I agree with you in spirit - tax payer funded research outputs should be publicly available - but this is what got Aaron Swartz: it is unlawful.
That it lets you freely access some scientific materials regardless of whether the rights owner (or authors, for that matter) agree to it or not is just a minor side-effect.
Anyway, is there any proof that Sci-Hub is part of the Kremlbots, besides Alexandra Elbakyan being from Kazakhstan?
Though this doesn't change the fact project itself is very useful and obviously it's her own personality problems rather than some conspiracy.
Real reason for that Kremlin action was funding of some politics-related book publishing and lectures. For non-profit "foreign agent" mark in practice bring regulation that almost impossible or too expensive to comply with. So Dmitry Zimin just decide to close non-profit.
Then most of people in Russian science community who still live and work in Russia have strong liberal views. Obviously they wasn't too happy about that since it's one one of few non profits in Russia that was actually funding science and education for real. Very few rich people in Russia ever donated anything to science or education so it's a big loss.
Elbakyan "nuanced standpoint" was such that Kremlin doing good job and since Sci-Hub users from Russia didn't agree she just decide to ban whole country.
Sci-hub is there to "expropriate the expropriators" in Lenin's words. That there is some wider benefit to the community is completely secondary.
While you can see my opinion on her personality above I still think you going into extremes regarding the project itself. Keep in mind that she is just end up being face of the project, but there more people working on it, and maintaining Library Genesis too, and dealing with risk of getting into prison for the service they provide to everyone.
So... one could go to prison for doing something that is explicitly illegal in most countries of the world, just so that the "face of the project" can preen about "standing up to the West", and fighting foreign enemies of the people, with the only risk to her being that Putin suddenly does a 180 and she's too slow on the uptake... Or one could, say, work on a viable long-term solution. Maybe setting up a wiki-like, peer-reviewed alternative publication scheme or something.
While the project does provide some benefit (which is not Elbakyan's goal), I just believe that the problem should be solved in an entirely different way -- you should start at the publishing side, not distribution side.
It's enough that few companies like Disney absolutely abused copyright. Yet we can live with it as long as it's just entertainment. Ok, they also put some horrible broken crap like DRM and DMCA and bunch of other things in our lives. Still it's not very important and might be after 10 years it's will be fixed somehow.
This is not the case for science. I can't even explain how wrong it could be to delay progress for years until "proper solution" is there. It's simply not acceptable. Sci-Hub might be illegal crutch, but it's important to have it.
I think good analogy for Sci-Hub would be Uber. It's might be absolutely hateful company for many here on HN that break every rule imaginable. Yet it's significally improved quality of life for millions of people and pushed taxi companies all around the globe to improve service.
PS: Also if you live in the US you might truly don't understand problems Sci-Hub solve, but there are people in ex-USSR who doing science on salary of $300 / month and they have no budget whatsoever on any papers. It's that bad. Yet some of these people still contribute.
I also don't think this is the case when ends justify the means. But stealing is much easier than trying to change copyright laws, let alone setting up a proper alternative publishing system, so there we have it.
As to why... I would hazard a guess that it's because she's neither a good person (far from it, by all indications) nor, really, a particularly bright one.
There's an example posted below of how she is a Putin stooge. Blocking access to everyone in your own country because scientists (you know, ones she is allegedly supposed to help) because the ones who are actually involved in science supported pretty much the only foundation that funds science in Russia when Putin decided to close it...
Sure, yeah, that's who selfless altruists working for the betterment of humanity do, not Kremlin trolls. (insert sarcasm tags appropriately).
Forgive me for not seeing the downside.
And when Russian scientists (real ones, not the ones who write fake dissertations for Putin's ministers) needed that benefit (science in Russia isn't exactly well funded) she yanked the access in the entire country because some of them dared to support someone Putin had targeted.
Sorry, don't see the upside or even much ethical excuse in supporting something that is demonstrably evil just because it might have a beneficial side-effect.
How exactly does it not? There are more college-aged people than ever, and a good portion of them wouldn't have access to a substantial amount of research without Sci-Hub. Similarly, there are more pre-collegiate students than ever who are interested in research. Both of these groups directly benefit from having it. Indirectly, the rest of the world gets more progress and a better standard of living.
> Sorry, don't see the upside or even much ethical excuse in supporting something that is demonstrably evil just because it might have a beneficial side-effect.
Demonstratably evil? I'd love for you to clarify on that.
Demonstrably? I would say that being a communist, in this century, when you can't even pretend that "you did not know" like fellow travelers in 1950's did is a pretty good indication. Her stated goal of "standing up to the West" (which is far from perfect, but really much better than any alternative) and supporting strongmen like Putin (apparently she's also quite fond of characters like Saddam or Qaddafi, too) who do so, to the point of directly and intentionally hurting the very scientists that her project allegedly supports points in that direction, too.
I just really don't get all the hero worship on someone who, at no risk to herself (she's no Edward Snowden or even Aaron Swartz), wants to stick it to the very people who support her. That effort would be far better spent on setting a real alternative publication system.
There's no real ethical downside - allowing people who wouldn't normally have access to research helps to reduce inequality, and allows human progress to advance a lot quicker than if it weren't open. There are brilliant people of which have no access to research, who could - and would - more likely do something with it than not.
Given that we all pay for science, [0] from people in the lowest drudges of poverty, to people in the highest skyscrapers in New York, we should all have access to it. Imagine you paid taxes meant to improve roads in your area, but ended up going to a place hundreds of miles away from you. You'll never get to use these roads, and you'll be told you're unethical and unlawful if you even consider using them. It wouldn't be very fair, would it?
[0] https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays