The World Wide Web, which is 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 in web pages.

So the first sentence is telling us what the World Wide Web is,

and that's probably a very old-fashioned name here

for those of you growing up today,

but the Internet used to be called the World Wide Web,

and it consists of different pages or sites that are linked to each other.

The Internet, however, raises issues regarding intellectual property,

particularly for those who are making the documents that go on the web pages.

So what are these issues?

Well, some of the owners of intellectual property claim

that unless copyright law is strengthened,

intellectual property on the web will not be protected from copyright infringement.

So this group of people, the owners,

they say we need to strengthen copyright law

or else our intellectual property rights will be violated.

People will just be able to copy our stuff,

and we won't have protection.

But web users, so that's the average person like you and me, web users,

they claim that if their ability to access information on web pages is reduced,

the web cannot live up to its potential

as an open, interactive medium of communication.

So it seems like we have a debate here.

In the first half, we get a description of the World Wide Web

and how it creates issues for intellectual property,

but now we are getting a little bit more specific on what those issues are.

I don't think we got as specific as we should get

because I still don't know exactly what's at issue,

but we do know that there's a debate between owners and web users.

Owners want copyright law strengthened.

Web users, however, they say you're not going to live up to the purpose of the web

or rather the potential of the web as a way of communication

if you do strengthen the copyright laws.

Now within this debate here, we get two perspectives.

We get the perspective of the owners of intellectual property right,

we get the perspective of the owners of intellectual property,

and then we also get the perspective of web users.

But we don't yet have the author's perspective,

so maybe they're going to weigh in on this debate.

The passage style, by the way, seems to me like a critique or debate kind of passage.

They raise a debate. There's two sides.

We're probably going to get into the arguments of each side,

maybe the author's opinion.

The debate that we were just talking about 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.

So think about like a paper or a scholarly book.

Sometimes in footnotes or maybe at the end of the book,

you will have these references, right?

There will be links, and these links are referring to other documents.

So that's one link, and then this one over here, that's another link,

and then that third one is linking to this other paper.

So links between websites are analogous to this,

but there is an important difference.

The cited document is instantly retrievable by a user who activates the link.

So the difference is, online, you can just click this link,

and then you'll immediately be taken to this page,

whereas with a printed text of references,

you can't just click on the link and then get that reference.

If you press your finger on the link, then that doesn't do anything.

You're just pressing your finger into a page.

You actually have to go to a library or do some research

and then physically find that other paper.

So that's the difference the author's pointing out.

This immediate accessibility creates a problem,

since current copyright laws give owners of intellectual property the right

to sue a distributor of unauthorized copies of their material

even if that distributor did not personally make the copies.

If Person A, the author of a document, puts the document on a webpage,

and Person B, the creator of another webpage,

creates a link to A's document,

is B committing copyright infringement?

Interesting.

So let's say that the person who wrote this document,

that person puts their document online,

and so this is Person A in the author's explanation here.

What if that person puts their document online,

but someone else comes along, Person B,

and then creates a link to that document?

This is Person B, who is creating a link to A's document.

Is that copyright infringement?

Is B infringing on A's copyright, is the question.

Now my low-res summary for this paragraph

is that the author is basically helping us understand the debate.

We're getting the origin of the debate, why the debate arises,

and then the author also gives us an analogy

to help us understand how linking works.

And then the author is raising the central question,

which is, is linking to another document copyright infringement?

So we're probably going to get an answer,

or at least arguments about the answer, in the next paragraph.

Let's take a look.

is doing copyright infringement of Person A's rights,

it must first be determined who controls distribution of a document on the web.

When A places a document on a webpage,

this is comparable to recording an outgoing message

on one's telephone answering machine for others to hear.

Now we're probably going to need an explanation of that,

since you might not know what an answering machine is,

so let's see if the author fleshes out this analogy.

When B creates a link to A's document,

this is akin, or in other words, similar,

to B's giving out A's telephone number,

thereby allowing third parties to hear the outgoing message for themselves.

Interesting. So the author is suggesting,

let's say like this is Person A,

they leave a message on their answering machine,

so this box here will be an answering machine.

A has recorded this message for others to hear.

But Person B might come along and give out A's telephone number,

so this is Person B.

They might say to others, so this will be a speech bubble,

they might tell others, hey, here's the phone number for A.

Go ahead and give A a call.

And then when other people here end up calling A,

they end up hearing the message on A's answering machine.

Anyone who calls can listen to A's message.

That is the message's purpose.

So A is telling this person the number,

that person calls A's phone number and then hears A's message.

The author is saying that's analogous to what's happening here.

B is like giving out the phone number for A.

B is giving third parties here,

so let's say this is a third party,

is giving third parties here a way to access what A put out into the world.

This person will click the link that B provides

and then get A's content

in the same way that this person will call A's number

that was provided by B and then get A's content here.

So let's continue.

The author says,

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.

Now it sounds like here the author is coming in and giving their opinion.

They are providing this answering machine analogy

to provide their opinion about this situation up here.

They're saying A, by making the document available on the web,

is making it available for everyone.

They are offering it for distribution

in the same way that this person is making their message

on the answering machine available for distribution.

Therefore, the author says,

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.

So this is where the author is coming in and saying,

hey look, this isn't copying to me.

Just as the person who gives out A's phone number

is not copying the message,

the person who links to A's document, B,

is not committing copyright infringement

because they're not copying A's document.

They're just providing a link to it.

They're just distributing it.

They're just helping others access the document.

That's what the author is saying here.

Moreover, so on top of that,

techniques are already available

by which A can restrict access to a document.

So if A is interested in protecting their document,

they can require a password to gain entry,

just as a telephone owner can request an unlisted number

and disclose it only to selected parties.

So if you have a phone number,

you can, I guess, request it to be unlisted.

This is probably back in the days when they had telephone books

where they would just literally list out the number

of every single person in the city.

I guess you could request your number not to be listed,

and that's similar to requiring a password to your web page.

That solution would compromise the openness of the web somewhat,

so it does impede access to information on the web,

but not as much as the threat

of copyright infringement litigation.

So here the author is saying,

look, considering what A is doing here,

copyright infringement would much more severely

restrict access to information on the web

compared to A just putting a password on their document.

That restricts access a little bit,

but not as much as strengthening the copyright laws.

The author ends by saying changing copyright law

to benefit owners of intellectual property

is thus ill-advised because it would impede

the development of the web as a public forum

dedicated to the free exchange of ideas.

So the author is coming in right here,

giving their opinion on the debate.

The author's coming in on the side of the web users.

Now when it comes to the low-res summary of this paragraph,

the whole first half here, everything from

to answer this question all the way up to the moreover here,

this is the author's argument against

considering linking to a webpage copyright infringement.

So I'll just say argument against copyright infringement.

The author's saying it's not copyright infringement

to link to a webpage.

And then in the next part, the author provides

other ways that owners of documents

can protect their content.

So I'll think of this as like other protection.

And then finally we get the author's conclusion here,

which is that we shouldn't be changing copyright law

to make what B is doing copyright infringement.

Don't make linking to a webpage copyright infringement

because that ultimately will make the website,

or rather the internet, less free.

And it would impede the development of the web.

That's what the author's saying.

let's go ahead and do a low-resolution recap.

In the first paragraph we get an introduction

to what the World Wide Web is

and an introduction to the debate.

There's two sides, the owners of intellectual property

as well as the web users.

The next paragraph helps us understand the debate.

We get an analogy to help us understand what linking is,

as well as the central question,

which is, is providing a link to a webpage copyright infringement?

And then in the final paragraph we get the author's argument.

The author gives us an analogy to telephone answering machines

to make the argument that linking to a webpage

should not be considered copyright infringement.

In addition, you can protect your webpage in other ways,

ways that are far less restrictive and damaging

to the free exchange of information

than considering what linking is copyright infringement.

Finally, we end with the author's conclusion here.

And as for the main point of the passage,

in a critique or debate passage, as this one is,

if the author is advocating for one of the sides,

if they are supporting one of the sides,

if they are one of the sides,

then the main point will be the author's perspective.

So here the author strongly comes down on the side of the web users.

The main point should be anchored to this last paragraph here.

Something like, we shouldn't change copyright law

to make linking to webpages copyright infringement.

Something like that might be a good main point.

I don't know exactly how a correct answer would phrase the main point,

but I know that it's going to be heavily based on

what's happening in this paragraph.

The question stem says, which of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

And this is already something we've thought about.

Remember, the main point of a passage is going to be the author's view,

if the author is advocating for something, is supporting one of the sides in a debate.

So the main point should be heavily based on what the author says in this last paragraph,

where the author says that linking to a webpage is not copyright infringement

because it's not actually making or distributing a copy of the document.

And because of that, we don't need to change our copyright laws to benefit owners of intellectual property.

Let's not make linking to a webpage copyright infringement.

That's what I'd have in mind before going to these answers.

So let's start with answer choice A, which says,

rather than by the person who creates the link to the page,

creating such a link should not be considered copyright infringement.

Now this sounds like a pretty good match for what the author says right over here.

This is the point of the author's argument over here.

But A does feel a little bit narrow because it seems to be leaving out what the author says down here,

the idea of like other protections for putting a document you put on the page, on the website.

It seems to leave out the idea of changing copyright laws to benefit owners is not a good idea.

A seems like oddly narrow.

So I'm not immediately jumping at what answer choice A says as a description of the overall point,

but it does seem like a pretty good match for what's being said here.

Let's see if we get an answer that better captures the bigger picture.

B says,

Changes in copyright law in response to the development of webpages and links are ill-advised,

so far that sounds pretty good,

unless such changes amplify rather than restrict the free exchange of ideas necessary to democracy.

The second half of this just goes wrong because it's something that the author never says.

What B is saying is that in order for changes in copyright law to not be ill-advised,

so in other words, in order for it to be something that is a good idea or worth doing,

it is necessary that those changes amplify free exchange of ideas.

The author never says that in order to make a change to copyright law,

we need that change to amplify or make even more free the internet.

What the author says is we shouldn't do something that impedes the development of the web,

but that doesn't mean that in order for us to change the copyright laws,

it has to make the web more free.

The author might be okay with changes that don't make the web more free,

but that just don't impede the web or impede the free exchange of ideas.

So because B is saying something that's unsupported,

particularly the comment about amplification,

it just can't be the main point no matter how much it sounds like what the author says down here.

I know B is very tempting because it just sounds very similar to what the author says at the end,

but the author doesn't say anything about amplification

and conditioning changes in copyright law on making the web more free.

That's just not said.

Let's take a look at C now, which says,

but that's just too narrow because the point of the passage

isn't that you have this other protection available to you.

The author is saying because we have these other protections available to us,

changing copyright law to make linking to a web page copyright infringement is not necessary.

That's the point of bringing up this other protection.

So the point of the passage is not to say that you have this other protection.

And on top of that, C is actually inaccurate

because the author here says that such a solution,

so making a password for your page,

that actually does compromise openness of the web somewhat.

So it's not correct to say that you can put a password on your web page

without inhibiting the rights of others.

You are inhibiting their rights a little bit.

So that's another reason that C is not the main point, because it's inaccurate.

Let's take a look at D, which says,

The author has a specific opinion about the question

of whether linking to a document is copyright infringement.

The author's main point is not something more general than that.

The author is not trying to make a point about

how we can resolve debates by using common sense principles.

The author is actually providing an answer to this question here,

so the main point should be about the author's answer.

That's why D is not correct here.

It doesn't capture the author's answer to that question.

And finally, E says,

but I want to make sure you key in on this phrase here.

Is that what we are discussing here?

A radical change? A dramatic change in copyright laws?

First of all, that's not clear.

But second of all, are we talking about copyright laws

that are aimed at restricting the web's growth?

Do they have the purpose, the intention, of restricting the web's growth?

That's the meaning of aimed here.

And the answer is, we don't know.

We are discussing the potential of making linking to a webpage copyright infringement,

and the author is saying, don't do that.

That's why I changed copyright law to make that copyright infringement.

But is that kind of change to copyright law

done with the intention of restricting the web's growth?

We can't say that.

Maybe that kind of change to copyright law, if it's done,

is done because they think they need to protect the owners of intellectual property, their rights.

That doesn't mean that the people passing the law to change copyright law

want to restrict the web's growth.

Maybe they think it's not going to restrict the web's growth.

The author would say that they're wrong,

but that doesn't mean that they have the intention of restricting the web's growth.

So the passage simply isn't about radical changes to copyright laws

that are aimed at restricting the web's growth.

Because E is not supported, it just can't be true.

Or rather, it can't be the main point.

and it's not a perfect answer because it seems a little bit too narrow.

Why doesn't it mention the other protections that are available?

Why doesn't it say something that sounds more like this very last sentence here?

I think A would be better if it included those aspects of the last paragraph.

But we just can't go with another answer here

because the other answers are saying things that are not supported by the passage,

so they can't be the main point.