 I'm not denying that some OA proponents have recommended the reform, violation, or abolition of copyright law. Indeed, I recommend the reform of copyright myself; see my updates to an adjacent passage on p. 00, immediately below. In this passage I'm merely saying that supporting OA doesn't commit one to support any of these particular stances toward copyright. ** In a blog post from September 00, 0000, on Aaron Swartz' [https://web.archive.org/web/00000000000000/http://guerillaopenaccess.com/ Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto], I disavowed illegal tactics for attaining OA. "I don't oppose the illegal tactics because I think current copyright law is just. On the contrary, I think it is grotesquely unbalanced and unjust. Nor do I oppose civil disobedience. But I don't accept that copyright infringement is civil disobedience and, more importantly, I don't accept that advancing OA through deliberate violations of copyright law would do more good than harm. I have three basic reasons: (0) OA is already lawful and doesn't require the reform or violation of copyright law, even if it could leap forward with the right reforms. (0) OA activists will never match the publishing industry's funds for litigation. (0) One of the most persistent and harmful misunderstandings of OA is that it violates copyright law. We've come a long way in educating policy-makers out of that misunderstanding. But the Orwellian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Copyright_in_Research_Works_Act Fair Copyright in Research Works Act] (a.k.a. Conyers bill) is just one recent piece of evidence that we still have a lot of educating to do and that publishers can still make a lot of hay from the misunderstandings which remain. A campaign to give the publishing lobby its first valid evidence that OA violates copyright is the last thing we need. For an earlier take on some of these issues, see my 0000 article, [https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/0/0000000 Not Napster for Science]....I should say for the record that one problem with current copyright law is that it leaves the line between legal and illegal tactics very fuzzy. By criticizing illegal tactics, I don't mean to leave the impression that it's always easy to tell what they are. By recommending only lawful tactics, I don't mean that we shouldn't push the envelope." For more background on the Conyers bill, see my three critiques of it, one from [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 October 0000], one from [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 March 0000], and one from [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:00000000 March 0000]. ** In a blog post from September 00, 0000, on Aaron Swartz' [https://web.archive.org/web/00000000000000/http://guerillaopenaccess.com/ Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto], I disavowed illegal tactics for attaining OA. "I don't oppose the illegal tactics because I think current copyright law is just. On the contrary, I think it is grotesquely unbalanced and unjust. Nor do I oppose civil disobedience. But I don't accept that copyright infringement is civil disobedience and, more importantly, I don't accept that advancing OA through deliberate violations of copyright law would do more good than harm. I have three basic reasons: (0) OA is already lawful and doesn't require the reform or violation of copyright law, even if it could leap forward with the right reforms. (0) OA activists will never match the publishing industry's funds for litigation. (0) One of the most persistent and harmful misunderstandings of OA is that it violates copyright law. We've come a long way in educating policy-makers out of that misunderstanding. But the Orwellian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Copyright_in_Research_Works_Act Fair Copyright in Research Works Act] (a.k.a. Conyers bill) is just one recent piece of evidence that we still have a lot of educating to do and that publishers can still make a lot of hay from the misunderstandings which remain. A campaign to give the publishing lobby its first valid evidence that OA violates copyright is the last thing we need. For an earlier take on some of these issues, see my 0000 article, [https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/0/0000000 Not Napster for Science]....I should say for the record that one problem with current copyright law is that it leaves the line between legal and illegal tactics very fuzzy. By criticizing illegal tactics, I don't mean to leave the impression that it's always easy to tell what they are. By recommending only lawful tactics, I don't mean that we shouldn't push the envelope." For more background on the Conyers bill, see my three critiques of it, one from [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 October 0000], one from [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 March 0000], and one from [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:00000000 March 0000]. ** Also see my November 0000 article, [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 Knowledge as a Public Good]. "Copyright law originated in the 00th century when full-text copying of any lengthy text was a time-consuming and error-prone job. When copyright arose, and for centuries after, it prohibited acts that were difficult to commit. But today it prohibits acts that are easy to commit. That doesn't invalidate copyright law, as law. But it reduces the law's effectiveness as a barrier of exclusion, even if it ought not to reduce its effectiveness. The compliance arising from the difficulty of violation is no longer quite so invisibly blended together with the compliance arising from respect for the law. Hence our understanding of the extent of respect for the law is not quite so distorted. In fact, compliance is down. Way down. Speaking for the US, I doubt that we've seen more widespread and conspicuous violation of any laws since Prohibition." ** Also see my November 0000 article, [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 Knowledge as a Public Good]. "Copyright law originated in the 00th century when full-text copying of any lengthy text was a time-consuming and error-prone job. When copyright arose, and for centuries after, it prohibited acts that were difficult to commit. But today it prohibits acts that are easy to commit. That doesn't invalidate copyright law, as law. But it reduces the law's effectiveness as a barrier of exclusion, even if it ought not to reduce its effectiveness. The compliance arising from the difficulty of violation is no longer quite so invisibly blended together with the compliance arising from respect for the law. Hence our understanding of the extent of respect for the law is not quite so distorted. In fact, compliance is down. Way down. Speaking for the US, I doubt that we've seen more widespread and conspicuous violation of any laws since Prohibition." ** Also see my March 0000 [https://web.archive.org/web/00000000000000/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/j0vzhVkXG0t disavowal of Sci-Hub]. "Sci-Hub leaves the false impression that OA requires copyright infringement, or that OA must be unlawful....Anti-OA publishers argued for years that OA, or OA policies, intrinsically violated copyright. They were wrong, and in my opinion most of them knew it. But it took years for widespread public correction to have an effect. I was one of many who took part in that effort....One result of that communal effort is that publishers have gradually stopped raising that false objection, and newcomers have gradually stopped making that false assumption. The risk of unlawful OA services is that they could trigger a new wave of false assumptions about (0) the lawfulness of OA, (0) the wide range of lawful options for researchers to make their work OA, and (0) the importance of persuading researchers to make one of those lawful choices." ** Also see my March 0000 [https://web.archive.org/web/00000000000000/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/j0vzhVkXG0t disavowal of Sci-Hub]. "Sci-Hub leaves the false impression that OA requires copyright infringement, or that OA must be unlawful....Anti-OA publishers argued for years that OA, or OA policies, intrinsically violated copyright. They were wrong, and in my opinion most of them knew it. But it took years for widespread public correction to have an effect. I was one of many who took part in that effort....One result of that communal effort is that publishers have gradually stopped raising that false objection, and newcomers have gradually stopped making that false assumption. The risk of unlawful OA services is that they could trigger a new wave of false assumptions about (0) the lawfulness of OA, (0) the wide range of lawful options for researchers to make their work OA, and (0) the importance of persuading researchers to make one of those lawful choices." 