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. 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?

Question and answer

Q: 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. 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?

A: i think that if you purchase any media you should be able to make personnel copies of it unlimited because it the value of the media usually decreases after opening it anyway and because it is necessary to have a back up copy! however i do think it [ would be tough to find a common ground on the decision. ]

Get an answer

Search for an answer or ask Weegy (Free)

Original conversation

User: 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. 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?

Weegy: i think that if you purchase any media you should be able to make personnel copies of it unlimited because it the value of the media usually decreases after opening it anyway and because it is necessary to have a back up copy! however i do think it [ would be tough to find a common ground on the decision. ]
Expert answered|amandaphil29|Points 0|

User: 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. 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?

Question

Asked 4/19/2012 11:37:16 PM

0 Answers/Comments

New answers

Rating

There are no new answers.

Comments

There are no comments.

Add an answer or comment