Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcook | Hacker News Reader

So, any knowledge that could save a life should be freely available? I like the idea, but I think the situation is not that simple.

Although you make a good point that piracy of one thing may be dissimilar to piracy of another thing, both acts are still considered piracy. That is why I asked a question about generic piracy.

View on HN

> So, any knowledge that could save a life should be freely available?

its not free. taxpayers have paid for it (and are not getting it for aforementioned reasons)

Then give me your credit card information, because I have no health insurance and it has been 5 years since my last checkup.

Edit: The parent's reply was "yes" when I replied.

Edit2: I am unsure which "free" you are referring to. Maybe all knowledge should be "libre", but I hesitate to say all knowledge should be "gratis".

Some papers were written by self-employed people or by corporate employees. Is it okay for these papers to be restricted?

Did elsevier/springer pay for the research? if no then the answer is no they shouldn't be restricted.

Why not?

If I fund my own research, and ask Springer to publish it for me, then why are we forced to make it unrestricted?

Does this rule only apply to journal articles, or does it also apply to books on a research topic?

It may be worth delineating "how much" taxpayers have paid for it. For example, many H-wood productions leverage huge tax benefits in their budgets, to the extent of pitting states against each other for better discounts or outright 'grants'.

So arguably to some measure, taxpayers pay for H-wood productions too... (or for that matter, the products of any corporation which leverages tax giveaways, trade tariffs, or any other government - provided handout). Government $ is taxpayer $.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com