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?
I think the conclusive argument should always be that any intellectual work and property of an individual or company should be protected (or not) according to the preference of the said party who created it. Simply said, it is their property, they can do with it what they want. There are many reasons as to why this should be the case. If electronic media was free of charge, then there would be no motivation for professional artists, actors and directors to create the media in the first place. This would negatively affect the economy, and most likely thousands of jobs, careers and even colleges would be lost as a result. However, I think it is somewhat fair to consider some of the opposing views concerning this growing problem in the global scheme of things. Piracy, the act of stealing and thievery (in this case electronic media), has a negative effect on multiple parties. First off, in my own personal experience I have heard it said before that if the prices of electronic media were not as high as they are, (such as $35.00 Blu-Ray discs) then piracy would not be such a prevailing problem.
* Is it possible to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of both groups on this issue?