| ▲ | sebastiennight an hour ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I imagine the argument could go like this. Your granpa once wrote an obscure book about this amazing way he'd found to cure diabetes. Corporation A buys all existing copies of the book, scans them, destroys the originals, and sets up a commercial business offering a monthly subscription to alleviate diabetes pains with this new method they claim they discovered. Person B borrowed the book from a municipal library, Xerox'd it, and keeps a free ledger, open to all who want to read old books, as a way to safeguard free access to the world's knowledge. Do you think there could exist any possible logic by which some people would defend person B and try to stop Corporation A? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | like_any_other 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In this hypothetical, my grandpa didn't patent this way to cure diabetes (otherwise the company would owe him royalties, assuming the patent hadn't expired). So it reduces to a corporation selling services based on public-domain knowledge (I am ignoring the part where a miraculous advance is confined to a single unknown book). Lots of corporations do this, and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm sure people would prefer if Amazon also offered library-like access to the book, but how is it theft? I'm not asking about "any possible logic" - he called it theft. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||