The World Wide Web, a network of electronically produced and interconnected (or "linked") sites, called pages, that are accessible via personal computer, raises legal issues about the rights of owners of intellectual property, notably those who create documents for inclusion on Web pages. …
The debate arises from the Web's ability to link one document to another. Links between sites are analogous to the inclusion in a printed text of references to other works, but with one difference: the cited document is instantly retrievable by a user who activates the link. …
To answer this question, it must first be determined who controls distribution of a document on the Web. When A places a document on a Web page, this is comparable to recording an outgoing message on one's telephone answering machine for others to hear. When B creates a link to A's document, this is akin to B's giving out A's telephone number, thereby allowing third parties to hear the outgoing message for themselves. Anyone who calls can listen to the message; that is its purpose. While B's link may indeed facilitate access to A's document, the crucial point is that A, simply by placing that document on the Web, is thereby offering it for distribution. Therefore, even if B leads others to the document, it is A who actually controls access to it. Hence creating a link to a document is not the same as making or distributing a copy of that document. …
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
Since distribution of a document placed on a Web page is controlled by the author of that page rather than by the person who creates a link to the page, creating such a link should not be considered copyright infringement.
This best captures the MP as described above. (A) is hard to pick, because it feels too narrow. Why, for example, does it mention the fact that a document on a Web page is controlled by the author of that page, but leave out any mention of the fact that there are other ways to restrict access to a document on the Web? Why does this leave out reference to the value of the Web as a public forum for the free exchange of ideas? Yes, perhaps (A) is not a perfect answer. But it’s the best of the 5 available.
Changes in copyright law in response to the development of Web pages and links are ill-advised unless such changes amplify rather than restrict the free exchange of ideas necessary in a democracy.
The passage is focused on a particular issue – whether links to a document on a Web page constitute copyright infringement. The passage doesn’t address other potential changes on copyright law in response to the development of Web pages and links. So (B) is too broad.
People who are concerned about the access others may have to the Web documents they create can easily prevent such access without inhibiting the rights of others to exchange ideas freely.
(C) is simply one supporting point presented in favor of why copyright law should not be changed to make linking to documents on a Web page infringement. So it’s not the best answer, compared to (A). Moreover, (C) is arguably unsupported when it asserts that people can restrict access “without inhibiting the rights of others” – the author notes that restricting access “would compromise the openness of the Web somewhat, but not as much as the threat of copyright infringement litigation.” This suggests restrictions do inhibit the rights of others, at least a little bit.
Problems concerning intellectual property rights created by new forms of electronic media are not insuperably difficult to resolve if one applies basic commonsense principles to these problems.
The passage is focused on a particular issue – whether links to a document on a Web page constitute copyright infringement. The passage doesn’t address other problems concerning intellectual property rights and new forms of electronic media. So (D) is too broad.
Maintaining a free exchange of ideas on the Web offers benefits that far outweigh those that might be gained by a small number of individuals if a radical alteration of copyright laws aimed at restricting the Web's growth were allowed.
(E) sounds like something the author might agree with, but she never argues for (E) in the passage. Notice that (E) refers to “copyright laws aimed at restricting the Web’s growth.” Although the author would probably think that changing law to make links to documents on Web pages illegal would have the effect of restricting the Web’s growth, at no point does the author suggest that these laws are “aimed at” (designed to, for the purpose of, with the intention of) restricting the “growth” of the Web. Those laws would be aimed at stopping what others think should be illegal; that doesn’t imply the laws are designed to stop the growth of the Web. (E) is tempting because it sounds like the statement at the very end of the passage, which seems like a great summing-up type statement of the author’s view. But (E) contains something that’s not supported, so it can’t be the best statement of the MP. Moreover, the change to copyright law referenced in the last sentence is about potentially changing copyright law to make linking to documents illegal. It doesn’t refer to other kinds of changes.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic