BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Control of an artistic work and its interaction in the public sphere is the just province of the creator and his or her designated successors

Once a piece of art enters the public sphere, it takes on a character of its own as it is consumed, absorbed, and assimilated by other artists. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. This can only be furthered by a significant reduction in length of copyright protections. It is also disingenuous to suggest that the artist’s work is not itself the product of exposure to other artists’ work. All art is a response, even if only laterally, to the previous traditions. While those who gain a copyright get it because of a ‘novel concept’ it is open to question just how novel this has to be. A painter who paints a new painting in a style never seen before may well still be using oil and canvas just as thousands of artists have in the past.
Artists often rely on copyright protection to support dependents and family after, including after they are dead

The vast majority of artistic output results in having little lifelong, let alone postmortem economic value. Most artists glean all they are going to get out of their art within a couple years of its production, and the idea that it will sustain their families is silly. In the small number of cases of phenomenally successful artists, they usually make enough to sustain themselves and family, but even still, the benefits accrued to outliers should not be sufficient reason to significantly slow the pace of artistic progress and cross-pollination of ideas. Besides, in any other situation in which wealth is bequeathed, that money must have been earned already. Copyright is a bizarre construct that allows for the passing on of the right to accrue future wealth.
The promise of copyright protection galvanizes people to develop creative endeavors

Artists generally desire to create, and will do so whether there is financial incentive or not. Besides, many artists live and die in relative poverty,[1] yet their experience seems to not have put off people from pursuing art as a profession and passion. The loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world. [1] The Economist, “Art for money’s sake”, 27 May 2004, http://www.economist.com/node/2714114
Overlong copyright protection stifles the creativity and saps the time of artists

In some instances, when artists achieve success they face the enervating impulse that their achievement brings. They become satisfied and complacent with what they have, robbing them of their demiurgic drive. Worse, and more frequently, successful artists become embroiled in defending their work from pirates, downloaders, and other denizens of the internet. The result is artists wasting time in court, fighting lawsuits that sap them of time to actually focus on creating new works. Artists should be incentivized to look forward, not spend their time clinging to what they have already made. Obviously, they have a right to profit from their work to an extent, which is why a certain, reduced length of copyright is still important. But clearly the current length is far too great as artists retain their copyright until their death and many years after. Moreover once the artist has died it is difficult to see how copyright can be considered to be enhancing or even rewarding creativity; it simply becomes a negative weight on others creativity.
Lengthy copyright protection is extremely inefficient for the dissemination of works

Only a tiny fraction of copyrighted works ever become massive successes, breeding the riches of a JK Rowling or the like. Far more often, artists only make modest profits from their artistic works. In fact, almost all income from copyright comes immediately after publication of a work.[1] Ultimately, copyright serves to protect a work from being used, while at the same time that work does little to benefit the original artist. Freeing up availability of artistic works much faster would serve to benefit consumers in the extreme, who could now enjoy the works for free and engage in the dissemination and reexamination of the works. If artists care about having their work seen and appreciated, they should realize that they are best served by reduced copyright. Ultimately, long copyrights tend only to benefit corporations that buy up large quantities of work, and exploit it after artists’ deaths. Notably when the United States has a system that required a renewal of copyright after 28 years only 15% of copyrights were actually renewed.[2] It would be far better for everyone that copyright be shortened and to increase appreciation of works. [1] Gapper, J. “Shorten Copyright and Make it Stick”. Financial Times. 1 July 2010 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c446aa38-84a7-11df-9cbb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2JyVnvY00     [2] Center for the Study of the Public Domain, “What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?”, Duke University, 2012, http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/pre-1976
Long copyrights serve to severely limit access by the public to creative works

Because copyrights are so long, they often result in severely limiting access to some works by anyone. Many “orphan works”, whose copyright holders are unknown, cannot be made available online or in other free format due to copyright protection. This is a major problem, considering that 40% of all books fall into this category.[1] A mix of confusion over copyright ownership and unwillingness of owners to release their works, often because it would not be commercially viable to do so, means that only 2% of all works currently protected by copyright are commercially available.[2] The public is robbed of a vast quantity of artistic work, often simply because no one can or is willing to publish it even in a commercial context. Reducing copyright length would go a long way to freeing this work for public consumption. [1] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term [2] ibid
Long copyright stifles creative responses to and re-workings of the original work

Artistic creations, be they books, films, paintings, etc. serve as a spark for others to explore their own creativity. Much of the great works of art of the 20th century, like Disney films reworking ancient fairy tales, were reexaminations of existing works.[1] That is the nature of artistic endeavor, and cutting it off by putting a fence around works of art serves to cut off many avenues of response and expression. When copyright is too long, the work passes beyond the present into a new status quo other than that in which it was made. This means contemporary responses and riffs on works are very difficult, or even impossible. In the United States tough copyright law has prevented the creation of a DJ/remix industry because the costs of such remixing is prohibitive.[2] While a certain length of copyright is important, it is also critical for the expression of art to develop that it occur within a not overlong time. Furthermore, it is valuable for artists to experience the responses to their own work, and to thus be able to become a part of the discourse that develops, rather than simply be dead, and thus voiceless. [1] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term [2] Jordan, Jim, and Teller, Paul, “RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it” The Republican Study Committee, 16 November 2012, http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/three-myths.pdf
Artists deserve to profit from their work and copyright provides just recompense

Artists generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new song, painting, film, etc. have a property right over those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone’s head that he or she does not act upon, and an artistic creation brought forth into the world. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment, if only from earnings forgone in the time necessary to produce the work. Artists deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation.[1] For this reason, robbing individuals of lifelong and transferable copyright is tantamount to stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Copyright is the only real scheme that can provide the necessary protection for artists to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their very real labours. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007, http://www.jmripl.com/Publications/Vol7/Issue1/Greenberg.pdf
Control of an artistic work and its interaction in the public sphere is the just province of the creator and his or her designated successors

The creator of a piece of copyrighted material has brought forth a novel concept and product of the human mind. That artist thus should have a power over that work’s use. Art is the expression of its creator’s sense of understanding of the world, and thus that expression will always have special meaning to him or her. How that work is then used thus remains an active issue for the artist, who should, as a matter of justice be able to retain a control over its dissemination. That control can extend, as with the bequeathing of tangible assets, to designated successors, be the trusts, family, or firms. In carrying out the wishes of the artist, these successors can safeguard that legacy in their honor. Many artists care about their legacies and the future of their artistic works, and should thus have this protection furnished by the state through the protection of lengthy copyrights.
The balance of analysis and relevancy is better struck by newspapers

The argument that internet news tends to offer small passages of text compared to newspapers is to be liberal with the truth, due to the vast nature of the internet it offers a variety of styles and is arguably more likely to provide longer passages than newspapers as there is not space restriction as there is with newspapers which can only be a certain size, due to advertisements and printing agreements. With the ability to both search for and easily share content via social networks, the argument that newspapers are better as they prevent information overload feels weak because there are many ways in which content can be filtered to ensure that both the news you actually want and the style and perspective you prefer can be easily accessed. improve this
People no longer consume media in a linear way, people prefer to pick and choose what news they consume

The positive side of a newspaper IS the fact you have a vast array of topics, which you would not usually consume. It broadens the mind as you may often come across stories you never usually take notice of. This opens up a whole new world of interest, whereas if people are given the role of editor they would most likely simply choose to read what already interests them and their channels of perception will become narrower. In addition to this, newspapers are not necessarily linear. They do not have to be read in a linear fashion, people can choose which stories they wish to read and reject those they do not. Newspapers are far more flexible than they are generally portrayed 1. Modern newspapers have adapted their design to increase their consumption by the public. One good example of this is the change in size of many British newspapers, from broadsheet to tabloid 2. 1. Daily Beast, 2009 2. BBC, 2011 improve this
Newspapers cannot be environmentally sustained.

Newspapers do still have a place in the modern media landscape; the environmental argument against them is flawed, for example the Newsprint and Newspaper Industry Environmental Action Group (NNIEAG) state that: “Recycled paper made up 77.4% of the raw material for UK newspapers in 2010” 1 so the claim regarding the amount of waste newspapers generate is not actually as high as is being suggested.    What the argument also neglects to state is that electronic media is not entirely environmentally friendly in itself, much of the power required not only by personal digital devices but also the infrastructure needed to keep it working does not on the whole come from renewable sources, whereas printed media does makes greater use of environmentally friendly sources for its production. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers states that: “Forestry, paper and packaging are among the most sustainable industries in existence.'” 2   1 NNIEAG (2011) Newsprint and Newspaper Industry Environmental Action Group Homepage. [online] [accessed 13th June 2011] 2 Two Sides (2011) Print and Paper is a Wasteful Product. [online] [accessed 16th June 2011] improve this
Newspapers offer a better reading experience than digital alternatives

Normal backlighted displays can be bad for the eyes, however there are other digital technologies which address this issue, for example Amazon’s Kindle e-reader using a technology called e-ink which simulates ink on a page and requires natural light to be read 1. It could be argued that the tactile argument is flawed, because if people did prefer the tactile experience, newspapers would not be in a state of severe decline. Furthermore the concept of what constitutes a better reading experience is subjective. Shorter, more to the point text and the ability to hyperlink to related pieces of content and access information in a non-linear way could be considered a much better experience compared to reading long passages of text in a linear fashion.    1 Popsci, (2010) Testing the Best: The Kindle's E Ink Pear Display [online][Accessed 2nd September 2011] improve this
Newspapers are a more trustworthy source of information than independent bloggers

As newspapers are funded by private companies they can be accused of avoiding to publish information which may damage their revenue streams, independent bloggers often do not have this issue so can be much more free in what they publish which is ultimately good for democracy. In addition to this journalists may vastly distort the truth in their reporting in order to satisfy advertisers which seek certain demographics, whereas independent bloggers do not have this concern. A consequence of online freedom is of course that anyone can publish anything but it should be down to the reader to decode what has been blogged and make up their own mind as to its accuracy, it is demeaning to suggest that consumers of news information are simply passive consumers. Professional journalists, even when based in an official setup and with a code of ethics, are not entirely guilt free in regards to publishing inaccurate information either, there are many instances where false information has been published, for example many journalists reported the potential link between MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccination and Autism in a sensationalized way which did not entirely relate to the research and which, as a result, caused a huge number of children not being immunized 1. Perhaps the most famous recent example where journalists have behaved unethically is the phone-hacking scandal in the UK 2. To call blogs ‘parasitic’ is also insulting and unfair. Many of them do their own research and cover issues not in the mainstream media. It’s not unique to blogging to discuss the work of others, and indeed many newspapers do so 3 So what’s the difference?  1 Deer, B. (2011) The MMR-Autism Scare: An Elaborate Fraud. [online] [accessed 13th June 2011] 2 BBC, (2011) Phone Hacking: US Senator Calls for News Corp Probe [online][accessed 2nd September 2011] 3 Online Journalism Review (2007) Are blogs a 'parasitic' medium? [online][Accessed on 2nd September 2011] improve this
The internet edits what you can see without your knowledge

While algorithms may filter out content which does not normally appeal to a particular reader the internet itself does not block access to any information, if someone wishes to seek out another view on a topic it can be easily found by changing a search term. The idea that having news personalized behind the scenes makes online news less trustworthy is a weak proposition as the personalization constantly changes along with the users unlike inflexible newspapers chasing particular demographics.   improve this
People no longer consume media in a linear way, people prefer to pick and choose what news they consume

With the development of Digital Video Recorders (DVRs) and more generally the internet people have come to no longer simply consume media in a linear fashion, they take a more fragmented approach. In news consumption people no longer want to simply have one newspaper with a vast array of topics inside. They want to pick and choose which stories and columns they consume, people now prefer to pull the content they want rather than have it pushed on them. In a digital world the news consumer can become their own editor and no longer need to rely entirely on old hierarchical structures. improve this
Newspapers cannot be environmentally sustained.

Newspapers have no place in the modern media landscape as they are not environmentally friendly, they are a waste of paper when there are many other my efficient ways in which news can be disseminated. For example a single annual subscription to the New York Times roughly generates 520lb of waste which equates to approximately 4.25 trees being cut down per reader per year 2, when you take into account all the other publications that printed throughout the world this equates to a lot of wastage of increasingly scarce natural resources which could be avoided. Using digital tools to distribute news is more efficient as you only use resources when the content is actually required rather than the print media method in which the product is printed when it may not be necessarily purchased and consumed. 1 ID2 (2011) Facts about Paper and Paper Waste. [online] [accessed 18th June 2011] improve this
Newspapers offer a better reading experience than digital alternatives

The experience of reading from a newspaper is a far better user experience than reading from a screen, reading from a screen for long periods of time is not only bad for the eyes but quite often becomes uncomfortable. A newspaper however requires natural light to be read and therefore is not as harsh on the eyes. It could also be suggested that people actually prefer the tactile physical experience of a newspaper or book over holding an electronic device, a poll taken on the Guardian 1 website found that 76.1% preferred books, i.e, a physical experience, over a digital one.   Video and audio-based advertisements placed online around the text can also disrupt the reading process, a problem, which does not afflict newspapers.   1 Guardian (2008) E-books or Real Books? [online] [accessed 13th June 2011] improve this
Newspapers are a more trustworthy source of information than independent bloggers

Online anyone can launch a blog and start publishing, these articles could potentially be false, badly-researched or overly bias to name but a few issues, this raises the question of quality control of information online and its trustworthiness. For example a blog purportedly written by a gay woman in Damascus trying to avoid state persecution over her sexuality turned out to be a hoax, the identity of the blogger turned out to be straight 40 year old US man living in Edinburgh. 1 As newspapers are most often subject to regulations regarding what they print as well as being subject to market forces it is on the whole unlikely that they will publish something that is factually inaccurate, at least not with intent. Journalists working at newspapers are well trained and more often than not sign up to voluntary ethic codes in order to be accepted as trustworthy sources 2. Bloggers on the other hand can publish without any formal training and for the most part stay anonymous, which could lead to falsehoods being spread. Bloggers are often described as “parasitic,” since they criticize “old media,” whilst simultaneously relying upon it for the basis of their factual information. Yet Bloggers do not tend to be the groups funding news reporters across the world 3. 1. BBC. (2011) Syria Gay Girl in Damascus Blog a Hoax By a US Man. [online] [accessed 15th June 2011] 2.Pew Research Center, 2011 3. Murley, B and Roberts, C. (2005) Biting the Hand that Feeds: Blogs and second-level agenda setting. In: Convergence Conference. BYU (Brigham Young University), 2005. improve this
The internet edits what you can see without your knowledge

When you purchase a newspaper you know what biases they may contain, getting news online can be more troublesome as services such as Google and Facebook use algorithms which personalize content for you based on your interest. This creates what is known as a “filter bubble”1 whereby online services filter out news which may not be of normal interest to the reader, the problem with this is that it is often done without the user being aware of it, which clearly raises issues of trust. 1 Praiser, E. (2011) Beware Online 'Filter Bubbles' [online] [accessed 15th June 2011]
In the internet age immediacy is everything, newspapers can often contain out of date information by the time they hit the shelves.

It is true that newspapers cannot adapt as quickly as other types of media to breaking news events, however there are advantages to having slower news. Reporting news events immediately as they happen often leads to speculation as the bigger picture is often unknown by the journalists, therefore having time to digest the given event can allow for more accurate and detailed reporting rather than broadcasting facts which may not be immediately confirmable, a longer time before publication then is likely to result in more accurate, less speculative information. For example many TV news outlets were reporting, when the first plane to hit the World Trade Center on the 11th September, that it was an unfortunate accident. It of course later emerged to be the work of terrorists. improve this
Newspapers are financially unviable

This argument overstates the situation. Newspapers are less profitable than they were at their peak, but newspapers have been affected by other media ever since the invention of the radio. Much of the evidence the proposition has raised focuses on the Western World. According to the World Association of Newspapers, more newspapers are being published than at any time previously. There are strong growth markets in Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. The Middle East and Africa also sustain strong markets, though there is less growth 1. Furthermore, Newspaper advertising is an effective revenue source. Advertisements in the traditional print tend to get more attention from readers than on the internet, because people read papers more intently. Finally, some newspapers are actively engaging with the internet by charging for premium content to their services. Even if they lose some customers, this is made up by a net increase in revenue2. 1 World Association of Newspapers (2010) World Press Trends: Advertising Revenues To Increase, Circulation Relatively Stable. [online] [Accessed 2nd September 2011] 2 Columbia Journalism Review, (2009) Print Newspapers Still Dominate Readers' Attention. [online] [Accessed 2nd September 2011] improve this