The mystical city of Ockham is famous for its college of magic. Here, genius spellcasters invent incantations and publish them in enchanted scrolls that others can purchase. As an aspiring wizard, you study these scrolls to learn from the best. Specifically, you’re interested in making mathematical magic— like spells that conjure complex shapes— for researchers to study. Often, you can’t afford the latest scrolls in your field. But one day, a friend tells you he's been using an illegal duplication spell to copy scrolls, and, if you’re interested, you’re welcome to read his collection free of charge. So, do you use his counterfeit scrolls to further your own research?通过一次呼吸运动，她通过一个鼻孔呼吸，然后通过另一个鼻子呼吸。 她使用拇指或食指一次闭合一个鼻孔。神秘之城奥卡姆以其魔法学院而闻名。在这里，天才施法者发明咒语并将其发布在其他人可以购买的魔法卷轴中。作为一名有抱负的巫师，你研究这些卷轴，向最优秀的人学习。具体来说，您对创造数学魔法（例如变出复杂形状的咒语）感兴趣，以供研究人员研究。通常，您买不起您所在领域的最新卷轴。但有一天，一位朋友告诉你，他一直在使用非法复制咒语来复制卷轴，如果你有兴趣，欢迎你免费阅读他的收藏。那么，你会利用他的伪造卷轴来进一步进行你自己的研究吗？

As a wizard, you know designing spells requires a lot of intellectual labor and creativity, which is why it’s widely agreed that mages should be able to make a living selling their work. And since this system is also how wizards build their reputation, most believe it elevates good work and makes high quality magic reasonably accessible. But this system has its problems. In fact, researchers on our less magical world are facing similar issues with how science is published. That system's issues are far more complex than Ockham's, but both share a core philosophical concern: intellectual property rights. While many philosophers agree that some version of intellectual property rights make sense, their justifications vary widely. For example, some thinkers draw on English philosopher John Locke, who argues that if you “mix your labor” with a plot of wild land, any crops it produces, as well as the land itself, should be under your control. This makes a certain kind of sense for farmers, but are spells, songs, or stories really like farmland? For one thing, land is limited— if one person uses it for farming, someone else can’t use it for building. This kind of all or nothing resource is what some philosophers call a rivalrous good. But there’s no limit on how many people can be inspired by a sunset. And people can even arrive at the same idea independently, whether or not they share an inspiration. So if we can all have ideas without interfering with one another, why assign rights over them at all?作为一名巫师，你知道设计咒语需要大量的智力劳动和创造力，因此大家普遍认为法师应该能够靠出售自己的作品谋生。而且由于这个体系也是巫师建立声誉的方式，大多数人认为它能凸显优秀的作品，并让高质量的魔法变得相对易得。但这个体系也有它的问题。事实上，我们这个魔法较少的世界里的研究人员，在科学出版方面也正面临类似的问题。虽然科学出版的问题比奥卡姆体系复杂得多，但两者都涉及一个核心的哲学关切：知识产权。虽然许多哲学家都认为某种形式的知识产权是合理的，但他们的论证理由却差别很大。例如，有些思想家借鉴了英国哲学家约翰·洛克的观点，他认为如果你“将劳动融入”一块荒地，那么无论是这片土地上产出的作物，还是土地本身，都应该归你所有。这种观点对农民来说似乎有其合理性，但咒语、歌曲或故事真的像农田那样吗？首先，土地是有限的——如果一个人用它来种地，别人就不能用它来建房。这种“非此即彼”的资源，被一些哲学家称为“竞争性物品”。但像落日这样的美景可以启发无限多人。而且人们即使没有共享灵感，也可能独立地得出相同的想法。所以，如果我们都能拥有想法而不会彼此干扰，那我们为什么还要对这些想法赋予权利呢？