General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: According to your values, is illegally downloading a song, TV show, or movie immoral? [View all]Ms. Toad
(34,257 posts)It belongs to the creator (or whoever that person has assigned the rights). It is not the cost of reproduction that is the issue - it is compensation to the person who created the work.
If there really, truly, is no market (the scenario you are posing by suggesting you wouldn't pay of the book or song) - then the author will not be compensated. It is one of the risks any person creating material accepts - but the flip side of that bargain is that once they create something they get to control whether they give it away, sell it for next to nothing, or charge an arm and a leg for it. It is their choice - not yours.
If you think someone is using a foolish model, and you would be willing to pay them something (but not what they are offering), contact them. If you think they would benefit from your using their product for free as an advertisement - contact them. Bottom line - not your property, not your decision. If you don't like it, work to change the laws (which implement the protections granted to creative works of authorship in the Constitution). And if 99% of college students are infringing copyrights, then perhaps someone earlier in their educational career (or their parents) ought to have taught them enough about copyright that they don't believe that if it is on a website they can just go grab it.
As to drugs - that is more drug regulation than IP.
As far as academic journals, whether the professors are behaving illegally depends on the agreement they signed with the publisher. Some allow professors to retain rights - others don't. Unless you're privy to the agreement, you have no idea whether they have the right to put their material on the website or not.