It paints a bulls-eye on her back and its use of the term &quot;piracy&quot; to &quot;free knowledge&quot; doesn&#x27;t flow well in western sentiments. While I get that the &quot;booty&quot; she is stealing are the fees that the journals would like you to charge, the acts she are creating are more like a librarian letting people check out books without a library card because she has an infinite supply of said books.<p>I am hoping that the rent-seeking behavior of the science journals can be used as the canonical example of how copyright can harm the common good.<p>By endorsing and upholding this egregious use of copyright, our elected officials are clearly causing more harm than good, and the perversion of the spirit of copyright, that an <i>author</i> is granted a temporary monopoly so that they might recover some of their investment, portrays this use as indentured servitude at best, and outright theft at its worst.<p>So while I don&#x27;t think anyone is really &quot;harmed&quot; because Disney won&#x27;t release the original Cinderella or employs measures to keep it from being copied. It is very much the case that by creating this barrier to scientific research, a person or group who might change the world in a positive way if they had access, is perhaps even unaware that there is relevant work that they cannot get access to. That is definitely a harm in my opinion.<p>So I hope that the narrative here, which has been dominated by big media for so long, might get some interjection of a more nuanced understanding of why copyright exists, and how to craft laws that embrace that spirit, rather then the rent-seeking interests of the people who live off the work of others.