Self-paced
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
17.
Suppose an inventor describes an ██████████ ████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████████ ███ █ █████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███████████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ████ ███████
a
Only the engineer ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ █████████
The tangible-object theory is based on the physical representation of ideas. Because it was the engineer who created the tangible representation of the idea, under the tangible-object theory, it’s the engineer who can claim the invention as intellectual property.
b
Only the inventor ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ █████████
The tangible-object theory is based on the physical representation of ideas. In the example, the inventor only described the idea. The inventor didn’t create the tangible representation of the idea, so the inventor doesn’t have the right to claim the invention as intellectual property.
c
The inventor and ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ █████████
The tangible-object theory is based on the physical representation of ideas. The tangible-object theory as described in the passage doesn’t say anything about conditions in which the creator of something shares the intellectual property rights with the person who came up with the original idea, so this outcome isn’t supported by the passage.
d
The engineer is ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████
The passage does not outline any necessary conditions under which a creator can claim something that they created as intellectual property, so this is not supported.
e
The inventor is ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████
The tangible-object theory is based on the physical representation of ideas. In the example, the inventor only described the idea. The inventor didn’t make the tangible representation of the idea, so the inventor doesn’t have the right to claim the invention as intellectual property.