> why offering for free what others have the right to monetize should be considered okay. Because having the possibility to monetize something doesn't make it

> why offering for free what others have the right to monetize should be considered okay. Because having the possibility to monetize something doesn't make it inherently right to do so. People have monetized things that we would now consider abhorrent to do, like human lives in the form of slaves, wives as property, and countless examples of human rights violations. Heck, even today in many places of the world people monetize access to education or health care for example, prohibiting some people from accessing things that are considered basic human rights. That they have a "right" to monetize it doesn't make it okay to do so. I guess the underlying questions here is: should we consider access to scientific publications a right that anyone should be able to exercise? I personally think that yes, freedom of information is a laudable goal, and is definitely worth the inconvenience of losing some antiquated journals. If you don't agree, what do you think would be the issue with having universal access to scientific papers?