It could be illegal in the US, but not in all the jurisdictions where they overstepped their bounds.

I think it's possible it could be considered piracy in the US, but not all countries follow these same rules nor schools of thought.

The issue is that the jurisdiction bleeds into others' jurisdictions that might have different rules on these types of things, but the US doesn't really care since it has absolute power and exercises its authority over those outside of its jurisdiction.

The words we use are important, because public opinion tends to matter quite a bit with these things, and public opinion is shaped immensely by words and their connotations (remember death panels?). If sci-hub is said to aid in the pirating of papers, it is doomed. If instead its purpose is said to be to make publicly-funded research accessible to the public for the benefit of all, then there's at least a slightly better chance of its surviving.

> I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease).

You have described someone as having a weakness and committed suicide where others didn't. For you to know what was going on in whoever you speak of's mind is interesting to me to say the least.

That said, I don't know anyone like that; so I wasn't referring to the same person as you probably.

Sorry!