I quote first from the conclusion of the opinion.
The odds are stacked up against these self-confessed piracy repositories and there is a significant chance that the Delhi High Court might issue a dynamic injunction against them. From a legal standpoint, with Sci-Hub being a self-proclaimed piracy website, it may not be right to say that it should be permitted to function. This would set a precedent and provide impetus for other piracy websites to provide unauthorized and illegal access to copyrighted material.
The responsibility of making quality research material accessible and affordable should lie with the Government and not any rogue website (especially when most research that is done in a country like India is through public funds). Therefore, we believe that Sci-Hub and other such websites should be banned. At the same time, the Government of India should follow the footsteps of the countries that have signed national open access deals with publishers in order to help local researchers. The European Commission and the European Research Council, for instance, have launched an initiative called “cOAlition S” which aims to make full and immediate open access to research publications a reality. It is focused on “Plan S”, which mandates that research funders would have to ensure that research publications generated through grants allocated by them are openly accessible and not monetized in any way. “Project Deal”, spearheaded by the German Reactors’ Conference [sic] (on behalf of the Alliance of German Science Organizations), is tasked with negotiating open access deals with large commercial publishers. They have succeeded in signing an open access agreement with Springer Nature (a large commercial publisher). Similar plans have also been formulated by other countries like Finland and Netherlands.
The Indian Government has already unveiled an ambitious “One Nation, One Subscription” policy, through which it proposes to buy a bulk subscription of all important scientific journals in the world and provide free access to them to everyone in India. This could act as a permanent solution to the problem of exorbitant prices and keeping both the parties, the academic community and the publishers, happy. However, for the Government to be successful in doing so, it must include the academic community in the decision-making process and must act in an expedient and effective manner.”
What I understand: Gold OA is pitted against Sci-Hub. This is a wrong way to see the situation.
On one side, Gold OA is a trick in favour of the publishers. Because many scientists choose to make available their research (via arXiv or other repositories), the trick consists into the classification of this research sharing practice as “archiving”, aka Green OA. .
On the other side, because the readers can’t be charged, the publishers propagandists invented Gold OA. The name “gold” betrays their true intentions. Gold OA is classified as “publishing” and the Gold OA publishers demand from the researchers a tax: article publishing charges, or APC. This tax is ridiculously high, thus the publishers can still make money from a service nobody needs no longer.
How can this trick stand?
Because academic managers support it. They are hand-in-hand with the publishers and they are always protected. Every time somebody blames the publishers for their greed, the role of academic managers, who buy the publisher product, is ignored.
Academic managers support publishers with public money, most of the time, and in return publishers give power and prestige to the academic managers.
Sci-Hub is not the enemy of OA.
Whatever solution is politically favored, it can apply only to new articles.
Here comes Sci-Hub, which solves from one trait the problem of almost all published articles, for free.
Where the activists of what turned out to be Gold OA spent decades, with the result of high APC, Sci-Hub solved far better technically than any legacy publisher.
It is illegal, according to some courts rulings and most of all according to the hearsay of commenters. Because it infringes the copyright of the publishers. Publishers have this copyright because academic managers force researchers to publish in these conditions, for many years ,meaning that the publishers get the article with the copyright transferred from the researcher.
Slavery was legal, should we enforce it today?
Coming back to this opinion, it is misleading to present Gold OA as legal alternative to Sci-Hub. Gold OA is legal and Sci-Hub may not be legal, but Gold OA serves to preserve the gains of publishers by taxing the creators, while Sci-Hub makes free old and new published articles, available at only one click distance.