Ethical dilemma: Should knowledge be free - Michael Vazquez and Will Kanwischer
video description
Date: 2025-06-18
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
llamascheese8972
Knowledge and intellectual property are extremely broad terms. The logistics of how much value a creator deserves for their work depends on a variety of factors. If I were to charge people for the knowledge of how a fire extinguisher works, that would be an extreme of greed. I'd be risking people's lives for money. But equally, if I wrote a book over several years and spent countless hours suffering for it and struggling to get it published, at personal, physical and mental cost, it'd be unfair for someone to get it entirely for free.
I think this video avoids a key point about expression and knowledge, and that is that a person decides what they do with their knowledge. A musician is entitled to play for their friends, make money in a concert or simply do it for the sake of it. The idea that Knowledge should/shouldn't be free fundamentally takes away from a person's self-control of their lives, and what they've created. Libraries are a great example of bridging the gap between knowledge being free and crediting the creator. Only one person buys a book, and anyone who is interested in it can read it.
Ultimately, if the wizard is going to end up publishing a scroll that utilizes magical mathematics and is planning to make money off of it, it is morally right to pay for the information and morally wrong to steal that information.
reply
Knowledge and intellectual property are extremely broad terms. The logistics of how much value a creator deserves for their work depends on a variety of factors. If I were to charge people for the knowledge of how a fire extinguisher works, that would be an extreme of greed. I'd be risking people's lives for money. But equally, if I wrote a book over several years and spent countless hours suffering for it and struggling to get it published, at personal, physical and mental cost, it'd be unfair for someone to get it entirely for free.
I think this video avoids a key point about expression and knowledge, and that is that a person decides what they do with their knowledge. A musician is entitled to play for their friends, make money in a concert or simply do it for the sake of it. The idea that Knowledge should/shouldn't be free fundamentally takes away from a person's self-control of their lives, and what they've created. Libraries are a great example of bridging the gap between knowledge being free and crediting the creator. Only one person buys a book, and anyone who is interested in it can read it.
Ultimately, if the wizard is going to end up publishing a scroll that utilizes magical mathematics and is planning to make money off of it, it is morally right to pay for the information and morally wrong to steal that information.
reply
ChaiPotterVN
Shame on you TED-Ed for this misleading video.
The problem with published scientific findings is that the money you pay to buy acces to the paper do not go to the researcher, but to the publisher. It's not like your example where a mage refuse to pay another mage to read their scroll.
Researchers are FORCED to give up the copyright and ownership of their scrolls to the publisher. When publishing a research paper, the publisher makes money from either selling the access to readers, or asking the author to pay so that the paper would be in open access for everyone. In both case, the author do not gain ANY money! Yes, sometimes authors have to pay so that you can read their works, and yet they do not gain a penny! All of the money goes to the publishers!
It's not like a book or a song, where the sale revenue is shared between the author/artist and the publisher. Wether there are 10 or 100 people pay to read the article, all of the money goes to the publisher and NONE to the author. Unlike a book or a song, reading a research paper from the duplicate library do not affect the author's authorship, nor their income.
Knowledge are not free not because researchers do not want to make it free, nor that they want to make a profit from it. It's those greedy publishers who contribute nothing yet benefit everything.
reply
Shame on you TED-Ed for this misleading video.
The problem with published scientific findings is that the money you pay to buy acces to the paper do not go to the researcher, but to the publisher. It's not like your example where a mage refuse to pay another mage to read their scroll.
Researchers are FORCED to give up the copyright and ownership of their scrolls to the publisher. When publishing a research paper, the publisher makes money from either selling the access to readers, or asking the author to pay so that the paper would be in open access for everyone. In both case, the author do not gain ANY money! Yes, sometimes authors have to pay so that you can read their works, and yet they do not gain a penny! All of the money goes to the publishers!
It's not like a book or a song, where the sale revenue is shared between the author/artist and the publisher. Wether there are 10 or 100 people pay to read the article, all of the money goes to the publisher and NONE to the author. Unlike a book or a song, reading a research paper from the duplicate library do not affect the author's authorship, nor their income.
Knowledge are not free not because researchers do not want to make it free, nor that they want to make a profit from it. It's those greedy publishers who contribute nothing yet benefit everything.
reply
writeon2593
As an artist in the modern world where AI threatens creative jobs, I feel like intellectual property rights must be protected. The AI equivalent in this scroll metaphor would be the creation of duplicate scrolls from many wizards, cutting them up and sticking them together, and calling the finished result your own. You can never give proper credit to anyone because the fragments are so small and the magic used to make the scrolls doesn't keep track of what information came from which wizard. While I don't know enough about the scientific community to weigh in on what that would mean for them, I do know what it's like for artists of multiple disciplines. Having big companies use AI to hire fewer artists, while also taking from said artists without their permission, is awful. This will make it so fewer people are paid for their work, and fewer artists may pursue their dreams because they aren't valued by the market. And the media published by the big companies will lack the human element that defines art, also leading to safer decisions that are repeated over and over. If we don't protect IP rights in the arts against AI, then the arts and those who make them will be harmed.
reply
As an artist in the modern world where AI threatens creative jobs, I feel like intellectual property rights must be protected. The AI equivalent in this scroll metaphor would be the creation of duplicate scrolls from many wizards, cutting them up and sticking them together, and calling the finished result your own. You can never give proper credit to anyone because the fragments are so small and the magic used to make the scrolls doesn't keep track of what information came from which wizard. While I don't know enough about the scientific community to weigh in on what that would mean for them, I do know what it's like for artists of multiple disciplines. Having big companies use AI to hire fewer artists, while also taking from said artists without their permission, is awful. This will make it so fewer people are paid for their work, and fewer artists may pursue their dreams because they aren't valued by the market. And the media published by the big companies will lack the human element that defines art, also leading to safer decisions that are repeated over and over. If we don't protect IP rights in the arts against AI, then the arts and those who make them will be harmed.
reply
SirSqueakStir
To a point I can agree but when it comes to a lot of stuff especially in the gaming hobby majority of the time a lot of that stuff can go really wrong for example James workshop started clamping down on any family projects artwork as well as fan made animations and it has hurt the company a lot even though they have the right to their properties such as Warhammer 40K and age of sigmar it doesn't mean they have the right to climb down on people's artwork that was inspired by that that weren't getting any money off of it or any monetization off of it. For example one of my favorite series got destroyed because of it and that series was if the emperor had a text to speech device it was a great show and it was fun but they said GW we will never know what happened at the end of the climax of the season and now the company behind it is now doing another series that they know they can actually do whatever they want with it and that is the world of darkness series.
reply
To a point I can agree but when it comes to a lot of stuff especially in the gaming hobby majority of the time a lot of that stuff can go really wrong for example James workshop started clamping down on any family projects artwork as well as fan made animations and it has hurt the company a lot even though they have the right to their properties such as Warhammer 40K and age of sigmar it doesn't mean they have the right to climb down on people's artwork that was inspired by that that weren't getting any money off of it or any monetization off of it. For example one of my favorite series got destroyed because of it and that series was if the emperor had a text to speech device it was a great show and it was fun but they said GW we will never know what happened at the end of the climax of the season and now the company behind it is now doing another series that they know they can actually do whatever they want with it and that is the world of darkness series.
reply
J1P2K
In the issue of the wizard, why can he just share and trade the spells his bought with me Once you buy the object, it is yours, and have the right do what you want with it within legal reason.
He can look at the spells I currently own, and we can make a trade or agree to let the other barrow it for a set amount of time before giving it back. With magic, you can make magical agreements that make sure one's word is kept.
As for the real world, the main issue is how companies have lobbied governments to push copyright laws for longer and longer stenches of time.
There are ways around this. Creators can make their works Open Source; allow anyone to use what they create for free under a condition.
Others, like me, have publicly declared to have our works enter the public domain when we die.
reply
In the issue of the wizard, why can he just share and trade the spells his bought with me Once you buy the object, it is yours, and have the right do what you want with it within legal reason.
He can look at the spells I currently own, and we can make a trade or agree to let the other barrow it for a set amount of time before giving it back. With magic, you can make magical agreements that make sure one's word is kept.
As for the real world, the main issue is how companies have lobbied governments to push copyright laws for longer and longer stenches of time.
There are ways around this. Creators can make their works Open Source; allow anyone to use what they create for free under a condition.
Others, like me, have publicly declared to have our works enter the public domain when we die.
reply
dard2240
Copyrights should have a date on how long products can stay unavailable untill being revoked from the publisher. If developer, or publisher, can maintain non-physical product to be available for the usage (selling, using it in other projects and etc, then there should be no problem with them keeping it. If they stopped maintaining it or getting any profit fromit, then it should be revoked. So many companies trying to create new things, but forgetting to maintain what they allready created makes it unavailable for any future development. If there will be a company, that will have all the copyrights in the world, but use only some of them, then it's a potential extinction of non-physical market. No one will be able to create anything just because someone owns all thoes that could be created.
reply
Copyrights should have a date on how long products can stay unavailable untill being revoked from the publisher. If developer, or publisher, can maintain non-physical product to be available for the usage (selling, using it in other projects and etc, then there should be no problem with them keeping it. If they stopped maintaining it or getting any profit fromit, then it should be revoked. So many companies trying to create new things, but forgetting to maintain what they allready created makes it unavailable for any future development. If there will be a company, that will have all the copyrights in the world, but use only some of them, then it's a potential extinction of non-physical market. No one will be able to create anything just because someone owns all thoes that could be created.
reply
matheusGMN
it also depends of how much you're charging, currently writing my dissertation thesis for my master's, and there's an article I want to read and cite it, but as it looks I probably won't be able to do that, as it is very expensive (it's like, 70 dollars, but the currency of my country 1 dollar =6. 5 so it's almost 500 bucks) and I haven't been able to find a pirated source yet. if it were way cheaper I'd be more than willing to pay for it, but it's so expensive that there's no way I can afford it, and honestly, I don't understand how it's so expensive, specially given that those that write and publish articles also pay to have them reviewed and approved for publication. like we're paying at both ends and how the f is this so expensive where is all the money going
reply
it also depends of how much you're charging, currently writing my dissertation thesis for my master's, and there's an article I want to read and cite it, but as it looks I probably won't be able to do that, as it is very expensive (it's like, 70 dollars, but the currency of my country 1 dollar =6. 5 so it's almost 500 bucks) and I haven't been able to find a pirated source yet. if it were way cheaper I'd be more than willing to pay for it, but it's so expensive that there's no way I can afford it, and honestly, I don't understand how it's so expensive, specially given that those that write and publish articles also pay to have them reviewed and approved for publication. like we're paying at both ends and how the f is this so expensive where is all the money going
reply
ted_ed
Problem with today's Intellectual property rights Can be broken down to few simple points in my opinion:
1. When a patent is issued it is issued to the scientist/invertor, which is totally justified. In this case, deserving people get's credit and money. Which is fine.
2. When I paper get's published in a journal, the beneficiary becomes the publication company rather than the people doing the work. Which by my opinion is not justified.
3. If you copy someone's work and try to spread it as your own, it's called plagiarism. Which is a crime and totally out of context here.
4. In 1 and 2 the one doing the work should determine the accessibility of their work. But, that always doesn't happen properly and therein lies the rub.
reply
Problem with today's Intellectual property rights Can be broken down to few simple points in my opinion:
1. When a patent is issued it is issued to the scientist/invertor, which is totally justified. In this case, deserving people get's credit and money. Which is fine.
2. When I paper get's published in a journal, the beneficiary becomes the publication company rather than the people doing the work. Which by my opinion is not justified.
3. If you copy someone's work and try to spread it as your own, it's called plagiarism. Which is a crime and totally out of context here.
4. In 1 and 2 the one doing the work should determine the accessibility of their work. But, that always doesn't happen properly and therein lies the rub.
reply
Snowflake-id4fw
I think this video confuses knowledge with creativity. Knowing how to read, write and compose music is entirely different to creating a hit song. Lots of songs can be hit songs. On the other hand, the knowledge of how to make an effective vaccine against HPV is entirely different. There aren't a multitude of safe and effective vaccinations to prevent this infection. It's value as a public good means that the inventor should be rewarded. (publicly funded research) but the knowledge, the IP, shouldn't be a trade secret or subject to onerous royalities. It should be free for the betterment of mankind, like the polio vaccine or the smallpox vaccine.
reply
I think this video confuses knowledge with creativity. Knowing how to read, write and compose music is entirely different to creating a hit song. Lots of songs can be hit songs. On the other hand, the knowledge of how to make an effective vaccine against HPV is entirely different. There aren't a multitude of safe and effective vaccinations to prevent this infection. It's value as a public good means that the inventor should be rewarded. (publicly funded research) but the knowledge, the IP, shouldn't be a trade secret or subject to onerous royalities. It should be free for the betterment of mankind, like the polio vaccine or the smallpox vaccine.
reply
dutyofcivility
Really loved this video. It frames a difficult issue in a way that feels both imaginative and grounded. My two cents: The system we have now often limits access to knowledge based on wealth, not interest or curiosity, which runs against the spirit of learning. At the same time, I agree that intellectual work is an extension of the self, and creators deserve recognition and some control over how their ideas are used. Just because a system is unjust doesn’t mean all bets are off. Instead of bypassing the system, we should focus on changing it to make access more equitable without losing respect for the labor and meaning behind creative work.
reply
Really loved this video. It frames a difficult issue in a way that feels both imaginative and grounded. My two cents: The system we have now often limits access to knowledge based on wealth, not interest or curiosity, which runs against the spirit of learning. At the same time, I agree that intellectual work is an extension of the self, and creators deserve recognition and some control over how their ideas are used. Just because a system is unjust doesn’t mean all bets are off. Instead of bypassing the system, we should focus on changing it to make access more equitable without losing respect for the labor and meaning behind creative work.
reply
DanielKRui
It is strange to use math as an example. In math, essentially all of modern research is uploaded to Arxiv which is accessible by everyone for free (and guarantees a receipt for who posted when, so there is no threat of plagiarism. In fact many professors upload hundreds of pages of lecture notes and textbooks for free on their own webpage. That’s one of parts I like most about math; disregarding the intellectual barrier (which is mostly a myth anyways, is that it is one of the most open and equitable of academic fields; even authors on papers are listed solely by alphabetical ordering, without consideration of status.
reply
It is strange to use math as an example. In math, essentially all of modern research is uploaded to Arxiv which is accessible by everyone for free (and guarantees a receipt for who posted when, so there is no threat of plagiarism. In fact many professors upload hundreds of pages of lecture notes and textbooks for free on their own webpage. That’s one of parts I like most about math; disregarding the intellectual barrier (which is mostly a myth anyways, is that it is one of the most open and equitable of academic fields; even authors on papers are listed solely by alphabetical ordering, without consideration of status.
reply
ted_ed
Note that when citing Hegel and Locke these guys talked about control, not ownership. It's not the same. The video presents (personal) ownership and earnings as the mean to decide, and that's not true at all. Knowledge can be free and still creators can have the right to decide what to do with their creations. Also, publishing does not need to be encouraged through monetization, in various universitys (Mexico for example) researchers have a fixed income given by the state, so they don't have to publish everything, which can decrease research quality. I can read for free all Mexican published papers
reply
Note that when citing Hegel and Locke these guys talked about control, not ownership. It's not the same. The video presents (personal) ownership and earnings as the mean to decide, and that's not true at all. Knowledge can be free and still creators can have the right to decide what to do with their creations. Also, publishing does not need to be encouraged through monetization, in various universitys (Mexico for example) researchers have a fixed income given by the state, so they don't have to publish everything, which can decrease research quality. I can read for free all Mexican published papers
reply
Ivan-qf4mt
I think reasoning behind access is something that should be our main concern. If that work is going to be used for commercial purposes, it has to follow copyright. However, in cases of such circumstances as study, that access can be granted via universities and other means. Universities can shoulder purchasing access and providing those who seek information with what is needed. And in case of research beyond study - well, get a grant to finance your endeavors, be that private or public, (or preferably a combination of both so blindspots of each approach is covered) that is beside the point.
reply
I think reasoning behind access is something that should be our main concern. If that work is going to be used for commercial purposes, it has to follow copyright. However, in cases of such circumstances as study, that access can be granted via universities and other means. Universities can shoulder purchasing access and providing those who seek information with what is needed. And in case of research beyond study - well, get a grant to finance your endeavors, be that private or public, (or preferably a combination of both so blindspots of each approach is covered) that is beside the point.
reply
erikziak1249
Yes I would read the archive without a single doubt. Knowing that the authors themselves were most likely NOT paid for their work, it is the publishers who cash the money. And the worst part is, even the peer reviews were made for free by other external authors. The only one benefiting is the publisher, who did the least amount of work. I fully support public funding of research, basic research included. The results must be freely available to the public. I want a part of my tax money to fund this kind of things but demand the results be free of charge for everyone.
reply
Yes I would read the archive without a single doubt. Knowing that the authors themselves were most likely NOT paid for their work, it is the publishers who cash the money. And the worst part is, even the peer reviews were made for free by other external authors. The only one benefiting is the publisher, who did the least amount of work. I fully support public funding of research, basic research included. The results must be freely available to the public. I want a part of my tax money to fund this kind of things but demand the results be free of charge for everyone.
reply
kantoros
[. ]It's widely agreed that mages should be able to make a living. stop the sentence right there. Ofc they should be able to make a living, but noone said it has to be by selling their work, and if they are they're a chump. Ultimately the issue isnt with intellectual property its with the underlying economic system we find ourselves in, which maximizes not just profit, but short term profit, above all else. I want to see a future where scientists are actually paid properly, by the govt from taxes in lieu of guided missiles that blow up brown kids overseas
reply
[. ]It's widely agreed that mages should be able to make a living. stop the sentence right there. Ofc they should be able to make a living, but noone said it has to be by selling their work, and if they are they're a chump. Ultimately the issue isnt with intellectual property its with the underlying economic system we find ourselves in, which maximizes not just profit, but short term profit, above all else. I want to see a future where scientists are actually paid properly, by the govt from taxes in lieu of guided missiles that blow up brown kids overseas
reply
kobaltkode
All of this hinges on the idea that the point of having ideas and hard work is survival. In a world of abundance, where there are people who are passionate about producing, they aren't forced to sell what they produce to survive. Nothing is lost and their work goes appreciated which can be the reward that we seek, instead of the wealth to perpetuate that passion.
There was a world where the town fed and served the carpenters, because they built the homes that everyone used. Money doesn't have to change hands so long as we take care of each other.
reply
All of this hinges on the idea that the point of having ideas and hard work is survival. In a world of abundance, where there are people who are passionate about producing, they aren't forced to sell what they produce to survive. Nothing is lost and their work goes appreciated which can be the reward that we seek, instead of the wealth to perpetuate that passion.
There was a world where the town fed and served the carpenters, because they built the homes that everyone used. Money doesn't have to change hands so long as we take care of each other.
reply
pssurvivor
as an academic i have to pay a hefty sum of money to a publisher for my paper to be open access. then as a reader i have to pay another exorbitant sum to the publisher to read another academic's work. i can only afford this because i have the privilege of being in a well funded university. but what about those who aren't similarly situated. i think access and copying are two different things. i would love it if more people read my papers, i don't make a cent from my work, but hey don't pirate my paper because that'll infringe on elsevier's rights
reply
as an academic i have to pay a hefty sum of money to a publisher for my paper to be open access. then as a reader i have to pay another exorbitant sum to the publisher to read another academic's work. i can only afford this because i have the privilege of being in a well funded university. but what about those who aren't similarly situated. i think access and copying are two different things. i would love it if more people read my papers, i don't make a cent from my work, but hey don't pirate my paper because that'll infringe on elsevier's rights
reply
MatthewZenn
I think you're confusing multiple things. Knowledge can be free with people still getting protection on ownership. You don't own someone's work becaue you bought (or stole) a copy of it.
Also not all knowledge is equal. Artists' work are meant to be products, in the sense that its a physical thing others are supposed to own and enjoy. Research papers are just knowledge. Paying for the right to access something is very different than actually owning it.
Thinkng theyre the same is how we got tricked into nfts, online media, and ai art.
reply
I think you're confusing multiple things. Knowledge can be free with people still getting protection on ownership. You don't own someone's work becaue you bought (or stole) a copy of it.
Also not all knowledge is equal. Artists' work are meant to be products, in the sense that its a physical thing others are supposed to own and enjoy. Research papers are just knowledge. Paying for the right to access something is very different than actually owning it.
Thinkng theyre the same is how we got tricked into nfts, online media, and ai art.
reply
ruchika9210
Don't today ai doing same copying the content from various website to give answers, here, is also same scenarios if we look by seeing the cases for eg
1 we are getting benefit by this method as within limited time we get the info
2 ai companies get benefitted by subscription
3 but the bloggers, writers etc don't get a single penny
I personally think this matter is big that if not addressed it would kill the concept of research, development in field science, book writing, and webpage development of blogger
reply
Don't today ai doing same copying the content from various website to give answers, here, is also same scenarios if we look by seeing the cases for eg
1 we are getting benefit by this method as within limited time we get the info
2 ai companies get benefitted by subscription
3 but the bloggers, writers etc don't get a single penny
I personally think this matter is big that if not addressed it would kill the concept of research, development in field science, book writing, and webpage development of blogger
reply
Michi_the_human
In a world of universal basic income, where profit is an option but not a necessity to survive, knowledge and the pursuit thereof must inherently be free.
As things stand the pursuit of knowledge is already heavily influenced by what pays the bills and what gets funding from whom, therefore it cannot be entirely free, as there is always someone who wants to profit from it one way or another.
It's sad but there are very few exceptions if any from what I know (hoping I'm wrong though.
reply
In a world of universal basic income, where profit is an option but not a necessity to survive, knowledge and the pursuit thereof must inherently be free.
As things stand the pursuit of knowledge is already heavily influenced by what pays the bills and what gets funding from whom, therefore it cannot be entirely free, as there is always someone who wants to profit from it one way or another.
It's sad but there are very few exceptions if any from what I know (hoping I'm wrong though.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
