ringo-ring

You are mistaking 'entitled' for 'not prohibited' I am not entitled to know the mineral composition and spectra of every planet around Vega, but nobody should prohibit me to do this, no?

in the case of Sci-Hub, acquiring knowledge is prohibited, and for what reason? Because if you read this paper, academic publisher will not be able to become rich and make huge profits! Do you see anything wrong here?

I agree that 'human rights' are not the laws of nature (at least there is no scientific evidence behind it so far) but IF we rely on theoretical concept of 'human rights' then knowledge should be considered human right. if we do not rely on them, the righteousness of Sci-Hub can be argued differently: for example, on the basis of communism

> Saying they're "human rights" implies that you're willing to force other humans to acquire these goods for you, for free. This is very different from things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. which are the "default" state of things until someone uses violence to try to take them from you.

Copying information online is also 'default' state of things, until some government uses violence to stop it, block access, and etc. Sci-Hub does not rely on any 'violence' to operate, unless you consider 'entering library without permission' to be violence. But that concept of violence is too general: we can call 'violence' pretty much anything we do not like. Someone offended us with their opinion? Violence! (and yes, sometimes opinions hurt)

> you're willing to force other humans to acquire these goods for you, for free

it is wrong. One thing, is to say to other human: do something for me! that is, to force someone. But having a right to use what is already available, is a completely different thing. The two cannot be conflated.

> It muddles the meaning of rights, tarnishes the concept by equating the support for rights in general with a specific, controversial position

I am sorry, but knowledge is not specific, it is a very old, basic and fundamental concept. Without knowledge, human race wouldn't exist. It is not some transient and quirky concept suddenly made up. Even if controversial, it is a good candidate to be considered a human right.

indeed, in the UN declaration of human rights, there is a right to education already in article 26 - it is not that different from knowledge, but knowledge as a concept fits here much better.

The exist non-secular types of communism FYI. For example, Thomas More's Utopia is considered to be a classical communist text, but in this text he was advocating religious freedom.

Communism is a more general idea about common ownership and it is not limited to a single implementation in CCCP.