This is the third passage from the set, from this June 2007 Reading Comps set, and we're going to go through this together

and I'm going to show you how you should be reading this, the kind of stuff you should be thinking about,

the kind of questions you should be asking about, to make sure you're still staying on track,

to make sure you're still understanding what it is that you're reading and making the right connections.

So a lot of these lessons, just a warning, a lot of these lessons,

I know you guys haven't gone through the full reading comprehension curriculum that we have,

so a lot of these lessons might be a little hard to digest at first,

but I'll try to make my best to ease you into it.

that are accessible via personal computers, raises legal issues about the rights of owners of intellectual property,

notably those who create documents for inclusion on the web.

So very, very long first sentence, probably already loses you because you just kind of don't care about this stuff.

So anyway, that's a common trick. You just got to care about what you're reading.

You know, if you don't have any intellectual curiosity for just random stuff,

you start developing one, have one, because you're going to be reading a lot about a lot of random stuff on outside passages.

Okay, so that's one, but mechanically, look at how the sentence is broken up.

First, notice that they use a lot of embedded clauses.

They say World Wide Web, and what's a World Wide Web?

Well, it's a network electronically produced, interconnected sites, and they're called pages,

they're accessible via personal computers, all this stuff, it's just sort of really descriptive of what the World Wide Web is.

Like, okay, after they tell you all this, now they say, oh, here's the predicate verb, the World Wide Web,

now that you know what all this stuff is, the World Wide Web raises legal issues about the rights of owners of intellectual property.

And in particular, not all owners of IP, but notably those who create, right, those who are describing the owners,

which owners are we talking about, specifically those owners who create documents for inclusion on the webpage.

So for, like this webpage that you're looking at right now.

So, okay, so that's, so very mechanically, that's how you want to deal with a convoluted sentence like that.

By no mistake, that first sentence they hit you with, something that's disconvoluted.

What we always say to students is you skip this descriptive part first.

The first time you read it, just read the subject and the verb predicate,

that way you have at least some idea of what the structure of the whole sentence is about.

And then you can go back in and fill in the details, all the stuff they want to tell you about World Wide Web.

And then later, you know, when they use referential phrases like that, notably those who create,

always make sure you take the referential phrase and push it back to what it's referring to.

That way you understand what they're saying.

All right, so now, now what's this whole sentence telling us?

Well, the Internet raises legal issues.

About what? Intellectual property legal issues for people who, I guess, like a company like ours, like me,

who put something on the webpage.

Right, so what we're doing there is now we're making this stuff, instead of being abstract,

we're making a relevant, concrete, something we can probably relate to.

Okay, so some of these owners of IP claim that unless copyright law is strengthened,

so the people whose IP, whose works, let's just imagine an author who wrote like a short story,

toss it on the web, and he's very worried that his IP is being violated.

And he's saying that we need copyright law to be strengthened.

Otherwise, IP on the web will not be protected from copyright infringement.

Otherwise, anyone can access it, and I don't get my royalties, or I don't get paid, or whatever, right?

But then web users, people who actually consume the information,

they claim that if their ability to access information is restricted,

then the web cannot live up to its full potential as open, interactive, medium communication.

That's right.

So you got these two sort of conflicting between the producers, and the quote-unquote owners, and the consumers.

And they have conflicting interests, so which creates a kind of tension.

And this tension takes place on the internet in the context of copyright law.

So now we have the first paragraph just sort of tells us the context, the background.

Now we know what we're going to be talking about, this tension.

Okay, and what's going to happen to it?

The debate arises from the web's ability to link one document to another, right?

So links, we all know what links are.

Links between sites are analogous to the inclusion in a printed text of a reference to other words.

Now the author is trying to tell us, let's think about pre-internet.

Is there an analog for what links on our internet is in pre-internet world?

Well, yeah, it's called the reference, like a footnote.

You know, you read, and there's like a little footnote, and you go down bottom, it says footnote.

So, oh, where I got this from, like Wikipedia does references all the time.

But with one difference, the cited document is instantly retrievable by a user who activates the link.

So that's a difference.

See, with a Wikipedia footnote, you look at it, and you just click it, and then you get there.

But with a book, they say they got it out of this other book, and then you, like, do you have the other book?

Is it right next to you?

Or you have to go find it somehow.

This immediate accessibility, which is what the web gives us, creates a problem.

Why? Why?

Because 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.

So our current copyright law, as it stands, it allows someone who owns intellectual property, it allows an author, let's say,

to sue a distributor who distributes unauthorized copies.

So let's say the author observes someone just passing out copies of their material on the street.

This distributor did not personally make those copies.

The distributor got the copies from someone else.

But that doesn't matter.

Just the act of passing it out renders this distributor liable to being sued by the author.

Okay, so if person A, the author, puts a document on the webpage, right, so let's imagine this is sort of in the book world, right?

Now let's imagine in the Internet world.

If person A, the author's document, puts a document on the webpage, and person B, the creator of another document, creates a link, creates a link, is that copyright infringement?

Yeah, right?

That's the question here.

Is this link the same thing as distribution?

If you physically take something and distribute it, I think it's pretty clear under current copyright laws that's violation.

But now we are in a new world, right?

We're in a new Internet world where this link, the question arises, is it distribution or is it something else?

So this is actually quite interesting because this is precisely what kind of our laws are very, very slow to change.

So when it comes to technology, an area that's very quick to change versus, say, morality, like criminal law,

the world of criminal law doesn't change that much, or I should say the world of crimes don't change that quickly.

But with copyright law, IP stuff, these are laws that were written for a world in which Internet technology didn't exist.

So now what we're doing is we're taking these old laws and we're trying to see how they apply to a new situation.

This interpretation, legal arguments, right?

This is sort of the interesting stuff of law.

But anyway, so all this stuff sets up the context.

Now we understand that the broad context is we're talking about the Internet, copyright law, the tension that exists.

Some people want copyright laws to be strengthened, more restrictive.

Some people, consumers, want it to be not that, not like that, less restrictive, right?

So the Internet can reach its full potential.

And then, of course, the question, specific pinpoint question, you can talk about a lot of stuff,

but here at Pinpoint, we're talking about links.

If I put up a link that references some other work, am I liable to be sued for copyright violation?

You know, they give you some example to make this relevant for you, but that sets up this whole argument.

And then the author says to answer this question, it must first be determined who controls distribution.

So the author starts answering.

This is where the argument begins, right?

That we set up this legal question.

It's almost like this, like someone has gone to court and the author here is on, we don't know which side yet, right?

Is the author here, is the author of this passage on the side of the author of the document,

the person suing or the person who's made the link, who put out the webpage, who needs to be defended, right?

But we're going to find out soon.

But the important thing here to realize is that this is where our argument actually begins.

All the rest is just giving contextual knowledge so you can understand what's going on in this argument.

So he's going to answer the question.

When you link to someone else's document, is that copyright infringement like distribution?

He says to answer it, well, the pressing issue is who controls distribution of a document, right?

Who controls it?

Is it A that controls it, the person who originally wrote it, or is it B?

Right, so you're like A puts up a page, right, with his copyright material, right?

This is the A is for author.

This is going to be confusing.

When I say author, I'll try to clarify between the author who wrote this document and the author of this passage, right?

And B is a person who links, right, who links to this material, who just has a link over here.

So you click on this and you go over here.

Does that act count as, the question is, distributor?

Is he a distributor?

That's the question.

Okay, so when A places a document on the webpage, it's comparable to recording an outgoing message on one's telephone answering machine while they're here.

Oh, okay, so see, the author decides to answer this question by using another analogy, right?

That's the technique that he uses to answer this question.

He's now making an analogy between when author A puts a document up, it's like as if author A left a, well, I guess not voicemail, on a voicemail machine.

Do you guys even know what voicemail machines are?

Back in the days before everyone had cell phones, you had these clunky things that you put a tape into.

And what would happen is that if someone calls your house, right, because I know it's really hard to believe, but phones at some point were tethered and attached to walls and had wires coming out of them, you know, to give it power and stuff.

But like, so that means you couldn't take it with you all the time.

So anyway, so if you weren't at your home and you missed a call, so this answering machine would then like pick up and then you would leave a message on it.

And so the owner would like get it. But anyway, okay, I'm kidding.

I know you guys actually know what voicemails are, but anyway, so when B creates a link to A's document, the author is saying this is akin to B's giving out A's telephone number.

Ah, okay.

So the link here is simply something like, you know, I just gave you this person's telephone number.

So for B, it's just passing out a telephone number, thereby allowing their parties to hear the outgoing message.

Right.

I give you C, right?

I give you some party C, the telephone number, and C calls A, hears the voicemail.

Just like here, I give you the telephone number here.

C clicks this, goes to this page, sees the content, hears the content, reads the content, hears the content.

Anyone who calls can listen to the message, and that's the purpose.

That's its purpose, right?

So that's what the author is going to argue, that the purpose of this guy writing this, of putting it up, is for anyone to call to hear it, is for anyone to go to the website to read it.

So while B's link may facilitate access, now remember we're talking about control, right, to facilitate access to the document, the crucial point is that A, simply by placing a document on the web, is thereby offering it for distribution.

So the author is making the argument that placement of it on the web is an offer of distribution.

So it's not like B's distributing this without A's implicit consent.

Therefore, even if B leads others to the document, it is A who actually controls access.

There you go.

That answers the question.

You don't want to forget that, you know, the whole paragraph began with a question, who controls the distribution?

So we're saying it's A actually that controls it.

Hence, creating a link to the document is not the same thing as making or distributing a copy of the document.

It's simply facilitating.

Certainly not making.

I don't think anyone argued that it was the same as making a copy.

But the question was, is it similar to distribution?

And the author is saying it's not distribution.

Okay, let's go on here.

Moreover, techniques are already available by which A can restrict access to the document.

So to sort of further the point that A is really the one in control, there are ways in which A can restrict.

For example, A may require a password given entries A's web.

Just as a telephone owner can request an unlisted number or disclose it only to select parties.

Right.

So you can, you know, like you go to the page and the page first thing it does is ask you for a password.

You can't get in, then you don't have access.

So control, you know, like our website, actually.

You're accessing this video because you've entered a password.

Such a solution would compromise the openness of the web somewhat.

Yes, not everyone can access it.

But not as much as a threat of copyright infringement litigation.

Right.

But compared to like if you just had to watch out for people suing you all the time, that would compromise it way more.

So this solution is like the lesser of two evils.

Changing copyright law to benefit owners of IP is thus ill-advised.

So here comes the author's final conclusion.

All this stuff really just, the author is trying to say you don't, you really, really don't want to strengthen copyright law.

It's ill-advised because it would impede the development because the web is too, too great.

Too great as a public forum dedicated to free exchange of ideas.

You don't want to dampen that by making copyright laws more strong.

So see, a couple of really important things here.

You have to focus on what the argument, where the argument is.

And it's over here.

It's in this last paragraph.

All this stuff is just set up.

The first two paragraphs are just set up for you to get to this last paragraph to understand that that's the argument that he's making.

He's really making the argument on the side of the people who's doing the distribution.

Who's helping to create the internet as a place of openness for communication and information transmission.

Which is great.

I mean, I think it's great, but that's totally irrelevant to this passage.

But yeah, okay.

And this passage is a legal passage.

You know, we say that it's one of the sources from which the LSAT draws their reading comprehension topics.

The legal passage is very, very good at showing you just how legal arguments work.

You make analogous, you argue to precedent.

You make arguments by analogy.

This thing, the case at hand, is similar to this other thing.

This other thing will be considered x, y, z.

So this thing ought to also be considered x, y, z.

22 says according passage present copyright laws do what this is very very specific present copyright laws

It's a tricky question because of how specific it is you have to go back to where you found

We have present copyright laws

Current copyright laws give owners of IP the right to sue a distributor of unauthorized copies or material

Even if the distributor did not personally made copies

so I got these copies of a new book from my friend who just bootlegged it and

Then I'm distributing like physical copies of distributing then I'm I'm liable to be sued so present copyright laws allow completely

Right that just so I mean that's the whole if this were true that what is the author doing trying to argue with you?

If anything on the web could just be used by anybody B says allow those who establish links document to control distribution

Because we establish that it's not the ones who make the links that control it's the it's the content creators that control the distribution

That is just I mean we I don't think again

You should be able to eliminate C without

Referencing this because we don't really talk about profit very much or profit is over here

We don't talk about profit very much

Right, that's this and he says should be altered to allow more complete freedom

But he also doesn't argue that you should alter it to make it weaker to make it more include to make it less restrictive