I have to disagree with the plaintiff in the case. Merely because there are a lot of people who "want" something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected. The article stated that because there were so many people "wanting" to create websites that copyright protections shouldn't be given. To me, there is no basis to strip a copyright owner of their legal rights because people want their product for free.
A lot of people want to use their cars but gas costs money.
We have such a slanted view of "rights" in this country. We all think we have a "right" to be employed. No such thing. If what we want forces another individual to supply it, then it isn't a right. We have a right to pursue happiness, that doesn't mean we have a right to force someone else to supply it.
Likewise, we have no "right" to someone else's property just because we don't want to pay for it. The professor can use the works stated in the article, he just has to pay for the rights to reprint them. In his case, he wants something for nothing and wants to cheat the copyright holder.
