The underlying premise is that copyright law will help to protect intellectual exploitation from unauthorized utilization. The Laws also provide for "fair use," the restricted use of another's creation without asking permission. Of course, at the time of inception, these laws referenced the copying by hand of small passages and quotes since there were no VCRs, photocopiers, or computers. Certainly, changes in technology changed the rules, making copyright law a contentious problem that will require continual revision.

In the age of digitization and cyberspace, fixation becomes problematic because new technologies do away with the physical tangibility that copyright was originally founded upon. The arrival of digital processing meant that any work could be expressed in an anonymous series of ones and zeros, making digitization a revolutionary development in terms of intellectual property. The binary code is a universal medium that collapses the distinctions between forms of intellectual and artistic creations such as Art, Music, Video, and Text. These can all be digitized with computers.

Before the introduction of computer technology, it was always possible to distinguish between a literary or dramatic work, a painting, a musical or a sound recording. The works themselves looked very different, but by simply looking at a CD-ROM, it is impossible to say what kinds of works are recorded on it because it could be music, words, or images. The contours of "hardcopy" fade as information moves between computers. Information in digital form can be easily manipulated (making new hybrid works), copied, and transformed into an interactive work.

When Leonardo da Vinci died, he knew of twelve copies of "The Last Supper," works of former apprentices. The genuine work consumed two years of his life, but da Vinci could gain consolation in the fact that, without lots of talent and years of labour, no one would be able to copy his painting. In contrast, today's imaging and desktop publishing tools let anyone easily and inexpensively duplicate, manipualte, or reprint the works of an artist. Each copy of a digital work is identical to its original, nor is it restricted to images (Chudy).

By putting a work on any communications network, the artist makes it accessible to many, and easily reproducible. Should artists receive fair reward for the work they do because it is a contribution to society? In general, it is difficult for the public to comprehend that law protects items they can have in exchange for their passwords, and most often in their own homes. I guess the question artists and musicians need to ask, is whether they can rely on users being ethical and fair, or if not, trust that somehow laws will protect their work. Some would consider that mentality quite naíve, especially given the ethical, legal, and cultural differences across the world. There are no national boundaries in cyberspace, and therefore, it seems sensible that artists will begin to see that technological encryption systems are the best bet for protection of their creations, and that by using Copyright Notices the public may begin to understand there is ownership involved.