Of course not. Copyright law is extraordinarily restrictive, and you, me, and everybody you know is guilty of violation after violation, easily enough to bankrupt hundreds of millions of people if strict enforcement were applied.

SciHub is all normal copyrighted published work; The publishers claim the same commercial status as an album or novel. The fact that there are currently 69 million works bundled means that willful copyright infringement of them has statutory damages in excess of 10 trillion dollars, perhaps multiplied by the torrent seed ratio if the judge is feeling generous.

Plainly, our present copyright system is ridiculous, and ridiculously disproportionate. It's also (separately) morally outrageous to restrict scientific inquiry to institutional subscriptions, for work that was submitted for review for free. This is commonly acknowledged in academia however, where every other person is willing to help you get access to that paper or this preprint to help out.

The law of the land and the feelings of its population have an enormous disconnect here. The only thing preventing the two from colliding head-on and something reasonable coming out of that contact, are the fact that copyright infringement is litigated less than one time in a billion, and the vaguely defined, legally vulnerable principle of fair use.