[uberman]

In my opinion the answer is clear. It is not ethical to "free" information that others have the exclusive rights to. Wanting strongly enough for this "freeing of information" does not make it ethical nor legal just as wanting to drive faster does not make exceeding the speed limit ethical or legal.

I know many strongly oppose this view and I will assuredly be down voted for voicing my opinion. Before down voting me though, hear a counter example.

Many advocates of "open source" and "free software" feel very strongly about licencing. Should someone be ethically and legally allowed to violate open source licencing agreements just because they feel strongly about being able to? For me the answer is clearly no, just as it was for the case of circumventing the monetizing of publication rights.

Feeling strongly about being able to usurp IP rights does not give one the moral or ethical or legal high ground to do so.

IMHO

[eesmith]

I could only read the abstract as the article is behind a paywall. But I don't think your response is based on reading the article?

The argument in the abstract is that current scientific practices "breach the principle of fairness and damage public interest". That is not making a "just because" argument.

Do open source licensing agreements likewise breach the principle of fairness and damage public interest? I don't think so. So it doesn't really fit the argument, does it?

Breaking the law is sometimes the moral thing to do. There can be consequences to opposing an immoral law, but one should not obey an immoral law "just because they feel strongly about being able to."

Shifting to the question of paywalls. What about when there is NO copyright to "usurp"?

Plenty of articles are out of copyright, or authored by an employee of the US government - making the text in the public domain.

In those cases where there are no IP rights to usurp, is it ethical to breach the paywalls of monetized academic publishing?