Elsevier adds value by putting a 'protecting' the content behind a troll gate paywall. Since you must pay to access the research, it must now (somehow) have become more valuable.
But I suppose Elsevier is lazy. If they wanted to add even more value, the research papers would have DRM and you would only be able to view them on special viewer software that runs on Windows. (Don't all scientists run only Windows?)
Copy / Paste and the ability to make screenshots would enable thieving pirates to read the research without paying through the nose.
I say that taking research papers, often written by overworked underpaid scientists, and often funded by public money, and locking them up behind a troll gate paywall for your own private enrichment . . .
Today we can crack yesterday's ciphers easily. But ciphers have always been used. Without computers, yesterday's ciphers were useful.
With computers, the ciphers have become stronger along with the ability to attack them. Key sizes make brute force attacks impossible. So attacks focus on weaknesses in the algorithm, or key, or random number generators.
Only after a fifteen year nap did the FCC recently announce it was going to pre-empt such laws in Tennessee and North Carolina, something that was immediately met with hand-wringing and lawsuits from the broadband industry and its allies.
So who should be the target of the lawsuits this time? The voters?