- Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:52 pm
#28891
Hi est15 and mpoulson,
I'll try to answer both of your questions at the same time. Both of you, it sounds like, eliminated B because you felt that it was too narrow to encompass the whole passage. I think your reaction is probably due to the critique of the tangible-object theory only arising at the end. However, if you read closely, the author sets up his/her thesis throughout the passage, while giving the background necessary. I have shown this below in bold. Put another one, it would be difficult for the author to criticize a theory without providing an explanation of what the theory does and doesn't do. Answer choice (A) is actually the narrower of the two choices because it addresses only the background information about the tangible-object theory but not the author's views on the theory. Answer choice (A) also fails to make the very important distinction between the proponents' views and the author's views. The skill of keeping various viewpoints distinct is a key skill tested in the reading comprehension portion of the LSAT.
Proponents of the tangible-object theory of copyright argue (suggests author's views are distinct from proponents of the theory) that copyright and similar intellectual property rights can be explained as logical extensions of the right to own concrete, tangible objects. This (5) view depends on the claim (doesn't say whether this claim is justified) that every copyrightable work can be manifested in some physical form, such as a manuscript or a videotape. It also accepts the premise that ownership of an object confers a number of rights on the owner, who may essentially do whatever he or (10) she pleases with the object to the extent that this does not violate other people’s rights. One may, for example, hide or display the object, copy it, or destroy it. One may also transfer ownership of it to another. In creating a new and original object from (15) materials that one owns, one becomes the owner of that object and thereby acquires all of the rights that ownership entails. But if the owner transfers ownership of the object, the full complement of rights is not necessarily transferred to the new owner; instead, the (20) original owner may retain one or more of these rights. This notion of retained rights is common in many areas of law; for example, the seller of a piece of land may retain certain rights to the land in the form of easements or building restrictions. Applying the notion (25) of retained rights to the domain of intellectual property, theorists argue that copyrighting a work secures official recognition of one’s intention to retain certain rights to that work. Among the rights typically retained by the original producer of an object such as a literary (30) manuscript or a musical score would be the right to copy the object for profit and the right to use it as a guide for the production of similar or analogous things--for example, a public performance of a musical score. (35) According to proponents of the tangible-object theory, its chief advantage is that it justifies intellectual property rights without recourse to the widely accepted but problematic supposition that one can own abstract, intangible things such as ideas. But while this account (40) seems plausible (note the shift from proponents of the theory to the author's own views) for copyrightable entities that do, in fact, have enduring tangible forms, it cannot accommodate the standard assumption that such evanescent things as live broadcasts of sporting events can be copyrighted. More importantly, it does not (45) acknowledge that in many cases the work of conceiving ideas is more crucial and more valuable than that of putting them into tangible form. Suppose that a poet dictates a new poem to a friend, who writes it down on paper that the friend has supplied. The (50) creator of the tangible object in this case is not the poet but the friend, and there would seem to be no ground for the poet’s claiming copyright unless the poet can be said to already own the ideas expressed in the work. (This example is meant to show the limits of the theory.)
