Should the government allow digital publishers to place locks on their content (MP3s, etc)?

No, and piracy of content that is no longer legally obtainable through official channels should be legalized.

it depends on the appropriation of the content

No, Because Copyright Law Should Be Abolished

this is a garbo question please ask easier

Not everything

Yes, as long as public libraries are sufficiently funded to provide these for free

yes unless its fair-use, non commercial

This is a complex issue and needs to be looked at more carefully.

Yes, but there could be a time limit imposed like any copyright.

Yes, but copyright protection periods should be reduced

Yes, but set limits on the price of media and reduce punishments for violating copyright laws for individuals.

Yes, as long as the fair right system isn’t abused

For kids under age of 18

Don't now enough about it

Yes, but they should be undone after 5 years.

They should protect artist but that means also reinforcing and protecting fair use. As most music is made with similar notes and beats. ie. the lady gaga lawsuit but also online content like the court case with H3H3 vs Hoss

Not the government’s business

I think as long as the content was used in fair-use then leave them alone.

Yes, but the government also needs to protect fair use.

This isn’t a government purpose!

I don't believe that pirating for an individual's personal use should have any serious legal consequences. However, claiming the work as one's own, profiting from the work of someone else, or the vast distribution of a work you don't have the rights to should have consequences. Artists/content owners should be allowed to place locks on their content at their discretion, while also having realistic expectations of what it means to release their work digitally. The best efforts should be made to support the work of artists and to prevent the theft/other people profiting from the use of the work and illegal redistribution of their work.

No, because reliable news and educations shouldn't be for profit, and they already profit off the ads on the sites. I shouldn't have to pay to access articles that have information I need.

(This is a copy of someone else's stance that I fully agreed with. All credits to this go to @TOFUTOFU) I don't believe that pirating for an individual's personal use should have any serious legal consequences. However, claiming the work as one's own, profiting from the work of someone else, or the vast distribution of a work you don't have the rights to should have consequences. Artists/content owners should be allowed to place locks on their content at their discretion, while also having realistic expectations of what it means to release their work digitally. The best efforts should be made to support the work of artists and to prevent the theft/other people profiting from the use of the work and illegal redistribution of their work.

Artists should be allowed to place locks to protect their revenues, but there should not be academic paywalls.

No, no, no

Yes to an extent where fair use still exists.

Yes, but these locks must not be exempt from fair dealing uses (including personal research or study, protest, satire, etc.). Users must be able to circumvent these locks for purposes of fair dealing.