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. Some of these owners of intellectual property claim that unless copyright law is strengthened, intellectual property on the Web will not be protected from copyright infringement. Web users, however, 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.
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. 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 Web page, and person B, the creator of another Web page, creates a link to A’s document, is B committing copyright infringement?
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.
Moreover, techniques are already available by which A can restrict access to a document. For example, A may require a password to gain entry to A’s Web page, just as a telephone owner can request an unlisted number and disclose it only to selected parties. Such a solution would compromise the openness of the Web somewhat, but not as much as the threat of copyright infringement litigation. 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.
The passage most strongly implies which one of the following?
(A) There are no creators of links to Web pages who are also owners of intellectual property on Web pages.
(B) The person who controls access to a Web page document should be considered the distributor of that document.
(C) Rights of privacy should not be extended to owners of intellectual property placed on the Web.
(D) Those who create links to Web pages have primary control over who reads the documents on those pages.
(E) A document on a Web page must be converted to a physical document via printing before copyright infringement takes place.
A. The author never states this, and it’s an extreme and illogical claim. Most websites—including major ones like Facebook
B. Correct. This answer is well-supported by the passage. Lines 38–40 explain that linking is not the same as copying, and lines 44–46 describe how website owners can control access using passwords—supporting the idea that linking doesn’t violate rights.
C. Like A, this is an extreme and implausible interpretation.
D. This directly contradicts the passage. The author argues that linking does not give control over the linked site’s content, nor does it give one the right to control its audience.
E. This is entirely unsupported. The author never claims that copying someone’s website is permissible as long as it isn’t printed. This interpretation misunderstands both the passage and basic copyright principles.
