> There may not be a right to a business model, but by the same token no one has a right to someone else's work for free

For entertainment, I agree. But only insomuch as entertainers need to eat too.

For science, I disagree. Science benefits society most when everyone, even the poor, have access to it.

> Science benefits society most when everyone, even the poor, have access to it.

Sure, but should scientists work for free?

> Sure, but should scientists work for free?

I think the premise of the question is flawed.

I think science should be free and scientists should be paid a liveable wage as any other person should be.

People can write stories all day long, even stories that will be read by nobody. Scientists can do science all day long even science that benefits nobody.

But writing stories all day long practices the art without worry about a paycheck. Scientists doing science practices the art without worry about a paycheck.

Both can be done with personal computers these days. Personal computers are extremely cheap to have and to maintain. There's nothing stopping it other than politics.

Can you name at least one scientist whose work is supported significantly by publishing royalties, from the publication of that actual work?

As far as I know publishing royalties is not a source of income for most scientist.

I might go so far as to say essentially none. Quite a few have published popular books, like Thinking Fast and Slow, but I seriously doubt the money from that funded further work (and it would be a crappy way to run a scientific career).

In USA the comment you wrote is your work, copyright granted to you.

I just read it for free!!!

That's because a license was granted to Hacker News to display their comment, per Hacker News' TOS. If you read a publication that person did not have publicly available or that they charged for, that'd be illegal. You have the ability to view the above comment, as HN permits people to view the comments that they have license to. Still, HN could decide to ban you from viewing their content, they have that right.

> no one has a right to someone else's work for free.

Sure they do, that's what libraries are for.