What are your thoughts on this passage? Agree or disagree? When considering copyright agreements in terms of new media, there are two standards of interpretation: the strict standard and the reasonableness standard. The strict standard limits media use to the express terms laid out in the copyright license. This standard generally favors the licensor. In the case Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., the court put forth that this interpretation is intended to protect the rights of authors and encourage them to create. The reasonableness standard interprets copyright agreements so that all media reasonably described in the terms of the license might be used. In Bartsch v. MGM, Inc., the court determined that this broader view of interpretation benefits the public by promoting greater distribution of copyrighted materials. This method often interprets the license in favor of the grantee. This being said, I tend to prefer the reasonableness method. I am in favor of greater distribution of copyrighted materials. I believe that wider availability of creative content is more likely to encourage creative expression than protecting the rights of artists. Allowing existing works to spread to new mediums provides more content for other authors to be inspired by, broadening the use of that medium for creative expression. Overall, I think it better fulfills the purpose of copyright as laid out in the Constitution. Further, as seen in Bartsch v. MGM, Inc., the reasonableness standard does not always work in favor of the grantee. The reasonableness standard, though using a broader interpretation of the license agreement, seems as if it has the potential to be a fairer interpretation for both the licensor and the licensee than does the strict standard