PrepTest 130

[lcid:3617] Prep Test 130 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 14-20  .        Proponents of the tangible–object theory of  . copyright argue that copyright and similar intellectual–  . property Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

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.

Meta-Structure?

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.

Last Thoughts?

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.

Question prompt

Legal theorists supporting the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review your notes to recall the views of the proponents of the tangible-object theory, then find an answer that they'd agree with

Answer Anticipation

This question stem asks us to infer a belief the proponents of the tangible-object theory would agree with. Often, one's views are described at length throughout the passage, so reviewing the passage or anticipating what the correct answer will say is not a wise investment of our limited time. Instead, we can remind ourselves of what we noted about their views, and go on to the answer choices. We'll eliminate each one we know is wrong (for instance, if we know it contradicts their views) and table any choice that includes a detail we don't remember reading or that isn't reflected in our notes. If we see a detail we recall, even vaguely, or we see an answer choice that's reflected in our notes, we can review the passage to see if we can find the supporting text.In this case, we made several notes about the views held by tangible-object theory's proponents. We noted that they think the copyrighter "own[s the] physical object" and that the "owner can do anything with [the] object." We also noted they believe the "owner can keep rights after transferring, like the right to copy or adapt." Finally, we wrote that they believe that tangible-object theory "justifies IP rights without showing that you can own ideas." For the last note, we marked that this was a belief held by the tangible-object theory's proponents, so the correct answer will almost certainly relate to that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    A literary work cannot Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say the proponents' belief that tangible-object theory justifies IP rights without showing that you can own ideas? If not, does it relate to their belief that the copyrighter owns the physical object, can do anything they want with the object, or can keep rights after transferring, like the right to copy or adapt?

    Nope. The proponents of the tangible-object theory believe that fixing intellectual property in a tangible form creates a protected object (P1, S1). There's no requirement that the creation of that object be done through an established publisher. If the book was created without a publisher (or through an upstart publisher), the book could still receive copyright protection.

  2. B
    Most legal systems explicitly Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say the proponents' belief that tangible-object theory justifies IP rights without showing that you can own ideas? If not, does it relate to their belief that the copyrighter owns the physical object, can do anything they want with the object, or can keep rights after transferring, like the right to copy or adapt?

    Nope, so we can cross (B) off. Besides, the passage doesn't discuss other legal systems, let alone provide information that would let us infer what the proponents think about "most" of them.

  3. C
    Copyright protects the right Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say the proponents' belief that tangible-object theory justifies IP rights without showing that you can own ideas? If not, does it relate to their belief that the copyrighter owns the physical object, can do anything they want with the object, or can keep rights after transferring, like the right to copy or adapt?

    Nope. In fact, this contradicts their belief the owner can do anything they want with the copywritten object. So, we can confidently cross (C) off. After all, the passage claims that the owner "may essentially do whatever he or she pleases with the object" as long as it doesn't "violate other people's rights" (P1, S3). Further, it's implied by one of the passage's examples that the owner would be able to copy a musical score to hand out to musicians who are going to publicly perform that piece (P2, S4).

  4. D
    Some works deserving of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say the proponents' belief that tangible-object theory justifies IP rights without showing that you can own ideas? If not, does it relate to their belief that the copyrighter owns the physical object, can do anything they want with the object, or can keep rights after transferring, like the right to copy or adapt?

    No, As the author highlights, the view of the tangible-object theory proponents depends on every copyrightable work being able to be manifested in some physical form, so, if anything, they'd disagree with this statement.

  5. E
    To afford patent protection Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Does this say the proponents' belief that tangible-object theory justifies IP rights without showing that you can own ideas? If not, does it relate to their belief that the copyrighter owns the physical object, can do anything they want with the object, or can keep rights after transferring, like the right to copy or adapt?

    Finally, yes. The proponents claim this is the "chief advantage" of their theory, as the idea that people can own abstract ideas is a "problematic supposition" (P3, S1). Since this answer reflects the tangible-object theory proponents' beliefs, it's correct.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Question 7 replies

    Started by meisen

View all discussions Start a discussion