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
15.
According to the passage, the ██████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ █████████████████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ████
a
any work entitled ██ █████████████████████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ████
This is stated in
b
only the original ███████ ██ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ████
This is not something that the passage claims, so we can’t say that the theory depends on this claim. Additionally, we see in
c
the work of ███████ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ █████
Unsupported. The tangible-object theory doesn’t comment on this comparison. The
d
in a few ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██████
Actually, the tangible-object theory justifies intellectual property rights
e
the owner of ██ ████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██
This is just an