#15 - Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (E)

Your task in this Strengthen question is to the select the answer containing information that would
most support the conclusion that copyright sometimes goes beyond its original purpose. The
argument proceeds:

Premise: originally, copyright was the grant of a temporary government-supported
monopoly on copying a work

Premise: the sole purpose of copyright was to encourage the circulation of ideas by
giving authors the opportunity to derive a reasonable financial reward from
their works

Conclusion: thus, copyright sometimes goes beyond its original purpose

Your prephrase is that the correct answer will provide information that copyright sometimes grants
people more than the temporary opportunity to derive a reasonable financial reward from their
works.
The incorrect answers will not support the conclusion, meaning they will either have no effect on the
conclusion or will support it.

Answer choice (A): This choice has no effect the conclusion, since the conclusion did not involve the
ways to circulate ideas.

Answer choice (B): This choice has no effect on the conclusion because it deals with whether
copyright remains necessary, not with whether copyright sometimes goes beyond its original
purpose.

Answer choice (C): This choice is also without effect on the conclusion, because it deals with
another potential barrier to the circulation of ideas.

Answer choice (D): Again, this choice has no effect on the conclusion, because the lack of an
effective enforcement mechanism for copyright is inconsistent with the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This information supports the idea that
copyright is no longer temporary (i.e., “for many years”) and that it goes beyond providing an
opportunity for an author to derive a financial reward for his own work (“after an author’s death”).

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

So I just want to make sure my reasoning is correct as to why E is the correct answer. So I had originally picked C but this answer is incorrect b/c the stimulus talks about how the sole purpose of the copyright is to encourage the circulation of ideas by giving authors the opportunity to derive a reasonable financial reward.

C is wrong b/c whether or not author's are able to find a publisher doesn't address how "copyright goes beyond its intended purpose. Basically this answer is irrelevant.

E is the correct answer because if copyrights hold for many years after the authors death, this would go beyond what the intended purpose of the copyright was.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Claire Horan]

Yes, that's right! After an author's death, s/he is not able to obtain financial benefits, so the copyright is going beyond that purpose.

[htngo12]

Hi!
For this question, I originally picked B as my answer due to my incorrect analysis of the stim. So originally a copyright is a grant of temporary gov't monopoly on copying a work. It's purpose is to encourage authors to circulate their ideas by receiving financial incentives from their works.
So for a copyright to go beyond it's original purpose could it be possible for a copyright to be given a permanent monopoly on copying a work while at the same time allowing the authors to receive financial incentives?
That would lead to answer E, if the authors were dead they they would still receive money.

Not sure my thought process is on the right path for this stim.

[Kristina Moen]

Hi ht,

Yes, you are looking for something that supports the conclusion that "copyright sometimes goes beyond its original purpose." What is it's original purpose? "To encourage the circulation of ideas by giving authors the opportunity to derive a reasonable financial reward from their works." (emphasis added)

So if copyrights hold for many years after an author’s death, then copyright is going beyond that original purpose. If authors choose to circulate without money or an author is unable to find a publisher, the copyright still provides an opportunity to derive financial reward. The onus is on the author to use that opportunity! A copyright doesn't guarantee financial reward.

[akanshalsat]

Hello! I'm really confused as to why B isnt correct? I know E makes sense, but how would we choose E clearly of B? it shows that if authors are willing to circulate their works then the copyright isnt needed so its going beyond its purpose?

[Charlie Melman]

Hi akanshalsat,

The reason answer choice (B) is incorrect is the word "opportunity" in the stimulus. Even if authors are sometimes willing to circulate their works without any financial reward, they still have the opportunity to get a financial reward if they copyright their works. They can cash it in if they want to. But when an author dies, there's no possibility for them to cash in. That's why answer choice (E) is correct.

[Coleman]

Hi,

I'm trying not to pose a question especially when there is already a long thread of Q&A posed by fellow students, and I'm well aware that I'd better not to argue with the test-maker, but I'd like to ask away this time.
The passage states "Its sole purpose was to encourage the circulation of ideas BY giving authors the opportunity to derive a reasonable financial reward from their works." Based on this, we can infer that giving authors financial rewards is presented as a means to foster the circulation of ideas. Thus, the SOLE PURPOSE of copyright is more consistent with the circulation of ideas rather than giving the reward to the original authors.
However, (E) is the correct answer because the author can no longer be the recipients of those rewards. I don't understand why this violates the original purpose of copyrights. For me, it sounds even more relevant to the purpose since ideas would be more freely/actively circulated if it holds many years after the author's death.

Any clarification will be much appreciated! Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

The claim that we need to strengthen here is that a copyright grant sometimes "goes beyond its original purpose," Coleman, rather than that it "violates the original purpose," as you put it. So we need an answer that suggests that copyrights sometimes do more than they were intended to.

Once an author is dead you can no longer encourage that author to keep circulating their ideas, so providing continued rewards after they die goes beyond that purpose. You're correct that it's the incentive (the cause) that goes beyond what may be required to achieve the goal, rather than the goal itself (the effect), but this answer is still the best one to strengthen the claim that sometimes a copyright goes farther than it needs to go.

I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense! Perhaps a long-lasting copyright that extends until decades after an author dies would give them an even greater incentive during their lifetime to circulate their ideas (so as to provide for their heirs after they die). Certainly this long-lasting reward doesn't violate the purpose of the copyright. But it is the only answer that suggests that copyright might be doing more than it needs to do. It's the only answer that helps the claim, even if it doesn't prove the claim.

[bonnie_a]

At first, I chose C for the answer and am still having some difficulties with understanding why C or D cannot be the correct answer. For C, not only could authors be encouraged to spread their ideas with rewards, they would also be able to find a publisher for their works (encouraging them to circulate their ideas PLUS finding publishers for them). For D, it can go beyond encouraging them with rewards because it may help find a way to enforce copyrights as well (encouraging PLUS enforcing copyrights). Can anyone help me with this? Thank you so much.