PrepTest 130

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Tangible-object theory of copyright explained (own physical object; owner can do anything with object)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Tangible-object theory proponents' views:
    • Copyright/IP rights extensions of rights to concrete, physical objects (first sentence)
    • They assume that all copyrightable things can be given physical form and that ownership gives the owner rights to do what they please with the object (second and third sentences)
  • Examples of physical form copyrightable objects can take, according to tangible-object theory proponents:
    • Manuscript, videotape (second sentence)
  • Examples of rights that ownership grants, according to tangible-object theory proponents:
    • Hiding or displaying, copying, destroying, transferring (fourth and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "depends on" (second sentence); "also accepts" (third sentence); "may essentially do whatever he or she pleases" (third sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Retained rights explained (owner can keep rights after transferring, like the right to copy or adapt)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of "retained rights": The rights kept by the original owner after transferring the object (second sentence)
  • Example of another area of law that uses retained rights:
    • Property law, where the original owner may retain easements and building restrictions (third sentence)
  • Examples of retained rights in copyright law:
    • Original copyrighter may retain rights to copy, use, or produce similar things, like the public performance of a musical score (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Tangible-object theory's proponents (justifies IP rights without showing that you can own ideas) and author's rebuttal (can copyright things that aren't physical; ideas more important; poet example)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Tangible-object theory proponents' views:
    • The chief advantage of the tangible-object theory is that it can show how one can acquire intellectual property rights, but without having to base those rights on the belief that one can own ideas (first sentence)
  • Author's view:
    • Tangible-object theory can't account for the fact that some copyrightable things don't have a physical form and, more importantly, that the creation of the ideas is more valuable than the creation of the object (second and third sentences)
  • Example of a copyrightable thing that doesn't have a physical form, according to the author:
    • Sports broadcast (second sentence)
  • Example of an instance where the creation of the ideas is more valuable than the creation of the object, according to the author:
    • A poet dictating a poem to a friend who writes it — under tangible-object theory, the friend would own the poem (fourth and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "widely accepted but problematic" (first sentence); "seems plausible" (second sentence); "cannot accommodate the standard assumption" (second sentence); "More importantly" (third sentence); "does not acknowledge that in many cases the work of conceiving ideas is more crucial and more valuable" (third sentence); "seem to be no ground" (last sentence)

Main Point: Tangible-object theory may seem plausible, but it's an incorrect approach to intellectual property because it can't account for all copyrightable materials and puts more importance on protecting objects than ideas.

Criticizing a Viewpoint: This passage most closely fits the Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author describes a view held by another person or group and then criticizes their view. Importantly, the author's argument should focus primarily on why the view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided. That fits this passage well, where the author criticizes tangible-object theory — particularly the fact that it overlooks certain copyrightable works (like sports broadcasts) and rests on the misguided assumption that the creation of a physical object is more important than the creation of the original idea.

In a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage, the main point is typically a summary of the author's criticisms. We can find those criticisms in the third paragraph, so our main point summarized the author's two main issues with tangible-object theory.

*As is often the case with passages that fall into the Critical Meta-Structure family, this passage could be described by at least one other Meta-Structure from this family. You could certainly call this a Correcting the Record passage. And if we take tangible-object theory as a debate between two different justifications of copyright law (one that says that you cannot own ideas, and one that says you can), we could even call this a Resolving a Debate passage.

Examples: Examples are the most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage. Examples litter this passage. The author almost can't help themselves, illustrating every point they make with an example. We'll almost certainly get a question about one or more of these examples — perhaps even a Role of Detail question about what general point one of these examples illustrates — so we should have the examples highlighted or underlined and have the general point they illustrate summarized in our notes.

Note the way that the last example is phrased — "Suppose that…" This type of hypothetical tends to be asked about, with the answer referring to it as a hypothetical or a thought experiment, so let's keep that in mind.