Ethical dilemma: Should knowledge be free? - Michael Vazquez and Will Kanwischer

The mystical city of Ockham is famous for its college of magic. Here, genius spellcasters invent incantations and publish them in enchanted scrolls that others can purchase. As an aspiring wizard, you study these scrolls to learn from the best. Specifically, you’re interested in making mathematical magic— like spells that conjure complex shapes— for researchers to study.

Often, you can’t afford the latest scrolls in your field. But one day, a friend tells you he's been using an illegal duplication spell to copy scrolls, and, if you’re interested, you’re welcome to read his collection free of charge. So, do you use his counterfeit scrolls to further your own research? As a wizard,

you know designing spells requires a lot of intellectual labor and creativity, which is why it’s widely agreed that mages should be able to make a living selling their work. And since this system is also how wizards build their reputation, most believe it elevates good work and makes high quality magic reasonably accessible. But this system has its problems.

In fact, researchers on our less magical world are facing similar issues with how science is published. That system's issues are far more complex than Ockham's, but both share a core philosophical concern: intellectual property rights. While many philosophers agree that some version of intellectual property rights make sense, their justifications vary widely. For example, some thinkers draw on English philosopher John Locke,

who argues that if you “mix your labor” with a plot of wild land, any crops it produces, as well as the land itself, should be under your control. This makes a certain kind of sense for farmers, but are spells, songs, or stories really like farmland? For one thing, land is limited— if one person uses it for farming, someone else can’t use it for building.