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.
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 ██████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ █████████████████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ████
Question Type
Stated
This is a Stated question about the theory that intellectual-property rights can be seen as the logical extension of the right to own tangible objects. In the passage, this is known as the tangible-object theory. We see in P1 what premise this theory depends on: the idea that every copyrightable work can be represented physically.
a
any work entitled ██ █████████████████████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ████
This is stated in P1. The claim in (A) is the idea that the tangible-object theory depends on.
88%
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 P1 that the tangible-object theory allows for the transfer of ownership rights. This shows that it’s not the case that only the original creator of a work can hold the copyright for that work.
2%
c
the work of ███████ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ █████
Unsupported. The tangible-object theory doesn’t comment on this comparison. The distinction between the person who comes up with an idea and the person who puts the idea into a tangible form is brought up by the author in P3; this idea is not discussed in the context of what claim the tangible-object theory depends on.
6%
d
in a few ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██████
Actually, the tangible-object theory justifies intellectual property rights without relying on the idea that abstract, intangible things can be owned. It’s the author who says that sometimes, intangible things can be owned.
2%
e
the owner of ██ ████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██
This is just an example of one thing that people can do to something that they own; this is not a necessary condition of the tangible-object theory. The tangible-object theory accepts the claim in (E) as a premise, but the passage does not state that the tangible-object theory depends on this claim.
1%
Difficulty
88% of people who answer get this correct
This is a moderately difficult question.
It is somewhat easier than other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%136
145
75%154
Analysis
Stated
Stated
Stems asking us to identify an idea that appears explicitly in the passage (as opposed to ideas that are merely implied).
Critique or debate passages contain multiple points of view on a particular subject. Sometimes the author takes sides and participates in the critique or debate, other times the author merely reports the debate.
