Q28

[alovitt]

Is A right because of the "current law" part in line 34? And then we discover in 51 that academics are given generous consideration. So, the implication is that those "some experts" who want digitalization to be proscribed under current law would allow for such exemptions for academics?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yup, you nailed it.

The 'experts' want to add digitalization to the current list of copyright illegalities.

Since we later read that academic usage is NOT part of the current list of illegalities, we're allowed to infer (A).

(B) The 1st half of this is the same as (A), while the 2nd half is obviously the flipside of (A). Although there isn't explicit textual support of these 'experts' commenting on academic usage, we have to make a bigger leap to assume the 'experts' are against academic usage than we do to assume the 'experts' implicitly accept current law (which allows academic usage).

(C) This is contradicted by what is said 32-36. For those who don't know the word 'proscribed', it means 'forbidden/banned/not allowed'

(D) This answer deals with a nuance introduced by the author in the last paragraph (seemingly brought up as something the 'experts' in line 32 had failed to consider). So we don't know where the 'experts' would stand on this gray area.

(E) Same explanation as (D). Since current law doesn't address this distinction, we can't infer anything about how the 'experts' would judge this matter.

Good luck!

[agersh144]

But if its done by private study or research institutions that its perforce not "unauthorized." I choose E and still don't quite understand how it's wrong. Granted the text does not attribute that position explictly to the experts but reading between the lines it would seem to be inferred that they want to make copyright laws more stringent and criminalized (line 36 inference). Whereas A talks about the unauthorized digitilization of a group that has the expressed imprimateur of the establishments -- academia -- how the world could that answer pass as accurate I simply do not know. #Frustration #Confusion #Bewilderment

[ohthatpatrick]

Are you conflating the idea "unauthorized" with "illegal"?

If I copy an LSAT question for the sake of teaching it in an education setting, that is a LEGAL, unauthorized copy.

I did not obtain authorization from LSAC to make that copy, so it is unauthorized. But because I am not exploiting the copy for any commercial gain, it's legal.

Does that make sense?

In terms of (E), I see where you could make the case that IF we were to make assumptions about what these experts would probably say, then equal punishment is a more conservative guess than different/more lenient punishment. But with (A) we don't have to take any leap. All we know about the experts is "Add digitalization to the list of proscribed activities".

Notwithstanding your qualms about the educational exemptions, (A) is actually a subset of (E). If you're agreeing that one thing should be punished as severely as another thing, then you're already agreeing that both things are crimes.

#WhyDoIHaveTheFeelingThatNothingWillMakeYouFeelBetter

[agersh144]

lol good hashtag, your right on both accounts. I did conflate the two in my mind I was not aware of that distinction. Thanks ohthatpatrick appreciate your explanation and humor