I think we need to separate the analytical question of whether something would qualify for protection under the act from the practical reality of enforcing any rights that might be afforded under the act. I think those are two very different inquiries.
I would like to just freelance a little bit here and pivot on the point that you've made. I think it ties into some of the other questions that have been put forward here today.
Speaking personally, I think there is a tendency in the copyright community for the ratchet to go only in a single direction, and for rights to continually expand. I think we have to be cognizant of the fact that all of us—whether as individuals, as consumers, as creators or as entities who disseminate or otherwise exploit copyright—simultaneously occupy multiple roles within the copyright ecosystem. We both benefit and—I hesitate to say we are the victims—bear the burden of those expanded rights.
It's not always the case that copyright is the proper mechanism for recognizing what are otherwise entirely justifiable claims.