Question

Passage A
The rapid proliferation of digital technologies has profoundly disrupted the traditional mechanisms of copyright enforcement, leading some commentators to suggest that intellectual property regimes are fundamentally obsolete. This view, however, is dangerously short-sighted. History demonstrates that strong property rights are the primary engine of sustained innovation. Copyright law serves an indispensable economic function: it ensures that creators are adequately compensated for their labor, thereby incentivizing the continued production of cultural, educational, and scientific works. When digital piracy and unauthorized peer-to-peer sharing are allowed to flourish unchecked, they systematically erode the economic foundation of the creative industries. If authors, musicians, and filmmakers cannot secure a reliable return on their substantial investments of time, training, and capital, the volume and quality of original content will inevitably decline. Therefore, rather than abandoning or weakening copyright in the digital era, lawmakers must aggressively modernize and strengthen legal frameworks to combat unauthorized digital distribution across all platforms. Advanced technological countermeasures, stricter platform accountability, and stringent penalties for infringement are not merely instruments of corporate control—as critics frequently allege—but essential safeguards for preserving a vibrant, dynamic cultural ecosystem. Without robust, uncompromising copyright protections strictly applied to online environments, the digital landscape risks becoming a barren environment, ultimately devoid of the high-quality, professional works that society values most.

Passage B
The advent of the internet and digital reproduction technologies has sparked a necessary, ongoing debate regarding the future of copyright law. While some established industries argue for increasingly draconian enforcement to protect traditional revenue streams, such reactionary approaches fail to recognize the unique, participatory nature of digital creativity. In the contemporary landscape, culture is increasingly generated through remixing, sampling, and transformative adaptation—processes that are frequently hindered by rigid intellectual property frameworks originally designed for the print and analog eras. Overly strict copyright enforcement not only stifles grassroots innovation but also essentially criminalizes everyday digital interactions and fan creations. Instead of clinging to outdated models of absolute ownership and control, the legal system must adapt to foster, rather than penalize, transformative works. This does not mean abandoning creators' rights entirely; rather, it requires a fundamental recalibration of copyright to balance the need for basic compensation with the public interest in a collaborative, participatory culture. By expanding fair use doctrines, implementing compulsory licensing for digital sampling, and encouraging flexible frameworks like Creative Commons, copyright law can be updated to reflect the realities of the digital realm. Ultimately, the constitutional goal of intellectual property is to promote the progress of science and the arts, an objective that is currently best served by facilitating creative reuse rather than imposing artificial digital scarcity.

Based on the perspectives presented in the texts above, how does each of the following statements align with the authors' arguments? Match each statement with its correct scope of applicability.