PT130.S2.P3.Q16

PrepTest 130 - Section 2 - Passage 3 - Question 16

Hide analysis
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
Show answer
16.

The passage most directly answers █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████

a

Do proponents of ███ ███████████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████

The passage does not mention existing copyright law, so we don’t know how the tangible-object theory interacts with current law.

4%
b

Do proponents of ███ ███████████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████

This is stated in P2. Here, we see that real estate is just one example out of many areas of law that involves retained rights.

67%
c

Has the tangible-object ██████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ █████████ █████ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████

The passage does not mention how cases are decided in the courts, so the passage does not answer this question.

4%
d

Does existing copyright ███ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███████████

The passage does not mention existing copyright law, so we don’t know if existing law protects against unauthorized copying in this scenario.

15%
e

Are there standard ██████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ████████

The passage doesn’t mention how most legal systems operate regarding the transfer of intellectual property, so we can’t answer this question.

10%

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic
More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Free practice test All free LSAT resources

Confirm action

Are you sure?