It seems I did misunderstand. In that case, my answer would be that I think you can support both IP infringement and free and open access to scientific knowledge even if that is not my personal position.

I don’t think anyone would argue you can’t do both. But it does seem that people in this thread are arguing that you can further free and and open access knowledge more effectively by disregarding the potential copyright infringement. If someone feels that by disregarding the potential lawlessness, they are able to do more good overall, would you consider it unreasonable for that person to support a project like scihub?

It's not up to me to dictate the morality of others. Although I could see such an action as reasonable even though I disagree.

I don’t think it’s “dictating morality” in so far as “seeing the big picture”. If your goal is to spread knowledge as effectively as possible, why limit yourself by the very rules working against you? I mean I can understand self-preservation but what else? The laws in question aren’t really about morality anyway.

> If your goal is to spread knowledge as effectively as possible, why limit yourself by the very rules working against you?

This is assuming that spreading knowledge as effectively as possible is the only goal. Even if you take a utilitarian approach to ethics, I doubt anyone has this as their only goal.

> The laws in question aren’t really about morality anyway.

I think what is and isn't related to morality is at least somewhat subjective.