Passage:
In the United States, copyright law is traditionally grounded in utilitarian principles, granting temporary monopolies primarily to incentivize the production of new works for public benefit. This economic rationale treats creative works fundamentally as commodities. Conversely, the European tradition—particularly the French concept of *droit moral* (moral rights)—views a work as an inalienable extension of the creator's personality, granting authors the right to preserve the integrity of their work against derogatory modification even after selling their economic rights.
While recent U.S. legislation, such as the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), has incorporated limited moral rights, this assimilation has been cautious and narrowly circumscribed. This reluctance is not merely a matter of legal inertia; it stems from a deep ideological incompatibility. A robust adoption of moral rights would severely undermine the American utilitarian framework by prioritizing the permanent personal bond between creator and creation over the fluid dissemination of ideas. Ultimately, grafting European moral rights onto the American system generates unpredictable friction rather than a harmonious synthesis.
Suppose a new bill is introduced in the U.S. legislature that would grant software developers the permanent right to prevent any subsequent purchasers from modifying their original code, based on the argument that software is an intimate expression of the developer's intellect.
Based on the passage, which of the following best describes how the author would most likely evaluate this proposed bill?
- The author would predict that the bill will encounter significant ideological friction, as its focus on the developer's personal bond conflicts with the U.S. goal of fluidly disseminating ideas.Answer
- BThe author would endorse the bill as a long-overdue correction to the U.S. system's flawed tendency to treat creative works strictly as economic commodities.
- CThe author would anticipate that the bill will be smoothly assimilated into U.S. law, achieving a harmonious synthesis similar to the integration of the Visual Artists Rights Act.
- DThe author would assert that passing this bill will permanently and fatally destroy the American technological market by bringing all cultural and economic progress to a halt.
- EThe author would argue that the bill is unnecessary because open-source software licenses already provide developers with adequate mechanisms to prevent derogatory modifications.