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?
You have the right to make a duplicate of any private property you possess. Nonetheless, that puts no commitment on the dealer to make it simple for you. I have acquired an auto, I have the right to make a copy of it the length of I don't offer it. Anyhow only on the grounds that I have the right to make a copy of my auto, does not mean I have the capacity, and the auto producer has no commitment to make it simple for me. Given enough time and assets I could make an accurate copy of the auto I bought. Any encryption can be broken, and given enough time and assets I can break the encryption and make a careful copy of any advanced materials I buy. Yet the maker is under no commitment to help me or make it simple for me. All buys are willful, on the off chance that you dislike the way that the maker puts encryption on an item they offer, you don't need to purchase it. When you deliberately consent to purchase it, realizing that it is scrambled, then you have the right to make a duplicate of it, in the event that you are eager to invest the time and assets vital. I believe there should be laws in place for patenting ideas so that the creator gets full credit, however I do not see a problem with someone duplicating.
Is it possible to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of both groups on this issue?
It may be possible to strike an appropriate balance...