> Sounds like everyone at UC is going to use SciHub now

Plenty of people already do.

It's much easier to use than any kind of library proxy service if you're not on campus, and it's also far more reliable. Even if you have access, sci-hub often has things that the library doesn't.

I have access to uni libraries elsewhere, but I can provide my own anecdote. At home it's sci-hub, on uni wifi it's just via the website which usually automatically grants access seamlessly. Basically, whichever is least inconvenient.

Well, they've been maintaining access for institutions that cancelled their subscriptions for presumably this reason pretty often already, but as more and more institutions jumped on the train, that's not really tenable: why would others keep paying subscriptions if you're not going to cut off access if they don't?

But of course, if it turns out that access is not that necessary anyway, people will stop paying too. But well, that's the risk if you're not adding that much value. And by now, Elsevier has seen this coming long enough that they've hedged their bets well enough not to be reliant on journal subscriptions alone any more. In fact, I'm sure they'll have considered the past few years in which subscriptions hadn't yet massively been cancelled as being a windfall.

Based on the email I got last week, they have a contractual obligation for old content.

As for the new issues: I believe there's a standing recommendation to look for preprints or ask the authors for a copy.

Yes, I think usually access is perpetual, just as it would have been had the library had a physical copy.

For new issues, I'm confident people will manage; as you say, preprints have taken root in many more disciplines, and there are plenty of alternatives - legal ones, like inter-library loan, and Sci-Hub.

There are ways we (UC libraries) provide access to the content still w/o using sci hub https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/pub...

My guess is that this announcement will coincide with a new wave of technical or legal assaults against SciHub. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, it would have made more sense for Elsevier to go after smaller targets first.

Dinosaurs die hard.

But die they do and in the case of Elsevier it can't happen fast enough. It's about time the execs get publicly named and shamed and interviewed about how they feel about holding back progress.

It could just as well be argued that the researchers who choose to publish there ought to be publicly shamed. Elsevier is nothing without an army willing accomplices.

That's got to be one of the best examples of victim blaming if there ever was one. Do you realize that these 'willing accomplices' have extremely little choice in the matter? Academia is a battlefield where grand money is the reason for competition and publishing in these magazines is pretty much the only way to further ones' career unless the universities take a stand, which is exactly what TFA is all about.

I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’ve been an academic. You can call it victim blaming all you like, but you’re just removing personal responsibility from the picture. Nobody forced these people into their profession, nobody is forcing them to publish with any given journal, and nobody is forcing them to remain academics.

We always have choice.

Passing the buck and saying “I believe what I’m doing is wrong, but until there’s a policy that prevents everybody else from doing it too, I won’t change” is just lazy.

Or arXiv. Elsevier authors can post their papers on arXiv and/or their own website.

That's not strictly the case. This practice is actually infringing on your (albeit bonkers) agreement with Elsevier. You can only share copies with those who requested it as an act of "professional courtesy".

To all authors: note that it's often possible to modify the contract to enable it. They'll often not notice or just approve it. See https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/

Duly noted! Thanks for the info.

Clicking a link is requesting it, and I am professionally courteous to everyone.

Despite the popular reputation of lawyers, the courts typically frown on interpretative trickery (unless you are so good at it that you can make the reasonable interpretation sound like the tricky one).

The action is actually called "an HTTP _request_".

UC authors can put their author's final versions in https://escholarship.org