Probably; use a VPN.

Yes they're copyrighted - albeit not by the authors who actually wrote them, but by the publishers who require copyright assignment for the privilege of having your work hosted on their website.

So when academics casually share papers with their collaborators, are they technically exposing themselves to lawsuits? Or is being part of a research organization/university with subscriptions to these services enough to mitigate that risk?

No one talks about this, but for many (most?) of the papers they publish, there’s no copyright to assign. When I was in grad school, 100% of my research was federally funded (NSF, Navy, NASA) so they insisted that every product of that research be freely available with no restrictions. When we get an article ready for publication, the Journal would send us the standard “you assign your copyright to us” forms. We’d sign them but also send a copy of “the green form” stating that it was federally funded and we didn’t have any copyright to assign. They just ignore that.

It depends on the circumstances and the publisher. In many cases publishers permit authors to host the accepted version of the paper (but not the final version that includes revisions based on reviewer feedback) on their personal/institutional website and to email copies of the paper on an individual basis to people who request them.

For example, see https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/copyright (under "Author Rights") for what Elsevier permits you to do with your own work.

On the other hand, publishers have sometimes filed lawsuits against sites where authors share their papers, e.g. ResearchGate: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06945-6

Elsevier have also sent takedown notices to universities where academics have made the final version available on their institutional websites:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/12/19...

https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2013/12/elsevier-take...

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/elsevier-tak...

https://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2014/01/28/setting-...

You are almost always allowed to self archive the final version, but you have to share the PDF you generated yourself, not the nicely formatted one from the publisher. And some publishers only allow self-archiving outside repositories like researchgate. But most importantly, Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar would pick up most links from blogs and Arxiv.

Use https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ to check. Also, EU projects in most cases now require open publishing and publishers make exceptions even when OA is forbidden (“self archiving is allowed if mandated by the funding agency”).

That is an interesting question without a good answer. As I understand it (I am far from being an expert), there are sometimes specific exemptions to allow that sharing. However, generally speaking, I think it is a gray area. The journals would surely be shooting themselves in the foot, though, if they tried to sue their contributors. Academics would bring down hell on any journal that tried that. Moreover, it is not clear to me that they would win as it seems to be a customary practice even if it is not an explicitly allowed one. Finally, sharing a single paper might get research or academic exemptions as you aren't copying the whole journal issue. I doubt any publisher wants to go down that road. They are probably better off with the law remaining vague.

They are usually shared under the title of “preprint” or “draft” often, but not always, before the time of actual publishing.

Always seemed like a grey area to me. We didn’t really distribute the copy of the paper with the journal/conference’s name + copyright - though a perhaps a line under the title: “To be published in…”

What happens in practice: researchers are usually free to share the draft they had before the publishing process. Which means you can read the text before every sentence was wordsmithed in huge pain to make the paper a quarter page shorter.

Sharing with collaborators may constitute fair use. I wouldn't put one of my own papers on my website, though, for example, for something that isn't published as open access.

> casually share papers with their collaborators, are they technically exposing themselves to lawsuits?

For the final, not open access published papers they certainly do.

From watching the Aaron Schwartz documentary, hopefully once scihub makes these publishers obsolete they will no longer have the power to press charges. But yeah they can and will get the Feds involved and will ruin your life like Schwartz

1. rent a seedbox for $10/mo hosted in a different country

2. seed from your seedbox, not your personal device

3. profit

I encourage you to do this in the most audacious, and visible way possible.

Let see how will they sue millions, upon millions of people.

Make them face a fait accompli. They already lost.

They never target millions. They target one, and ruin his life, preferably one with children so he also divorces.

Every dystopian regime does that.

Please look into the history of file sharing and how that went for individuals.

These companies will pick examples and ruin their lives. It's hard to say how big the risk is here but this is reckless advice.

Vote for copyright reform.

They only need to create some examples.