No. Core idea of capitalism is that everything has value, you have a right to own and trade value, and we should quantify that value to enable efficient transactions of valuables. It's about freedom of ownership (and ownership rights) including transferring that ownership, capital is a measure of what you own. Capitalism doesn't have a core value of "getting more capital", capitalism has a core value of "being able to freely use my capital".
The distinction from what GP is saying is that somethings should not be "owned" or "fully owned", ie, not have all the kind of rights that you would expect when you say "I own this". In the particular scenario of publishing, is questioning if "owning distributing rights" make sense (in the way of, I have the rights, you don't. I can do what I want as it is mine, you can do what I allow because it's mine not yours). In which he claims that "easiness of learning" is more important than profit, which in this scenario means that your freedom of doing what you want with your ownership, ie: selling rights to very limited used of your valuable (book, etc) is less important than sharing/acquiring knowledge, ie: i should be able to lend you or maybe even give you a copy of a book.
The dilemma is incentives to publish/share knowledge:
Capitalism works in hand with incentives due to everything having "value", so you can own things like "intellectual property" and have rights over it, so can sell it, or sell its use, giving you an incentive to "produce knowledge", the drawback is that anyone else has to use "value/capital" to access it. (same applies if you decide it's the governament that subsidies, still, something is giving back that "value/capital". Also, because of your rights to own, you can also share it without need to be rewarded, as it is your inherent right.
But, the thing about all this is "measure". Not everything is easily measurable, but to facilitate using ownership rights and their transaction/use, you have to measure. That the big problem of capitalism, plenty of things can't really have a price tag, and value of anything is not only subjective, but also hard to know for sure without full info, so "easy" measures are used.
This notion of "hard to measure value" is also a reason for not everything to have full ownership rights, using the current example, it's hard to measure to value of lending a book, including it's secondary effects (author getting more famous, a person getting more knowledge and its implications), so treating all these very hard to measure things the same way as more easily measurable things can and does have nasty effects.
This is basically the issue of our current ways to measure value is mostly "what are you able to trade it for", ie: tossing into a free market, which can and suffers the "tragedy of the commons" and other issues like trading with someone with lacks the necessary knowledge to give a decent assessment of value.