That's not really a precedent. A shop making photocopies (generally at the request of its customers) is not at all similar to a website.

It is precedent because the judgement states:

> Concerning the argument that there cannot be an intermediary when use of copyrighted material post reproduction takes place in the course of instruction... The argument concerning use of an agency is thus irrelevant.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190530065215/http://lobis.nic....

Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read. Nonetheless, it leans quite heavily on use in the 'course of instruction' which is not the case for sci-hub. The crux of that case seems to be that the University of Delhi had authorised the shop to make the copies, and hence the agency of the shop is rightly moot. AFAIK, no university has endorsed sci-hub (for e.g., by way of posting links to sci-hub on a university or a course page). Should that happen, I guess the ties to this case would be closer.