Exercise 1: Which Exclusive Right Did the Unauthorized Film Violate? — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHICH RIGHT WAS VIOLATED
------------------------------
Per this chapter's own table, the derivative works right covers
"creating adaptations built on the original - a translation, a sequel,
a remix, a film based on a book." An unauthorized film adaptation of
the novel is a textbook derivative work - it's a new work built
directly on the protected expression of the original novel, not a
literal copy of it, but still squarely within the derivative-works
right specifically.

WHY THE PRINT LICENSE DOESN'T COVER THIS
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "each right can be licensed independently... since
the rights don't have to be granted or withheld as one indivisible
package." The publisher was licensed specifically for physical print
distribution - a license touching only the reproduction and
distribution rights, and even then only in the specific context of
printed copies. Nothing about that license extended to the derivative
works right, which is its own separate, independently-licensable
piece of the overall bundle. A studio (or the publisher acting beyond
its own license) producing a film adaptation is exercising a right
that was never granted in the first place.

WHY THIS MATTERS AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, NOT JUST FOR THIS EXAMPLE
------------------------------
This is exactly the point of describing copyright as a "bundle" rather
than one single permission - a license authorizing one specific right
(print distribution) grants nothing at all regarding a completely
different right (derivative works) unless that separate right was also
explicitly included. Assuming a broad license for one right implies
permission for the others is a real, common misunderstanding this
chapter's bundle framing is specifically meant to correct.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It correctly names the specific right violated (derivative works, not
reproduction or distribution), explains precisely why the existing
print license doesn't extend to it using the chapter's own
independent-licensing principle, and generalizes the lesson to the
underlying "bundle, not one permission" framing the chapter opens
with.