Q18

[denisel0807]

Can someone explain this question and abstract it out?

The relationship I see between copyright law and Passage A is that it is not cost-effective way to protect material.

Passage B similarly states that IP law is not effective way of protecting material.

I can also see the relationship that copyright law is the most relevant body of law for Passage A and that in Passage B, trade secrecy laws are a potential route for protection.

I don't see how the potential viability of trade secrecy law in cooking and the potential viability of copyright law for comedy better matches the ineffective legals mean analogy as a relationship.

[ohthatpatrick]

I prephrased this question wrong. My understanding after the first read was off in some respects, so I was thinking that both passages were saying "they don't have legal protection, but their industry enforces IP rights via social norms".

So I almost would have guessed that the relationship between comedians and copyright law was the same as between chefs and copyright law.

(A) This answer would be tempting if it said 'intellectual property LAW', but it's just saying intellectual property. The intellectual property of comedians is jokes and that of chefs is recipes. This doesn't match up with "copyright law" at all.

(B) ends up not working , because "recipes are RARELY patentable" (43), whereas "copyright ... applies to jokes and comedic routines" (3-5).

That would be a bad analogy. Chefs CAN'T use the law to protect their recipes, most of the time. Comedians DON'T use the law to protect their jokes, most of the time.

(C) This has nothing to do with a law. We need a match for 'copyright law'.
The relationship between comedians and JOKES is analogous to
the relationship between chefs and COMBOS OF INGREDIENTS IN A RECIPE

(D) Trade secrecy law? I wouldn't have thought of that on my own, but it's a law (like copyright law), so we should look up what's going on with trade secrecy law in the passage.

Trade secrecy law offers protection to chefs, but chefs very seldom use them.
Copyright law offers protection to comedians, but comedians very seldom use them.
(line 5-7: copyright infringement suits are all but unheard of)

So this analogy actually seems to work pretty well!

(E) Social norms function the same way in both passages; THEY are the enforcement mechanism for both chefs and comedians.


(D) is the correct answer. Hope this helps.

[JenniferK632]

Your explanation for D makes a lot of sense, and when I got this wrong that's where I landed too.

I initially chose (B) because of this line in Passage B: "The function of this norm is analogous to patenting in that the community acknowledges the right of a recipe inventor to exclude others from practicing his or her invention, even if all the information required to do so is publicly available."

Comedians' jokes are all publicly available, chefs' food is publicly available at restaurants, and their competitors shouldn't copy them even if it is available. That's why I thought copyright:patent. Where do you think I went wrong?

I prephrased this question wrong. My understanding after the first read was off in some respects, so I was thinking that both passages were saying "they don't have legal protection, but their industry enforces IP rights via social norms".

So I almost would have guessed that the relationship between comedians and copyright law was the same as between chefs and copyright law.

(A) This answer would be tempting if it said 'intellectual property LAW', but it's just saying intellectual property. The intellectual property of comedians is jokes and that of chefs is recipes. This doesn't match up with "copyright law" at all.

(B) ends up not working , because "recipes are RARELY patentable" (43), whereas "copyright ... applies to jokes and comedic routines" (3-5).

That would be a bad analogy. Chefs CAN'T use the law to protect their recipes, most of the time. Comedians DON'T use the law to protect their jokes, most of the time.

(C) This has nothing to do with a law. We need a match for 'copyright law'.
The relationship between comedians and JOKES is analogous to
the relationship between chefs and COMBOS OF INGREDIENTS IN A RECIPE

(D) Trade secrecy law? I wouldn't have thought of that on my own, but it's a law (like copyright law), so we should look up what's going on with trade secrecy law in the passage.

Trade secrecy law offers protection to chefs, but chefs very seldom use them.
Copyright law offers protection to comedians, but comedians very seldom use them.
(line 5-7: copyright infringement suits are all but unheard of)

So this analogy actually seems to work pretty well!

(E) Social norms function the same way in both passages; THEY are the enforcement mechanism for both chefs and comedians.


(D) is the correct answer. Hope this helps.

[dmitry]

The trick here is one they'll pull out again and again: throw a term that is definitely mentioned in a relevant way, but doesn't answer the precise question that was asked. Patent law grabs our attention because it was mentioned twice, but the first mention is to say that patent law generally does not apply to recipes, and the second case (the one you cited) is presented as an analogy to the norms used by chefs to protect their recipes.

But what is the question asking for, precisely? It wants something analogous to copyright in passage A: something that is in theory a usable protection, but that isn't typically used in practice. If we look for that in particular, we land on the part about trade secrecy law, and nowhere else. I hope that helps!