Jammel (英國牛津大學病毒學家；參與了請願書的簽署)說到。計算生物學家Rahul Siddharthan (印度清奈Institute of Mathematical Sciences)補充道，「除了少部分印度菁英機構，大多數的都無法負擔期刊的訂閱費用」！
Further petitions supporting Sci-Hub have been submitted by medical doctors and policy advisers who use scientific papers as part of their work.
其他支持Sci-Hub的請願支持，也由因為工作上必要而使用和閱讀科學文章的醫師和政策顧問們上呈給法院。
Ripple effect 漣漪效應
The case’s next hearing is scheduled for 16 December, but legal experts warn that it could rumble on for years. Scaria says that the outcome will depend on whose rights the judge focuses on under the copyright rules. “If the judge views the matter from the perspective of user rights under copyright law, there is a high chance that Sci-Hub will win the case,” he says. But if the judge views the matter from the perspective of the copyright holder, the verdict might go against the site.
這案件最近一次的法院審理是在12月16日，但法學專家警告這訴訟過程可能會拖到數年。Scaria說這個判決的結果將會視法官在版權法之下把關注力關注於哪一方的身上！「如果法官關注使用者權力的角度，有很高的機會Sci-Hub會勝訴！」他說。但如果法官關於從版權擁有者的立場，判決可能就會不利Sci-Hub。
The ramifications for publishers if Sci-Hub wins are hard to predict, according to Sci-Hub’s lawyers Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj and Sriya Sridhar. “Courts in progressive nations frequently borrow principles from foreign jurisdictions, and it is possible that Sci-Hub’s victory before the Delhi high court will cause a global ripple effect,” they say. On the other hand, a loss for Sci-Hub could see many researchers and institutions that cannot afford journal subscriptions being “excluded from access to scholarly work”.
對於出版商地後果，如果Sci-Hub勝訴，是難以預測的，根據Sci-Hub律師Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj 和 Sriya Sridhar 的說法。「進步國家法庭通常會參考外國的法院判決結果，而很有可能德里Sci-Hub如果勝訴，將引起全球的漣漪效應」！相反來說，Sci-Hub的敗訴也將可能會看見許多的研究者和機構，因為無法負擔期刊的訂閱，而被「排除在學術資訊獲得之外」
Elbakyan says that the case could change everything for Sci-Hub. Winning could bring opportunities to improve the site and extend its reach.
Elbakyan說這個案例可能將會改變Sci-Hub的一切。勝利的話將會帶給改善這一個網站的機會以及擴展它的延伸。
“Today, the perception of Sci-Hub [is that] it is an illegal project, and that is even not disputable, but a fact,” she tells Nature. “Victory will show the ‘fact’ to be merely an opinion.”
「今天，世人對於Sci-Hub的認知是它是一個非法的計畫，且那甚至無法辯駁，而是一個事實 (fact)！」她告訴Nature。「只要我們勝利，就能夠顯露這一個『事實(fact)』就僅僅是一個意見 (opinion)而已」。
where it starts 從此之後 