Reading Comprehension

PT123 · S1 · P1 · Q4 Course Packs and Copyrights

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

In a recent court case, a copy-shop owner was accused of violating copyright law when, in the preparation of “course packs”—materials photocopied from books and journals and packaged as readings for particular university courses—he copied materials without obtaining permission from or paying sufficient fees to the publishers.

Topic

A court case about whether a copy-shop owner violated copyright law by making and selling educational course packs without publisher permission.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

The court ruled that the copy-shop’s production of course packs for educational purposes did not violate copyright law, even though the owner profited, because the copying was not an exploitation of the copyrighted content itself. (Most valuable sentence appears at the end of paragraph 2: )

P1: Introducing the Case and Arguments

A copy-shop owner was accused of violating copyright law by selling course packs without permission or proper payment. He argued that getting permission is too hard and expensive, and that course packs let professors assign readings that students couldn’t otherwise afford. The twist: the shop made profits on these packs, which made this case different from the usual classroom "fair use" situations.

P2: Copyright Law, Publishers’ Arguments, and the Court’s Decision

Copyright law considers several factors to judge if copying material is fair—such as whether it’s for commercial or educational use, and how much it affects the market value of the work. The publishers said if copy shops stop paying fees, the value of scholarly works will drop. But the court found no real threat to the market and said it was more important that the copies were for education. The shop owner’s profit didn’t matter since the fee was based on number of pages copied, not the material's content.

P3: Court’s Reasoning and Final Takeaway

The court saw the copy shop’s actions as simply providing a service that makes copying easier and cheaper—not as taking unfair advantage of the authors’ creative work. Professors and students would be allowed to make these copies themselves, so it’s OK for them to use a third party like a copy shop to do it efficiently.

4.

The information in the passage provides the most support for which one of the following statements about copyright law?

  1. Copyright law can be one

    Too Strong: most complex / any

    This isn’t as strong as saying “copyright is THE most complex area of any legal system”, but it’s almost there, which is still too strong. The passage never compares the complexity of copyright law to any other area of law (nor does it generalize about copyright law across all legal systems).

    6% picked this

  2. Courts have been inconsistent in

    Out of Scope: inconsistent

    The word inconsistent is s synonym for “contradictory”. Does the passage show contradictory interpretations of certain provisions? One court interpreted provision A to mean X. Another court interpreted provision A to mean not-X? No, there’s nothing like that.

    5% picked this

  3. The number of the kinds

    Out of Scope: steadily decreasing

    Nowhere in the passage can we find it saying that a steadily decreasing number of materials are granted protection.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    New practices can compel the

    Why this is right

    On a first pass, this the clear top contender due to strength of language. It’s just saying that “New practices can compel courts to refine how copyright law is applied”. This passage seems to be an example of that. The practice of creating course packs was a new practice that forced the courts to weigh in on whether copyright restrictions should / shouldn’t apply. How do we know it was “new”? In part, common sense, because if the court had already ruled on course packs then there would be a clear precedent for this case and we wouldn’t get the feeling that court was trying to figure out how to rule. The final sentence of the first paragraph says, “This case was unique in that __.”, which shows that this was breaking new ground. How do we know that the court refined how copyright law is applied? The beginning of the final paragraph is saying, “In the court’s view, the business of producing and selling course packs is more properly seen (going forward) as ___.” Overall this correct answer falls into the category of, “It’s hard to point to great support sentences”, but this answer has the most moderate language and is saying something very reasonable that we can support by combining what the passage told us with our common sense about how the legal system works.

    Skill tested: Five Questions · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    84% picked this

  5. Copyright law is primarily concerned

    Too Strong: primarily

    We can’t find anywhere in the text to support that the #1 concern of copyright law is to make published materials available for educational use. That doesn’t make any common sense, either. If you asked someone off the street, “What is the primary concern of copyright law?”, there’s no chance they would say “to make published materials available for educators”.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free