In the NY Times “Bits Debate: Is Copy Protection Needed or Futile?” Rick Cotton states, “There may not be a single answer to this question. It may vary by medium, by technological environment an by groups of creators,” which, in my opinion, nails the problem concerning IP laws. If there’s anything all judges, lawyers, law professors and students would agree on is the fact that the law is difficult to interpret, and incredibly vague. And while in the ideal world, we’d all love it the law as clear as glass, we realize that the law cannot anticipate every situation that may arise around issues of IP. Nor can laws predict the future so that they can evolve on their own to suite the changing IP climate. As a result, laws are purposely written to be very broad. Because of the breath of the laws and of technology itself, IP law must be adapted to different mediums and technologies differently. However, the law cannot be cover every individual piece of technology that’s introduced, so we’re left with a problem of trying to adapt these very long, involved & tedious to different IP issues and technologies with no regards to the different needs and wants of each piece of development or “creator.”