> it depends on how people value the way you're making your livelihood So if someone doesn't value how you make your livelihood, he's free to stomp on you? Yo

> it depends on how people value the way you're making your livelihood So if someone doesn't value how you make your livelihood, he's free to stomp on you? You do realize, writing/music/film/art and other such forms of information do not spontaneously spring into existence? This article didn't just fall into the author's lap. Here is an alternative: you go and do all the legwork that the author did, arrange the interviews, spend days or weeks writing the piece, and then release it for free to the world. That's a perfectly viable option. But you don't work for free, do you? No, you prefer to let other people do the work, and then you shit on them from behind your computer screen. "Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated" That's definitely not an example of "this", it's an example of something that's very different in a lot of ways. Again, do you think clinically-tested drug formulas just fall out of the sky? On average, it costs between $500M - $2B to develop a new drug. Whether you choose to ignore this or not, these are huge costs that companies need to recoup in order to stay in business and develop new drugs. If the formulas were given away, the companies would have to eat the costs of development and this would not be sustainable. That doesn't mean we should be happy with the way things are. Our medical system is a mess. We should look for new ways to reduce the costs of drug development. Perhaps we should restrict drug developers from charging exorbitant amounts far in excess of the development costs. But, in my opinion, subverting the people who put in the effort to create is not the answer.