In solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub

In Antoine de Saint Exupéry’s tale the Little Prince meets a businessman who accumulates stars with the sole purpose of being able to buy more stars. The Little Prince is perplexed. He owns only a flower, which he waters every day. Three volcanoes, which he cleans every week. “It is of some use to my volcanoes, and it is of some use to my flower, that I own them," he says, “but you are of no use to the stars that you own”.

There are many businessmen who own knowledge today. Consider Elsevier, the largest scholarly publisher, whose 37% profit margin1 stands in sharp contrast to the rising fees, expanding student loan debt and poverty-level wages for adjunct faculty. Elsevier owns some of the largest databases of academic material, which are licensed at prices so scandalously high that even Harvard, the richest university of the global north, has complained that it cannot afford them any longer. Robert Darnton, the past director of Harvard Library, says “We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices."2 For all the work supported by public money benefiting scholarly publishers, particularly the peer review that grounds their legitimacy, journal articles are priced such that they prohibit access to science to many academics - and all non-academics - across the world, and render it a token of privilege.3

Elsevier has recently filed a copyright infringement suit in New York against Science Hub and Library Genesis claiming millions of dollars in damages.4 This has come as a big blow, not just to the administrators of the websites but also to thousands of researchers around the world for whom these sites are the only viable source of academic materials. The social media, mailing lists and IRC channels have been filled with their distress messages, desperately seeking articles and publications.

Even as the New York District Court was delivering its injunction, news came of the entire editorial board of highly-esteemed journal Lingua handing in their collective resignation, citing as their reason the refusal by Elsevier to go open access and give up on the high fees it charges to authors and their academic institutions. As we write these lines, a petition is doing the rounds demanding that Taylor & Francis doesn’t shut down Ashgate5, a formerly independent humanities publisher that it acquired earlier in 2015. It is threatened to go the way of other small publishers that are being rolled over by the growing monopoly and concentration in the publishing market. These are just some of the signs that the system is broken. It devalues us, authors, editors and readers alike. It parasites on our labor, it thwarts our service to the public, it denies us access6.

We have the means and methods to make knowledge accessible to everyone, with no economic barrier to access and at a much lower cost to society. But closed access’s monopoly over academic publishing, its spectacular profits and its central role in the allocation of academic prestige trump the public interest. Commercial publishers effectively impede open access, criminalize us, prosecute our heroes and heroines, and destroy our libraries, again and again. Before Science Hub and Library Genesis there was Library.nu or Gigapedia; before Gigapedia there was textz.com; before textz.com there was little; and before there was little there was nothing. That’s what they want: to reduce most of us back to nothing. And they have the full support of the courts and law to do exactly that.7

In Elsevier’s case against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis, the judge said: “simply making copyrighted content available for free via a foreign website, disserves the public interest”8. Alexandra Elbakyan’s original plea put the stakes much higher: “If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge."

We demonstrate daily, and on a massive scale, that the system is broken. We share our writing secretly behind the backs of our publishers, circumvent paywalls to access articles and publications, digitize and upload books to libraries. This is the other side of 37% profit margins: our knowledge commons grows in the fault lines of a broken system. We are all custodians of knowledge, custodians of the same infrastructures that we depend on for producing knowledge, custodians of our fertile but fragile commons. To be a custodian is, de facto, to download, to share, to read, to write, to review, to edit, to digitize, to archive, to maintain libraries, to make them accessible. It is to be of use to, not to make property of, our knowledge commons.

More than seven years ago Aaron Swartz, who spared no risk in standing up for what we here urge you to stand up for too, wrote: “We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access. With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?"9

We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our voices.

Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don’t let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the flowers - clean the volcanoes.

30 November 2015

声援 Library Genesis 和 Sci-Hub

Translated by Bruce Ding

在圣埃克苏佩里的童话里，小王子遇到了一个收集星星只为能够买更多星星的生意人。小王子对此疑惑不解。小王子只拥有一朵花，他每天都给它浇水。他还有三座火山，他每天都会打扫。“我拥有火山和花，我对我的火山有用处，对我的花也有用处”，他说，“但是你对你拥有的星星并没有用处”。

今天有许多这样的生意人在掌控着知识。拿Elsevier来说，这个最大的学术出版商37%的利润率¹和高企的费用、不断扩大的学生贷款以及接近贫困线的教员工资形成鲜明的对比。Elsevier拥有几个最大的学术数据库，而这些数据库的使用费极端昂贵，连北半球最富有的大学——哈佛大学也感到难以负担。哈佛图书馆的前馆长罗伯特·达恩顿（Robert Darnton）说：“我们的教职员工做研究、写论文、审阅别人的论文、做编委，都没有收一分钱……可却要回过头来用令人发指的高价买回我们自己的劳动成果。²”这些由公币支持的研究到头来肥了这些学术出版商，特别是那些因同侪审查而获得合法性的出版商，期刊文章的售价阻碍了世界上许多学者和所有不是学者的人接触科学的通路，使得获取科学成为一种特权³。

Elsevier最近在纽约发起了一项针对Science Hub和Library Genesis的版权侵害诉讼，并提出数百万美元的赔偿要求⁴。这件事引起的轩然大波，不仅仅关乎网站的管理者们，更关乎全球数以千计的研究者们；对于他们来说，这些网站是唯一可用的学术资料来源。社交媒体、邮件组和聊天室里充满了他们苦苦搜寻文章和出版物的求助信息。

就在纽约地区法院下达禁制令的时候，新闻爆出了极富声望的期刊《Lingua》的编委会集体辞职的消息，原因就是Elsevier拒绝开放他们的数据库，也不同意降低他们向作者及其学术机构所收取的高昂费用。在我们写下这些句子的时候，一项请愿正在要求泰勒弗朗西斯集团（Taylor & Francis）不要关闭Ashgate⁵。Ashgate曾是一个独立的人文出版机构，在2015年被泰勒弗朗西斯集团收购。如今它面临着和其他小型出版机构一样的命运——被巨头和出版市场的集中化所摧毁。而这些只是系统垮台的其中几个征兆而已。它贬低作者、编辑和读者的价值；它寄生于我们的劳动中；它阻挠我们向公众提供服务；它拒绝我们接入⁶。

我们有技术和手段，能够使所有人以更加低廉的价格获取知识。但是，垄断寡头对学术出版的封锁、令人咋舌的利润以及他们在分配学术声望中的核心角色压倒了公共利益。商业出版商一次又一次成功地阻止了开放通路的实现、逼我们违法、控告我们的英雄、摧毁我们的图书馆。在Science Hub和Library Genesis之前，还有Library.nu和Gigapedia；在Gigapedia之前，还有textz.com；在textz.com之前，就没有什么了；而在没有什么之前，什么也没有。这就是他们想要的：让我们回到什么都没有。他们有法院和法律撑腰，就是要实现这个⁷。

在Elsevier诉Sci-Hub和Library Genesis案中，法官说道：“把受到版权保护的内容通过国外网站免费传播出去会损害公共利益⁸”。Alexandra Elbakyan所做辩护的赌注更高：“如果Elsevier能设法关掉我们的项目，或者逼迫项目进入暗网，那么这证明了一件重要的事：那就是公众没有权利获得知识。”

我们每天都能看到，这个系统正在大规模的垮台。我们背着出版商秘密地分享我们的写作，绕过付费限制获取文章和出版物，数字化图书并上传到图书馆。这是37%利润率的另一面：我们的知识共同体在这个垮台系统的警戒线上成长。我们都是知识的监护人，都是我们赖以生产知识的机制的监护人，都是这个多产但又脆弱的共同体的监护人。作为一个监护人，实际上就是要下载、分享、阅读、写作、评论、编辑、数字化、存档、维护图书馆、提供通路。我们要好好利用我们的知识共同体，而不是把它变成财产。

七年多以前，亚伦・斯沃茨（Aaron Swartz）不畏风险地支持我们今天呼吁您也一样支持的事业，他写道：“不管在哪里存储，我们都需要获取信息，复制并和世界分享它们。我们需要把那些版权之外的东西拿出来，放入文献库。我们需要购买秘密数据库，并把它们放上网。我们需要下载科学期刊，然后把它们上传到分享网络。我们需要为“游击开放通路”而抗争。如果这世界上的我们足够多，那么我们就不仅能发出一个强有力的反对知识私有化的信息，我们还能使其变成过去。你愿意加入我们么？⁹”

现在我们到了决定的时刻。是时候了，我们该要认识到，我们大规模的知识共同体的存在本身，就是一种集体公民不服从行动。是时候了，我们该要从幕后走到台前，把我们的名字放在这一抵抗运动的后面。你也许感到孤单，但我们其实人数众多。互联网上随处可见的、对失去图书馆设施的愤怒、绝望和恐惧告诉了我们。是时候了，我们这些监护人——不管是狗、人还是赛博格——用我们的名字、暱称和替身来发出声音。

请分享这封信—在公开场合朗读它—把它留在打印机上。分享你的写作—数字化一本书—上传你的文件。不要让我们的知识被摧毁。关心我们的图书馆—关心元数据—关心备份。给花浇水—打扫火山。

30 November 2015

Dušan Barok, Josephine Berry, Bodó Balázs, Sean Dockray, Kenneth Goldsmith, Anthony Iles, Lawrence Liang, Sebastian Lütgert, Pauline van Mourik Broekman, Marcell Mars, spideralex, Tomislav Medak, Dubravka Sekulić, Femke Snelting…