The issue of the availability of information for free is a topic that elicits debate among individuals. While some people argue that findings are too valuable to be shared without a compensation, others emphasize the importance of its ubiquitous to public regardless of the payment.
Proponents of limited access to data assert that the publishers or researchers spend time and money to find out new discoveries encompasses economy, medical, as well as new pedagogy methods, thereby they need a compensation for their efforts. Moreover, the information will not expose to plagiarism. For instance, if the information published freely, the dishonest plagiarist may copy these findings under their names without any reference to the original author.
Conversely, the advocates for the omnipresence of information assure that individuals can benefit from the latest discoveries even if they have not got enough money. The publishers can receive a patent for their findings, as a consequence these findings would be saved for the publishers’ names. This significantly cultivate knowledge in the medical sector, therefore other doctors could help patients recover from serious diseases. Furthermore, other researchers may complete their researches depending on the results of the published information.
In a nutshell, although the published findings help the communities and citizens to acquire a better life in all aspects, they also have adverse impact on the publisher himself. Personally, I am inclined to believe that such information should be published with safeguards for the publishers.