Self-study
P1
Proponents of the tangible-object theory of copyright argue that copyright and similar intellectual-property rights can be explained as logical extensions of the right to own concrete, tangible objects. ███
Proponents ·
of tangible-object theory of copyright
Copyrights and IP are logical extensions of the right to own concrete, tangible objects.
Proponents' Premise ·
Copyrightable works must be manifest in some physical form
If this is a necessary condition for the tangible-object theory, that's a major weakness...
Proponents' Premise ·
Ownership of object confers a number of rights to owner
E.g., right to hide; display; copy; destroy; transfer.
P2
██ ████████ █ ███ ███ ████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ █████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ███
Application ·
of tangible-object theory
Creating new object from gives all rights to owner. But transferring ownership of object doesn’t necessarily transfer all rights.
General ·
Retained rights is common in other areas of law
e.g., real estate
Application ·
of retained rights
Original producer of object often retain the rights to copy for profit and to use for creation of derivative works.
P3
█████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████████ ███████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ████████████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ████ ███ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ███
Proponents' Claim ·
Chief advantage of tangible-object theory
It justifies IP rights without relying on ownership of abstract entities.
Author’s Critique ·
Tangible-object theory cannot apply to non-tangible things
E.g., live broadcast of a sporting event
Author’s Critique ·
Tangible-object theory fails to acknowledge that value is in the idea, not the physical form
Example ·
The poet v. the transcriber
Reveals weakness in tangible-object theory. Clearly it should be the poet that owns the poem, not the friend who give the poem a tangible form.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
19.
The passage provides the most ███████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
In most transactions █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████████████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████
Unsupported. The passage only
b
The notion of ████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████████ █████████
Unsupported.
Just because the author only chooses to discuss the notion of retained rights in intellectual property in
c
The idea that █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ████ █ ███████████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ █████████
In order to support (C), we just need to show that it is possible to transfer the right to copy an item for profit under tangible-object theory. We know that when one owns an object, one may
d
Ownership of intellectual ████████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ ██ █████
Unsupported. We don’t know what happens under many real-world legal systems.
e
Protection of computer ████████ █████ █████████████████████ ███ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ██ █ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████
Unsupported. The passage doesn’t give this kind of restriction for intellectual property protections. From the passage, we can’t infer this kind of necessary condition for protecting computer programs.