QCQ1: “Yet what were these words worth—to Siegel, or Silliphant, or their audience—in 1958? And again: what was the line worth when Bob Dylan heard it?” Art is made for interpretation. Does copywriting become “better” if its interpretation instead of upright plagiarism? Because art is made to be interpreted by the public, is inspiration based on the interpretation considered plagiarism, and what is the line between interpretation and plagiarism? Is there a tangible line?

QCQ2: “copyright is a ‘right’ in no absolute sense; it is a government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results” I am not entirely sure I agree with this, as when somebody creates something, copyright is a way to claim a level of credit for their effort. As we live in a commercially and financially driven world, wouldn’t it only be fair for people to take credit for their work? If no work was copyrighted then there would be no driving industry for the arts in our society. Do we need copywriting to maintain the artistic industries?