Q20

[pinkdatura]

This passage gave me a hard time, especially the function of paragraph 2 in the whole passage, is this "retained right" part of tangible theory or somehow used to support tangible theory?
Could anybody kindly answer me?

for Q 20 Inference
I hope that I could be corrected if my thoughts about it is wrong:
A total distorted and irrelevant, as according to my understanding, retained right is part of tangible theory
B "no valid theoretical basis" too extreme, even tangible theory can not cover it, there might be other theories
C the legal right to own the abstract idea is the thing tangible theory strive to avoid, so we can not say if they have or not have hat legal right under tangible theory
D yes
E assume copyright of evanescent things is mentioned in paragraph as one thing Tangible theory fail to cover, there's no comment on whether it is correct or common to assume its capability to be copyrighted

[aileenann]

Hi there!

Firstly, I think these retained rights are part of actual copyright law that is consistent with tangible-object theory. It's another way in which tangible-object theory can consistently explain copyright law.

I agree with all your points about how to eliminate the wrong answers. I'll just supplement by explaining why I like the correct answer. (D) is quite bland and gets to the heart of what tangible-object theory is about - the idea that whatever is embodied in the original work is something the creator has a right to own.

Thanks for posting!

[Jmcohen87]

I respectfully disagree, lsat geek..

The Question asks for what the author is most likely to believe. The author isn't fond of tangible object theory bec it goes against standard assumptions such as evanescent things like live broadcasts of sporting events can be copyrighted. It also doesn't acknowledge how important the conception of ideas are. So it's likely the author will have his own justification for what he feels the tangible object theory doesnt help justify. A new theory, if you will.

What theory would that be? Something that would assume or presuppose that a works creator (like a poet who thought of the idea) originally ( when the idea is first conceived) owns the idea embodied in that work. So therefore if a poet has an idea and
tells someone else to copy it down the poet with this theory will own the rights bec he is the creator and he originLly owns the ideas embodied in that work, even if someone else did the action of writing it down.

What do you think?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let me step in for Aileen here and agree with you, Jmcohen87. Though I think Aileen was accurate in her post. I don't think she implied that the author is fond of tangible object theory. The first line of the 2nd paragraph does suggest that tangible-object theory would support that the creator of a work would thereby own the rights to that work, but you're correct that the author has an issue with tangible object theory. In the final paragraph the author suggests that tangible-object theory puts too much emphasis on the object and not enough on the creator. Answer choice (D) represents the author's emphasis on the original creator's rights.

For future readers, let's take a look at the incorrect answers:

(A) the author does not criticize theorists (proponents of tangible-object theory) on the grounds that they do not know what it means to transfer property. The author attacks those theorists on the grounds that it does not accomodate evanescent things and that it does not acknowledge that in some cases conceiving ideas is more crucial than putting them into tangible form.
(B) is the opposite of what the author believes.
(C) is unsupported. The passage doesn't address whether the author believes that existing statutes would provide such a protection.
(E) is unsupported. The passage does not state whether the author believes that is common, but incorrect, to assume that evanescent things can be copyrighted.

Hope that helps!

[zainrizvi]

I just don't see how (D) is supported at all. Isn't (D) actually the opposite of what the passage states? He said that tangible object theory is wrong because it assumes that the friend created the poem, rather than the poet (i.e. it presupposes that a work's creator originally owns the idea embodied in that work). Instead, he suggests we should focus on the original owner of the work and how that relates to claiming copyright.

What am I missing here?

Thanks!

[nickhall]

I just don't see how (D) is supported at all. Isn't (D) actually the opposite of what the passage states? He said that tangible object theory is wrong because it assumes that the friend created the poem, rather than the poet (i.e. it presupposes that a work's creator originally owns the idea embodied in that work). Instead, he suggests we should focus on the original owner of the work and how that relates to claiming copyright.

What am I missing here?

Thanks!

I stumbled on this question just now; this passage destroyed me even though I feel that I understood all of the components.

In this inference question, I don't believe we are concerned with what the author believes. We are merely looking for evidence of one of these statements in the passage.

D states that an "adequate theoretical justification of copyright would likely presuppose that a work's creator originally owns the ideas embodied in that work."

Some people do believe that the "tangible-object theory" is "adequate" -- otherwise, there definitely wouldn't be any proponents. Adequate? They find it enough, or adequate, that a work's creator originally owns the ideas embodied in that [their] work.

Maybe I am making assumptions, but we're not really looking at what the AUTHOR thinks. We are looking for evidence that one of these answer choices is supported in the passage.

My two cents; feel free to critique if I am completely misguided!

[gaheexlee]

I'm probably mis-reading something but I thought (E) was supported by lines 41-44 when the author said: "[the theory] cannot accommodate the standard assumption that such evanescent things as live broadcasts... can be copyrighted."

"Standard assumption" = common
"Cannot accommodate" = incorrect

Can anyone help?

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your question, gaheexlee.

Questions like this one speak to the value of creating a passage map that identifies the author’s point of view.

Let’s quickly trace out a quick passage map:

P1: Proponents of tangible object theory
Do we know where the author stands in this paragraph? Hmm…. No… the author always attributes beliefs to “proponents” here.

P2: Concepts of “original producer” and “retained rights.” Author does not argue for or against tangible object theory here; rather, he provides background information.

P3. Author’s point of view!!! Note the indicator word “but” in line 39. Pivots like “but” “however” and “nevertheless” often indicate the author’s point of view.

Here, the author makes unattributed claims – in other words, he states his own argument. He argues AGAINST tangible-object theory. He points to scenarios that are not covered by tangible object theory but nevertheless should fall under copyright. The live broadcast example is one such scenario. He says it is a “standard assumption” that live broadcasts can be copyrighted. Yet tangible object theory “cannot accommodate” this idea. The author implies that tangible object theory incorrectly leaves out expressions like live broadcasts and dictated poems.

I totally see why (E) is tempting, but it is only half correct. The author does believe it is “common” to believe evanescent things can be copyrighted. However, he does not believe this belief is incorrect.

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

[jewels0602]

I had the right idea in mind about what the author supported, that if someone thought of an idea, that thinker is an owner, and not necessarily the person who manifests the idea into tangible being.

What REALLY threw me off with D is the wording... I thought "work's creator" meant that the work was a concrete/tangible thing that was made and not idea itself so essentially, I thought D was saying exactly opposite of what the author seems to support

I was really torn about pick C and D because of this confusion


Ughh the LSATs not only fry your brain but deep fry it and throw it in a volcano

[tommywallach]

Ha! Very true.

[mshinners]

D) This is supported by the example of the dictating poet from lines 47-53. Immediately before this example, the author states that the TOT cannot accommodate certain types of situation, "more importantly" ones where the conceiver isn't the one who creates the tangible object. The author definitely believes that a shortcoming of TOT is when the creator isn't given the copyright, so we can infer that she'd believe an adequate theory of copyright would assume the creator owns those ideas. This is backed up by the finished statement that the poet would have no ground for copyright UNLESS the poet already owns the ideas. Since the author has already established the conceiver as being more important, we can infer that this exception should apply, and the poet should be said to own the ideas in that work.

E) While the author agrees that it's common to assume evanescent things can be copyrighted, she never states that it's incorrect to make that assumption. Without the "but incorrect", this would be our answer.

[Tasos.Kanopoulos]

The "flaw," so to speak, in answer choice E) is somewhat subtle. As others have mentioned, the statement is half-correct -- "standard"/"common" seem interchangeable.

The "correctness" of this assumption (as well as the respective support in the passage, or lack thereof) is the problem: while the author suggests that it would be "incorrect to assume that such evanescent things...can be copyrighted [according to the tenets of tangible-object theory]," the author never addresses the "correctness" of said assumption within the scope of all current/proposed "theories" of copyright law.

In other words, within a framework of copyright that acknowledges "abstract [and] intangible" or "evanescent" things, the assumption in answer choice E) would be correct rather than "incorrect" (one could reasonably expect "live broadcasts of sporting events" to, in fact, be protected by copyright law in the aforementioned scenario).

I hope this helps!

[AlisaS425]

The above discussions were all enlightening, and here I just want to add some 2 cents of my thought:

Many of the above were talking about (E), which I found pretty tempting during review.

I think the line reference could be lines 39-44. Here, the author claims that T.O.T.'s explanation seems plausible, BUT it can't accommodate the standard assumption that "such evanescent things as live broadcasts of sporting events can be copyrighted". The word "BUT" used by the author made me feel like the author's saying that the standard assumption is okay and should be accepted. If so, then I guess (E) would be right if it said "it is common and correct to assume that ...".

Please correct me if I'm wrong