At issue in the twenty-first century is the trade-off between the necessity of writers, musicians, artists, and movie studios to profit from their work and the free flow of ideas for the public benefit. Movie (and music) industry participants claim that encryption programs are necessary to prevent piracy. Others, however, including the defendants in cases such as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), argue that the law should at least allow purchasers of movies, music, and books in digital form to make limited copies for fair use.

Question

Which side of this debate do you support?

Is it possible to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of both groups on this issue?

Answer 1

http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1296313791

Answer 2

At issue in the twenty-first century is the trade-off between the necessity of writers, musicians, artists, and movie studios to profit from their work and the free flow of ideas for the public benefit. Movie (and music) industry participants claim that encryption programs are necessary to prevent piracy. Others, however, including the defendants in cases such as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), argue that the law should at least allow purchasers of movies, music, and books in digital form to make limited copies for fair use.

Answer 3

assuming the BOTH sides have rights. They do not. Artists, musicians, writers and others have ABSOLUTE control over their works and how they might be consumed, or distributed. The only right the public has is to buy it under the conditions offered or move on to something else.

How would you define "limited" copies? How can you "limit" copies with existing technology? "Fair use" is just a meaningless phrase. The court will most likely decide that NOTHING is free and if you want it, you gotta buy it.