Question #4883

Hmmm?

Started by iHAVE33FLAWSandAcommonLSATflawAINTone · started 2024-05-07 16:18 · last activity 2024-05-19 23:05 · 1 reply

This is one of those that I fundamentally disagree on the correct answer while I also agree there isn't a "perfect" answer. So I'm hoping someone can help resolve this. The two closest answers in my opinion are A and E. Throughout the tone and structural language in the passage, while also of course considering the content itself, I would semi-anticipate the author could agree on two things. First- The social norms described are adequate in comparison to legal outlets. and Second- That the cost of litigation is too high and uncertain. With that A appears to be good because it meetings the author halfway saying it works, but nowhere in the passage does it talk about recovering damages. Only " assert ownership of jokes, regulate their use and transfer, impose sanctions on transgressors, and maintain substantial incentives to invest in new material." Because of that, A appears to be overreaching. E matches the other Tone/semi-anticipation. And explicitly states that they are "prohibitively expensive". With that, I went with E. If someone can help further make the distinction on how I can accept A, I would greatly appreciate it. I just really don't like recovering the costs, as that extends past the passage. Thank you in advance for the help!

Replies

Emil-Kunkin · 2024-05-19 23:05

First off, for general author agreement questions, I personally don't bother prephrasing, since this is just a must be true, it could be basically anything we can prove from the passage that the author would agree with. I think A is actually more than a "least bad" option like we often see, and I think we can pretty much prove it from the passage. The author tells us that the conventional wisdom (which they don't dispute) is that without copyright, there would be no way to recoup the costs of creative endeavors. The author then says that because of the strong social norms in the comedy world, they actually don't need copyright as an enforcement mechanism. Thus, these norms must be filling the same role that copyright does, that is, allowing artists to recoup their costs. Note that this isn't about damages at all. Rather, it operates by forcing potential plagiarizes to not plagiarize through fear of being ostracized. However, this is exactly a way that comics can recoup their costs, if copying is made rare through alternative means. This means there really isn't an overreach. The author never calls for modification. In fact, they are describing a system where the arts are protected well without the need for copyright. If anything, this would be opposed to modification.