Difference between revisions of "Copyright Evidence"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
(29 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| class="infobox" style="width:28em;" cellpadding="3"
+
<!-- hide TOC -->__NOTOC____NOTITLE__
 +
<!--        BANNER ACROSS TOP OF PAGE        -->
 +
{| id="mp-topbanner" style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
 +
| style="width:40%; color:#000;" |
 +
<!--        "WELCOME TO COPYRIGHT EVIDENCE" AND ARTICLE COUNT        -->
 +
{| style="width:*; border:none; background:none;"
 +
| style="width:*; text-align:center; white-space:wrap; color:#000;" |
 +
<div style="font-size:162%; border:none; margin:0; padding:.1em; color:#000;">Welcome to the [[Copyright Evidence]] Wiki</div>
 +
<div style="top:+0.2em; font-size:95%;">The open platform that collects evidence about copyright's role in society</div>
 +
<div id="articlecount" style="font-size:85%;">[[All_Studies|{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]]| format=count}}]] studies have been [[Special:Statistics| fully catalogued]]</div>
 +
|}
 +
<!--        PORTAL LIST ON RIGHT-HAND SIDE        -->
 +
| style="width:13%; font-size:95%;" |
 +
:[[File:Book on.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Publishing_of_books,_periodicals_and_other_publishing Books]</span>
 +
:[[File:Broadcasting on.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Programming_and_broadcasting Broadcasting]</span>
 +
:[[File:Education on.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Cultural_education Education]</span>
 +
| style="width:13%; font-size:95%;" |
 +
:[[File:Film on.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Film_and_motion_pictures Films]</span>
 +
:[[File:Music on.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Sound_recording_and_music_publishing Music]</span>
 +
:[[File:Photography on.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Photographic_activities Photography]</span>
 +
| style="width:13%; font-size:95%;" |
 +
:[[File:Software on.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Software_publishing_(including_video_games) Software]</span>
 +
:[[File:Television on.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Television_programmes Television]</span>
 +
:[[File:Blue square.png|20px]]<span class="plainlinks"> {{#drilldownlink:category=Industries|single|link text=All industries|tooltip=All Industries}}</span>
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
<!--        TODAY'S FEATURED CONTENT        -->
 +
{| id="mp-upper" style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border-spacing: 0px;"
 +
<!--        TODAY'S FEATURED ARTICLE; DID YOU KNOW        -->
 +
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
 +
{| id="mp-left" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
 +
| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-tfa-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">{{#ifexpr:{{formatnum:{{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}|R}}>150|From today's featured article|Introducing ''Copyright Evidence'' <span style="font-size:85%; font-weight:normal;"></span>}}</h2>
 +
|-
 +
| style="color:#000;" | <div id="mp-tfa" style="padding:2px 5px">[[Copyright Evidence]] is a digital resource developed by CREATe at the University of Glasgow. The purpose of the Wiki is to categorise existing empirical studies on copyright to inform public debate and policy based on rigorous evidence. Among others, the evidence is catalogued by country, industry and research method, offering an in-depth view of existing findings. The evidence from empirical studies can be complemented with new results from CREATe research databases, such as those related to online consumption behaviour ([http://create.ac.uk/omeba/ OMeBa]), litigation of IP cases ([http://copyrightcentral.arts.gla.ac.uk/litexp/ Litigation Explorer]) and real-time infringement on file sharing networks ([http://create.ac.uk/ipwatchr IPWatchr]).
 +
</div>
 +
|-
 +
| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">More about ''Copyright Evidence''</h2>
 +
|-
 +
| style="color:#000; padding:2px 5px 5px;" | <div id="mp-dyk">[[Copyright Evidence]] intends to establish a body of evidence that allows better decision making in a contested policy field. Competing claims can be assessed and challenged transparently using underlying data and methods. Robustness and limitations of findings are carefully collected and are available here for all to reference.
 +
 
 +
This project is a form of dynamic literature review in a rapidly changing technological, business and socio-legal landscape. Only very recently, new research methods in combination with the development of big data techniques, which are richer both in size and in depth, have allowed researchers to test empirically [[:Category:Fundamental Issues|key theoretical propositions]] and forced them to build theories which are consistent with observation. This generated the need to evaluate political decisions and design [[:Category:Evidence Based Policies|policy interventions based on evidence]].
 +
 
 +
This open online platform builds on an innovative research philosophy and examines copyright from an interdisciplinary perspective, while it also facilitates bringing evidence to the debate from studies in fields that were previously overlooked. Relevant empirical work spreads across conventional [[:Category:Methods|methodological]] and [[:Category:Disciplines|disciplinary]] boundaries and it does not need to have "copyright" in the title.
 +
 +
A crucial dimension of the existing evidence examines different stages of production (e.g. creation, innovation, diffusion, distribution), in various creative industries (e.g. [[Sound recording and music publishing|music]], [[Film and motion pictures|film and motion pictures]], [[Television programmes|TV programmes]], [[Software publishing (including video games)|computer software]], [[Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing|books]]), and estimates the effects of copyright on diverse agents in each sector, such as creators, investors, distributors, users or society as a whole. The fact that the impact of copyright law differs across various actors, industries and demographic groups, implies the need for more specific policies (for instance, even though the [[Ofcom_(2011)|Ofcom (2011)]] survey provides evidence of heterogeneous consumption patterns, this remains an understudied aspect in most of the existing studies).
 +
 +
The transition to a global digital economy is associated with new challenges for enforcement authorities, for copyright law and for new business models. Imaginative use of the increasing volume of data is crucial for the design of more effective policies at the national and international level. Importantly, the effects of copyright protection and infringement for welfare, creativity and innovation require that policy decision making be consistent with rigorous empirical analysis.
 +
</div>
 +
|-
 +
| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-tfa-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">{{#ifexpr:{{formatnum:{{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}|R}}>150|From today's featured article|'''I. Fundamental issues about the copyright incentive''' <span style="font-size:85%; font-weight:normal;"></span>}}</h2>
 +
|-
 +
| style="color:#000;" | <div id="mp-tfa" style="padding:2px 5px">
 +
 
 +
[[1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare|1. Relationship between protection and economic performance]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?|2. Relationship between creative process, incentives and legal rules]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)|3. Contracts, harmony and conflict of interests between creators and investors]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)|4. Effects of protection on industry structure]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)|5. Understanding consumption and use]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
</div>
 +
|-
 +
| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-tfa-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">{{#ifexpr:{{formatnum:{{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}|R}}>150|From today's featured article|'''II. Copyright policy issues''' <span style="font-size:85%; font-weight:normal;"></span>}}</h2>
 +
|-
 +
| style="color:#000;" | <div id="mp-tfa" style="padding:2px 5px">
 +
 
 +
[[A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)|A. Nature and scope of exclusive rights]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)|B. Exceptions ]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)|C. Mass digitisation / orphan works]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)|D. Licensing and business models]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)|E. Fair remuneration]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
[[F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)|F. Enforcement ]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)]]| format=count}})
 +
 
 +
</div>
 +
|-
 +
|}
 +
| style="border:1px solid transparent;" |
 +
<!--        IN THE NEWS; ON THIS DAY        -->
 +
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; padding-top:5px"|
 +
 
 +
<div align="center">[[File:Propose-study.png|160px|link=Special:FormEdit/CandidateStudy|]][[File:Userguide.png|160px|link=File:WikiManual.pdf|]]</div>
 +
 
 +
{| id="mp-right" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan=2 style="text-align:center; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline;" | [[File:Rcuklogo.jpg|link=http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/]]
+
<!--| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-itn-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Example Visualisation</h2> [[File:Network_vis.png|link=http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Visualisation_Tools|center|400px| Example Semantic and Visualisation]]
 +
<div style="text-align:center">''This network graph illustrates citation links between key related studies contained in the Evidence Wiki.''</div>
 +
<div>Create your own visualisations:</div>
 +
* <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Example_Visualisations Example Semantic Visualisations]
 +
* <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Visualisation_Tools Open Visualisation Tools] -->
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan=2 style="text-align:center; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline;" | Welcome to Copyright Evidence
+
| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-otd-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Featured Study</h2>
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan=2 style="text-align:left;" | '''{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]]| format=count}}''' studies are currently recorded
+
| style="background-color:#fff; border:1px solid lightgray;" | {{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] |?Has full citation| order=random | limit=1 |format=template|template=Source/RandomArticle|searchlabel=}}
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left; width:1em;" | '''Semantic drilldown''':
+
| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-otd-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Semantic Drilldown</h2>
| {{#drilldownlink:category=Studies|single|link text=Dynamically filter the recorded studies according to a range of semantic criteria|tooltip=Semantic Drilldown}}
 
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan=2 style="background-color:#fff; border:1px solid lightgray; margin:20px 0px 20px 0px;" | '''Random article''':
+
| This feature allows users to browse all studies in the Wiki. See all studies categorised by country, industry, research method, and more.  {{#drilldownlink:category=Studies|single|link text=Click here to try it.|tooltip=Semantic Drilldown}}
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] |?Has full citation| order=random | limit=1 |format=template|template=Source/RandomArticle|searchlabel=}}
 
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan=2 style="text-align:left;" | '''Methodology (Collection)'''
+
| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-otd-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Methodology (Analysis)</h2>
*[[Quantitative Collection Methods]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Quantitative Collection Methods]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting)]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting)]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Experimental (Laboratory)]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Experimental (Laboratory)]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Experimental (Field)]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Experimental (Field)]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Experimental (Natural)]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Experimental (Natural)]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Web analytic (online user trace data)]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Web analytic (online user trace data)]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Quantitative data/text mining]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Quantitative data/text mining]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Longitudinal Study]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Longitudinal Study]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Snowball sampling]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Snowball sampling]] | format=count}})''
 
*[[Qualitative Collection Methods]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Qualitative Collection Methods]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences)]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences)]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Case Study]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Case Study]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Ethnography]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Ethnography]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Life History]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Life History]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Unstructured Interview]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Unstructured Interview]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Semi-Structured Interview]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Semi-Structured Interview]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Structured Interview]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Structured Interview]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Archival Research]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Archival Research]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Focus Groups]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Focus Groups]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Historical Methods]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Historical Methods]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Card Sorting]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Card Sorting]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Document Research]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Document Research]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Qualitative content/text mining]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Qualitative content/text mining]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Visual Ethnography]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Visual Ethnography]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Participant Observation]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of collection::Participant Observation]] | format=count}})''
 
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan=2 style="text-align:left;" | '''Methodology (Analysis)'''
+
|
 
*[[Quantitative Analysis Methods]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Quantitative Analysis Methods]] | format=count}})''
 
*[[Quantitative Analysis Methods]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Quantitative Analysis Methods]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Cluster analysis]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Cluster analysis]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Cluster analysis]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Cluster analysis]] | format=count}})''
Line 56: Line 123:
 
**[[Factor Analysis]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Factor Analysis]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Factor Analysis]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Factor Analysis]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Decision Tree Method]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Decision Tree Method]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Decision Tree Method]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Decision Tree Method]] | format=count}})''
 +
 
*[[Qualitative Analysis Methods]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Qualitative Analysis Methods]] | format=count}})''
 
*[[Qualitative Analysis Methods]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Qualitative Analysis Methods]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Textual Content Analysis]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Textual Content Analysis]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Textual Content Analysis]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Textual Content Analysis]] | format=count}})''
Line 66: Line 134:
 
**[[Grounded Theory]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Grounded Theory]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Grounded Theory]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Grounded Theory]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Abduction/Retroduction]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Abduction/Retroduction]] | format=count}})''
 
**[[Abduction/Retroduction]] ''({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has method of analysis::Abduction/Retroduction]] | format=count}})''
 +
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan=2 style="text-align:left;" | '''Industry Sectors'''
 
{|
 
{{#ask:[[Category:Industries]]
 
|format=template
 
|template=Industry/ListIndustries
 
|limit=25
 
|link=none
 
|offset=0
 
}}
 
 
|}
 
|}
|-
 
 
|}
 
|}
''Welcome to the '''Copyright Evidence Wiki''' developed and maintained by CREATe at the University of Glasgow.''
+
<!--        TODAY'S FEATURED LIST        -->
 +
<!--        TODAY'S FEATURED PICTURE        -->
 +
{| id="mp-lower" style="margin:4px 0 0 0; width:100%; background:none; border-spacing: 0px;"
 +
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #ddcef2; background:#faf5ff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
 +
{| id="mp-bottom" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#faf5ff; color:#000;"
 +
| style="padding:2px;" | <h2 id="mp-tfp-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#ddcef2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #afa3bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em">Editorial Information<span style="font-size:85%; font-weight:normal;"></span></h2>
  
[[File:Propose-study.png|200px|link=Special:FormEdit/CandidateStudy]] [[File:Define-study.png|200px|link=Form:Source]] [[File:View-studies.png|200px|link=All Studies]]
+
{|  border="0" style="width:99%;"
 +
|-
 +
| style="margin-right:100px; background:#e9e4ee; border:0; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em" |<strong>Editorial Board</strong>
 +
|-
 +
|Prof. Martin Kretschmer (chair), University of Glasgow <!-- [insert links for all] -->
 +
|-
 +
|Assoc. Prof.  Kristofer Erickson (co-chair), University of Leeds
 +
|-
 +
|Dr Kenneth Barr, University of Glasgow
 +
|-
 +
|Dr Heather Ford, University of Leeds
 +
|-
 +
|Assoc. Prof. Rebecca Giblin, Monash University
 +
|-
 +
|Prof. Paul Heald, University of Illinois
 +
|-
 +
|Dr Thomas Margoni, University of Glasgow
 +
|-
 +
|Dr Theo Koutmeridis University of Glasgow
 +
|-
 +
|Assoc. Prof. Joost Poort, University of Amsterdam
 +
|-
 +
|Fred Saunderson, National Library of Scotland
 +
|-
 +
|Prof. Ruth Towse, Bournemouth University & CREATe
 +
|-
 +
|Amy Thomas (sub-editor), University of Glasgow
 +
|-
 +
|}
  
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has country::United Kingdom]] [[Has sector::Music]]
+
{|  border="0" style="width:99%;"
|?Has sample size
+
|-
| format=table }}
+
| style="margin-right:100px; background:#e9e4ee; border:0; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em" |<strong>Managing Editors</strong>
 +
From 2014 to 2017, the copyright evidence wiki was developed by Theo Koutmeridis (lead editor), Kris Erickson and Martin Kretschmer. Research assistants coding entries were PhD candidates with CREATe, including Kenny Barr, Megan Blakely, Jaakko Miettinen, Victoria Stobo and Andrea Wallace. We have archived a version with GitHub that was produced under the responsibility of this team in January 2018, containing 593 studies.
  
'''CopyrightEvidence.org''' intends to establish a body of evidence that allows better navigation in a contested policy field. Competing claims can be assessed and challenged transparently if the underlying data and methods are revealed. Robustness and limitations of findings are meticulously collected and are available here for all to see.
+
Following the constitution of the editorial board in December 2017, a sub-editor was appointed, managing a search based process to identifying new studies. At this stage, all coding is still performed by research assistants at CREATe but we intend to open the Wiki to users in the future (who already can propose new studies). An editorial review process will be devised that will be open, yet robust enough to prevent capturing of the Wiki platform by any specific interests.
  
This project is offering a form of a dynamic literature review in a rapidly changing technological, business and socio-legal landscape, as the evidence related to copyright is consistently and transparently updated to account for the most recent findings. Only very recently, new research methods in combination with the development of big data, which are richer both in size and in depth, have allowed researchers to test empirically [[:Category:Fundamental Issues|key theoretical propositions]] and forced them to build theories which are consistent with observation. This generated the need to evaluate political decisions and design [[:Category:Evidence Based Policies|policy interventions based on evidence]].
+
|-
 +
|}
  
This open online platform builds on an innovative research philosophy and examines copyright from an interdisciplinary perspective, while it also facilitates bringing evidence to the debate from studies in fields that were previously overlooked. Relevant empirical work spreads across conventional [[:Category:Methods|methodological]] and [[:Category:Disciplines|disciplinary]] boundaries and it does not need to have "copyright" in the title.
+
{|  border="0" style="width:99%;"
+
|-
A crucial dimension of the existing evidence examines different stages of production (e.g. creation, innovation, diffusion, distribution), in various creative industries (e.g. [[Sound recording and music publishing|music]], [[Film and motion pictures|film and motion pictures]], [[Television programmes|TV programmes]], [[Software publishing (including video games)|computer software]], [[Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing|books]]), and estimates the effects of copyright on diverse agents in each sector, such as creators, investors, distributors, users or society as a whole. Heterogeneity seems to be a key common element across several studies. The fact that the impact of copyright law differs across various agents, industries and different demographic groups, implies the need for more specific policies (for instance, even though the [[Ofcom_(2011)|Ofcom (2011)]] survey provides evidence for heterogeneous effects, this remains an understudied aspect in most of the existing studies).
+
| style="margin-right:100px; background:#e9e4ee; border:0; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em" |<strong>'Selection Methodology</strong>
+
Guidelines for the cataloguing of copyright evidence where drawn up following a CREATe workshop on 20 October 2014, attended by Sayantan Ghosal (Dpt of Economics, University of Glasgow), Georg v Graevenitz (Queen Mary University of London & CREATe Fellow in Innovation Economics), Morten Hviid (Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia) and Ruth Towse (Bournemouth University & CREATe Fellow in Cultural Economics). Further consultations took place with Chris Buccafusco (New York University), Smita Kheria (University of Edinburgh), Joost Poort (Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam & CREATe Fellow in Economics of copyright and media industries) and Steven Watson (Lancaster University).
The transition to a global digital economy is associated with new challenges for enforcement authorities, for copyright law and for new business models. Imaginative use of the increasing volume of data is crucial for the design of more rational policies at the national and international level. Importantly, the effects of copyright protection or infringement on welfare, creativity and innovation demand the theories that developed over the past decades to be consistent with rigorous empirical analysis.
 
  
 +
An initial selection of studies was drawn from four sources:
  
== I. Fundamental issues about the copyright incentive ==
+
<ol>
 +
<li>
 +
A scoping review of the "piracy" literature commissioned by CREATe from Watson, Fleming and Zizzo, published in 2014. This used a review technique from the medical sciences to identify more than 50,000 academic sources that were potentially relevant for assessing unlawful file sharing, covering music, film, television, video games, software and books. During the review process, the sources were narrowed down to 206 articles which examined human behaviour.
 +
</li>
 +
<li>
 +
Working papers and pre-prints published in the SSRN e-journal Intellectual Property: Empirical Studies (edited by Christopher J. Buccafusco and David L. Schwartz). 710 papers published between November 1996 and July 2015 were narrowed down to 132 studies relevant to copyright law. These were further reviewed by the core editorial team of the Wiki (Koutmeridis, Erickson, Kretschmer) if they contained "sufficient empirical material" that warranted coding. "Sufficient empirical material" could be quantitative or qualitative. Our working definition excluded anecdotal or journalistic treatment, though single case studies were acceptable if the methodology was articulated and justified. A total of 103 studies were selected and catalogued from this SSRN source.
 +
</li>
 +
<li>
 +
Expert literature reviews conducted by Handke (2011), Kretschmer (2012) and Kheria (2013). They were used to fill some of the gaps left by the "piracy" review, in particular relating to creator perspectives. A total of 81 studies will be catalogued under this method.
 +
</li>
 +
<li>
 +
50 governmental reports on intellectual property/copyright policy, proposed by CREATe doctoral candidates Kenny Barr and Megan Blakely, and reviewed by the core editorial team of the Wiki (Koutmeridis, Erickson, Kretschmer).
 +
</li>
 +
</ol>
  
 +
|-
 +
|}
  
===[[1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare|1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare]]| format=count}})===
+
{|  border="0" style="padding-top:1px; width:99%;"
 +
|-
 +
| style="margin-right:100px; background:#e9e4ee; border:0; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em" |This selection of studies was pragmatic. The aim was to set a standard of review, and allocate limited resources for coding. The text that appears in the main page has been commissioned and reviewed by the editorial team. In particular, the initial texts for 'evidence-based copyright policy' have been written by Kris Erickson and Elena Cooper (B. Exceptions) and by Theodore Koutmeridis (F. Enforcement).
  
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
  
===[[2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?|2. Relationship between creative process and protection - What motivates creators (e.g. attribution, control, remuneration, time allocation)? What is the link between legal rules and the kind goods produced (e.g. adaptation, sampling, co-authorship, user creation)?]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?]]| format=count}})===
+
'''How to use and cite The Copyright Evidence Wiki'''
  
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?]]
+
If referring to the earlier version archived with GitHub [https://github.com/CREATeCentre/CopyrightEv] in January 2018, we suggest that the resource is cited in the following way:
|?Has full citation=Citation
+
Koutmeridis, T., Erickson, K. & Kretschmer, M. (eds.) (2014-2017) The Copyright Evidence Wiki: Empirical Evidence for Copyright Policy. CREATe Centre: University of Glasgow. http://CopyrightEvidence.org
|?Creation date=Created
+
When citing the current version, we suggest: The Copyright Evidence Wiki: Empirical Evidence for Copyright Policy. CREATe Centre: University of Glasgow. http://CopyrightEvidence.org Please include the date when the resource was accessed.
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
  
===[[3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)|3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (contracts between creators and investors, collective bargaining and licensing)]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)]]| format=count}})===
+
|-
 +
|}
  
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)]]
+
<!-- old section content
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
  
===[[4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)|4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies, competition, economics of superstars, business models, technology adoption)]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)]]| format=count}})===
 
 
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
 
===[[5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)|Understanding consumption/use  (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour, user-generated content, social media)|5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)|Understanding consumption/use  (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour, user-generated content, social media)]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)]]| format=count}})===
 
 
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with fundamental issue::5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
 
== II. Evidence-based copyright policy==
 
 
===[[A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)|Nature and Scope of exclusive rights|A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)|Nature and Scope of exclusive rights]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)]]| format=count}})===
 
 
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
 
===[[B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)|B. Exceptions (innovation/public policy aims; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial purposes)]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)]]| format=count}})===
 
 
 
''Introduction''
 
 
Copyright laws provide for limits to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner through the provision of exceptions or defences to infringement. In UK legislation such provisions are referred to as ‘permitted acts’ (Chapter 3, Part I CDPA 1988). The international standard is the three-step-test set out in the Berne Convention: the permitted acts must apply to ‘certain special cases’, must not ‘conflict with a normal exploitation of the work’ and not ‘unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author’ (Berne Convention Art 9(2)). Whereas US copyright law provides for a general principle of ‘fair use’ (17 U.S.C. para.107), European Union legislation provides an exhaustive list of specific exceptions (Art 5 Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC); the implementation of one exception, (concerning certain ‘transient or incidental’ acts of reproduction) is compulsory, but others are optional. The UK has always provided for ‘permitted acts’ through specific provisions (as opposed to the broader principle of ‘fair use’ in US law), including ‘fair dealing’ in relation to criticism or review of a work, research or private study. In recent years, the UK has included further specific ‘permitted acts’ within the parameters of Art 5 Information Society Directive, for instance data mining and parody. The full list can be found at Part I, Chapter 3 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.
 
 
There is a significant body of work by legal scholars exploring the rationale for imposing limits to the rights of the copyright owner. Amongst other things, the literature has explored the relation between these legal provisions and (i) the public interest, (ii) innovation, and (iii) market failure (as proposed by Kretschmer, 2014). For example, an exception which enables the use of orphan works (those works where the copyright owner is unknown or impossible to locate) could be justified under (i) as providing greater access to shared cultural heritage for social purposes. An orphan works exception could also be justified in terms of innovation under (ii) as unlocking expressions for new creativity, which would otherwise be undeveloped, or under (iii) because the costs in locating and asking permission from unknown rightsholders are high enough that they make it impossible to contract. Similarly, the UK debate of a private copying exception in 2014,  justified it on all three grounds as (i) providing consumer benefit and convenience, bringing everyday practice into alignment with copyright statues, (ii) encouraging innovation by enabling intermediary services and (iii) addressing market failure by enabling a practice which takes place in the private sphere beyond the ability to contract. The exception was challenged according to justification (iii) with opponents arguing that it did not address market failure without an accompanying levy in place on writable media such as iPods and blank CDs.  Other European jurisdictions use consumer levies to raise funds which are used to compensate rightsholders for private copying which takes place beyond their control. The argument that such copying could be priced-in and thus reflected in the initial price of creative goods was challenged in the UK. and a need for better evidence identified (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills EWHC 1723 (Admin) (19 June 2015). https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/basca-v-sofs-bis-judgment.pdf
 
 
 
''Policy concerns''
 
 
Policy concerns arise, for instance, from balancing the three justifications noted in the previous section, such as (i) the need to balance the public interest with other legal restrictions which may override the effectiveness of exceptions, such as end-user license agreements, contracts and DRM systems (see Favale, 2011; Hargreaves, 2012; Kretschmer et al, 2010); (ii) whether exceptions are compatible with broader political and economic objectives such as pursuit of a digital single market in the EU or new innovative digital practices (see Erickson et al, 2013; Mendis, 2013); and (iii) whether exceptions or private contracting would improve economic welfare, for example in choosing between a non-commercial exception for user-generated content or relying on proliferating use of automated private licensing (Heald et al, 2015; Karaganis & Urban, 2015). Some legal theorists and practitioners have proposed more radical changes to EU copyright law, questioning whether principles such as fair use or minimum standard user rights would be more appropriate legislative tools to promote innovation while remaining technologically agnostic (Dobusch & Quack, 2013).
 
 
 
''Evidence available''
 
 
Following the Gowers review of Intellectual Property in 2006 and leading up to the implementation of the Hargreaves review in 2014, a significant amount of data were gathered from industry, consumer and policy representatives in the UK context.  These qualitative and anecdotal accounts nevertheless form a corpus which builds understanding of the various views and political stakes in the debates around copyright reform and exceptions (see Edwards et al, 2015; Erickson, 2014). Additional empirical data about the anticipated consumer welfare and economic impact of new copyright exceptions were collected and analysed as part of both review exercises (see for example the IPO impact assessments on Quotation and Parody).  [LINK]
 
 
Scholarly research on exceptions consists of policy reports and peer-reviewed articles. Reports by Favale et al (2013) on the proposed orphan works licensing scheme and work by Erickson et al (2013) on the impact of the proposed Parody exception are indicative of evidence gathered and used in the policy process itself. Both of these studies adopt a mixed socio-legal/economics approach which explores the appropriate balance of rights and consumer interests in the context of incentivising new production and use of copyright works.  In Canada, research by the CPCC (2008) on consumer music download behavior was used to argue for collection of a levy on format shifting of music content to digital devices, showing that format shifting behavior was a widespread practice.  Canada adopted a levy-free digital format shifting exception in 2012.
 
 
 
''Evidence needed''
 
 
In order to evaluate and assess the implementation of new copyright exceptions, there are ongoing opportunities for researchers to provide evidence on the impact of changes to copyright in the form of specific exceptions, prior to and following their introduction. In the context of the UK, there is evaluative potential in the wake of the Hargreaves reforms of 2014. Research should verify whether there has been, for example, a measureable impact on audience or licensing revenue as a result of the UK parody exception. Comparative research and/or natural experimental methods are naturally suited to addressing these gaps for other national contexts.
 
 
In the case of newly proposed exceptions or potential reforms, additional empirical evidence is needed to assess and consider each of the justifications of copyright exceptions.  For example, while legal-theoretical justifications exist for promoting the public interest through exceptions (i), there is less empirical evidence on the impact of exceptions on metrics of public interest such as participation, access, uptake, and knowledge dissemination. Where possible, qualitative assessments should be supplemented with quantitative sociological research in these areas. This research is of utmost importance to balance economic concerns which already form the main pillar of national policy evaluations. There is further empirical legal studies research to be done on the precise relationship between copyright statutes and creative enterprise. For example, who is using fair dealing exceptions and why? What are the impediments to relying on fair dealing exceptions for those who would create new expressions? What will be the status of different national exceptions if Europe moves toward a Digital Single Market? What should be the guiding principles for weighing the public interest in future policy determinations involving technology and the market?
 
 
A great deal of research has been carried out by management scholars and economists on the relationship between intellectual property and the ability of firms to appropriate value from innovation (Teece, 1986; von Hippel and von Krogh, 2003). However, a smaller proportion of this research has dealt directly with copyright, and even fewer studies have addressed copyright exceptions (for one example, see Haefliger et al, 2010). Further research is needed to assess the impact of newly proposed exceptions, as well as their scope, on innovation-based justifications (ii). For example, the status of override-by-contract on copyright exceptions is important because it re-balances the scales between platform operators, users, and rightsholders, with potential implications for innovation. Empirical research is needed to assess whether the gains in innovation enjoyed by users due to exceptions can offset potential harm to rightsholders or losses of control suffered by platform operators. 
 
 
Economic welfare calculations are central to policy decision-making around changes to copyright, as evidenced by the data used to evaluate the Hargreaves reforms. Economic approaches have been the most commonly applied methodological tools to assess copyright and they continue to be useful (Landes & Posner, 1989; Scotchmer, 2007; Waldfogel, 2014). The status of copyright exceptions requires further clarification in policy, which can be aided by rigorous empirical analysis. In order to further address policy concern about the status of exceptions in markets characterised by contracting and/or technological protection measures (TPMs), research must be conducted to establish (i) whether and how best to assert the primacy of exceptions and (ii) the anticipated economic impact of any proposed policy changes in terms of both industry growth and consumer welfare.
 
 
 
''Additional concerns for research''
 
 
The issue of user-generated content is at the forefront of policy reform initiatives, with some groups calling for a broad ‘right to remix’ on one end of the spectrum, and industry support for commercial licensing alternatives on the other. Copyright exceptions are directly implicated in this debate, because they legally define what users can fairly do with a copyright work (such as quoting or parodying it).  Fair use and fair dealing principles are challenged by expansion of automated notice and takedown procedures that have become widespread on certain online content platforms.  Empirical work is needed urgently on the ability of notice and takedown procedures to take into account fair use and fair dealing in online settings, so that clear policy recommendations can be made to improve the way that user-generated content is regulated.
 
 
The principle of fair use has been extensively analysed in empirical legal studies literature in the USA, with a large body of research covering many different consumer practices in many settings (See Cheliotis (2007); Netanel (2011); Aufderheide and Sinnreich, 2015).  Somewhat less work has been done on the practical usage of specific copyright exceptions in Europe. There is therefore an open question about whether the ‘closed list’ approach adopted by Europe is the most effective way to balance public interest with copyright holders’ interests.  While such expansive questions are perhaps best left to legal theorists, there are practical empirical concerns that are worth answering in the European context:  How can the public interest best be served without prejudicing the rights of creators? What is the most effective way of promoting new innovation and how should copyright law respond to the challenges introduced by new technologies and new creative practices?
 
 
 
''References''
 
 
Dobusch, L., & Quack, S. (2013). Framing standards, mobilizing users: Copyright versus fair use in transnational regulation. Review of International Political Economy, 20(1), 52-88.
 
 
Edwards, L., Klein, B., Lee, D., Moss, G., & Philip, F. (2015). Discourse, justification and critique: towards a legitimate digital copyright regime?. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(1), 60-77.
 
 
Erickson, K., Kretschmer, M., & Mendis, D. (2013). Copyright and the Economic Effects of Parody: An Empirical Study of Music Videos on the YouTube Platform and an Assessment of the Regulatory Options. Independent Report for the UK Intellectual Property Office (2013/24).
 
 
Favale, M. (2011). Approximation and DRM: can digital locks respect copyright exceptions?. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 19(4), 306-323.
 
 
Favale, M., Homberg, F., Kretschmer, M., Mendis, D., Secchi, D. (2013). ‘Copyright and the Regulation of Orphan Works:  A comparative review of seven jurisdictions, and a rights clearance simulation’, Independent Report for the UK Intellectual Property Office (2013/31).
 
 
Gowers, A. (2006). Gowers review of intellectual property. London UK: The Stationery Office.
 
 
Hargreaves, I. (2011). Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth: An Independent Report. London: UK Intellectual Property Office.
 
 
Heald, P., Erickson, K. Kretschmer, M.  (2015). The Valuation of Unprotected Works: A Case Study of Public Domain Photographs on Wikipedia. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 28(3) p. 1-37.
 
 
Karaganis, J., & Urban, J. (2015). The rise of the robo notice. Communications of the ACM, 58(9), 28-30.
 
 
Kretschmer, M., Derclaye, E., Favale, M., & Watt, R. (2010). The relationship between copyright and contract law. A Review commissioned by the UK Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP).
 
 
Kretschmer, M. (2014). What does empirical evidence contribute to the question of fair copyright?.Paper presented at British-Israeli Workshop on Fair Copyright Law: Limitations & Exceptions, Tel-Aviv University, January 6-7, 2014.
 
 
Liebowitz, S. J. (1985). Copying and indirect appropriability: Photocopying of journals. The Journal of Political Economy, 945-957.
 
 
Mendis, D. (2013). The Clone Wars'-‐Episode 1: The Rise of 3D Printing and its Implications for Intellectual Property Law-‐ Learning Lessons from the Past. European Intellectual Property Review, 35(3), 155-169.
 
 
Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research policy, 15(6), p. 285-305.
 
 
Von Hippel, E. and Von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization science, 14(2), p. 209-223.
 
 
 
''Related Studies''
 
 
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
 
===[[C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)|Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use, extended collective licensing)|C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)|Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use, extended collective licensing)]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)]]| format=count}})===
 
 
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
 
===[[D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)|D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies, meta data, exchanges/hubs, windowing, crossborder availability)]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)]]| format=count}})===
 
 
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
 
===[[E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)|Fair remuneration (levies, copyright contracts)|E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)|Fair remuneration (levies, copyright contracts)]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)]]| format=count}})===
 
 
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
 
===[[F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)|F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement, criminal sanctions, intermediary liability, graduated response, litigation and court data, commercial/non-commercial distinction, education and awareness)]] ({{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)]]| format=count}})===
 
 
<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
 
''The issue''
 
 
The optimal way to enforce the private right of copyright, when someone uses protected work without permission, remains a topical and debatable issue. Copyright enforcement influences the quantity and quality of new products, the volume of sales, innovation, creativity and ultimately welfare. <div class="mw-collapsible-content">The existing empirical literature focuses on some of these factors in isolation. However, practice, policy and research suggest that the evidence on the overall impact of copyright enforcement is far from being conclusive.
 
 
The existing theories and legal traditions emphasize the importance of different aspects of enforcement, such as the detection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment of criminals and infringers. According to Weatherall et al. (2009) the literature has focused on very broad copyright issues, such as intellectual property (IP) rights as a whole, and on very narrow cases where court judgements have been made, leaving the interesting area in between unexplored. Hall et al. (2014) examine this overlooked region by contrasting formal and informal IP. They reveal that costly litigation practices in several occasions tend to encourage secrecy over patents. An interlinked crucial but challenging feature of law enforcement relates to prevention and its association with awareness, education and technology. Unambiguously, technological progress has boosted the volume of piracy but it has also facilitated the prevention of unauthorised copying, through takedowns of infringing websites, for instance. In particular, this type of technological enforcement has become increasingly important over the past decade.</div>
 
</div>
 
 
 
''Policy interventions''
 
 
Recent policy interventions focus mainly on measuring unlawful behaviour and quantifying infringement, separating copyright infringements from copyright criminal offenses, distinguishing commercial from non-commercial use, calculating intermediary liability, enhancing education, digital literacy and awareness, comparing different enforcement practices, such as demand- and supply-side sanctions, graduated responses, sites blocking, mediation versus litigation and court proceeding, among others.
 
 
Copyright policy interventions are concentrated on both consumption and production. Demand-side sanctions target individual subscribers via graduated response letter warnings, slowing down Internet speed for infringers (throttling back), termination of access, fines and imprisonment. Supply-side sanctions, on the other hand, focus on infringing companies via blocking sites, targeting intermediaries (follow the money approach), legal action, and increasing consumers’ awareness with clean sites lists, among others. Different countries follow different approaches. In continental Europe enforcement is undertaken mainly by agencies of the state, whereas in Anglo-Saxon countries they work jointly with private actors (see IPO, 2015).
 
 
A major policy challenge relates to intermediary liability. The extent to which communications platforms, such as Google, Twitter, Facebook or open Wi-Fi administrators, are liable for their users’ behaviour remains a hotly debatable subject, while its association with innovation, freedom of expression and aggressive online activity, renders this issue as a key concern for enforcement. Among other interventions governments attempt to receive assistance from intermediaries for the implementation of copyright law. The introduction of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) in the US and the 2000 Electronic Commerce Directive in the EU, which implemented treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), focus precisely on intermediary liability and criminalise both the dissemination of protected material without permission and the circumvention of copyright controls in response to notices and takedowns.
 
 
In the presence of infringement and when copyright exceptions do not apply, enforcement can be imposed in different forms. When infringement is detected and the rights holders choose action instead of inaction, an important distinction relates to the type of action and in particular to the option between judgement and settlement. Settlement and resolution of the matter with infringers directly can save time and money before starting court proceeding – this includes Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR), such as arbitrations and mediations. If, however, such efforts are unsuccessful, litigation through the court system might be a more efficient but also a costlier and lengthier way to resolve the dispute.
 
 
 
''Existing evidence''
 
 
Recent evidence suggests that the transition to a global digital economy is associated with new challenges for enforcement. Online user behaviour and copyright infringement take new forms, as, for instance, physical activity becomes digital in an increasing pace, posing additional threats to the implementation of copyright law. Criminal IP offenses (also known as counterfeiting or piracy), which are often connected with organised crime, manufacture, distribution and commercial sale, have changed dramatically too, as technological progress simplified the production of unauthorised copies and digitization widened the market considerably.
 
 
The appropriate scope of copyright protection is a matter of debate (see Exceptions) To what extent non-commercial activities should come within the ambit of enforcement requires particular attention. Importantly, non-profit organisations, such as universities or the education sector as a whole, may engage in activities which are considered to be commercial, thus falling under the same copyright rules as commercial enterprises. There is a tension between the generation of income pursued by these organisations, and the (desirable) promotion of education, scientific knowledge and innovation. At the same time it raises distributional deliberations regarding the access to education and the equality of opportunity, as different institutions, which typically educate students from certain socioeconomic backgrounds, might have dissimilar capacities to stay within copyright law. The accessibility of resources through open data and open access publishing remains one of the most topical issues about copyright enforcement and its relation to knowledge, science and innovation (see Frosio, 2014).
 
 
Shifting attention to distinctively commercial activities and in particular to the music industry Liebowitz (2014) shows that global recorded music sales decreased by 50% in the ten years after the introduction of Napster in 1999, while before that they were on an upward trend. In response to this during the past decade there have been several antipiracy policy interventions, while researchers have evaluated the effectiveness for only a small subset of them. Among the demand side antipiracy legislations are HADOPI and IPRED, both of which have been passed in 2009 in France and in Sweden, respectively. The former has been implemented via graduate responses and has been evaluated by Danaher et al. (2014), who provide evidence of a 25% increase in legal sales after the introduction of HADOPI for France, while there is no such effect in other countries with a similar pre-policy sales trend. Adermon and Liang (2014) find comparable results for IPRED, which increased post-policy sales by 36% and decreased piracy by 32% in Sweden, relative to Norway and Finland. Two of the main supply side interventions are the shutdown of the Megaupload and the UK site blocking, both of which have been implemented in 2012. The main difference between the two policies is that the former is a worldwide intervention, while the latter is restricted in the UK only. Danaher et al. (2015) suggest that global interventions, such as the Megaupload are more effective than national policies, such as the UK site blocking, which focus on a particular country or geographic region.
 
 
The Hargreaves (2011) report commissioned by the UK government, which is in harmony with earlier recommendations by the Gower’s review (2006), focuses on evidence related to enforcement and emphasizes: i) the need for market transactions to be faster, more automated and cheaper, in order to establish a UK digital copyright market which facilitates the resolution of disputes without costly litigation, ii) the demand for easier cross-border licensing in the EU. The report also acknowledges that small and medium size enterprises should have easier access at a lower cost to the court system and recommends the establishment of a small claims track for copyright to better resolve the many lower-value IP disputes emergencing from self-employed professionals and relatively small firms.
 
 
Copyright enforcement is associated with large pecuniary costs from approximately £0.8m per year in Italy and £2.5m in the UK, to £5.6m in France and £12.7m per year in South Korea (see IPO, 2015). However, the evidence on copyright and economic activity is still inconclusive, perplexing the role of enforcement. For instance, Rob and Waldfogel (2006) and Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf (2007), among others, suggest that there is no evidence that music or file downloading harms either the volume of sales or the quality of goods produced. According to Waldfogel (2012) an explanation might be that the digitization of the music industry brought not only piracy but also large reductions in the costs related to the production, distribution, and promotion of music, while it has also widened the market. This piece of evidence raises further considerations about copyright policy, the associated cost of enforcement and its welfare implications.
 
 
 
''Evidence needed''
 
 
Both the probability of being caught and the sanctions vary, even across comparable jurisdictions offering researchers a unique source of variation and allowing them to establish causal links between enforcement and other key variables of interest, such as sales, innovation and welfare. However, a common weakness in the existing literature and a key methodological challenge for future research is the inability to construct a convincingly appropriate control group to compare the results between treated and untreated countries. Several studies argue that they select two comparable countries, one of which implements an enforcement policy (treatment group), while the other does not (control group), and they evaluate the impact of the policy by contrasting variables of interest before and after the adoption of the intervention. Yet, there is generically a degree of arbitrariness associated with the selection of the reference or control country. One way to deal with such issues is the formation of a synthetic control group, which by construction deals with the appropriateness of the control group (a synthetic control group is comprised of different countries, which jointly form a group that is directly comparable to the treated country). Surprisingly enough, none of the existing studies on copyright follows this approach.
 
 
Additionally, in the digital age enforcement in one jurisdiction is likely to generate global spillover effects through the Internet. In the UK, for instance, IP crimes can be fined with up to £50,000 and lead to custodial sentence of up to 10 years (CDPA, 1988), while in other countries sanctions might be less or more severe. This disparity influences incentives and forces piracy to be organised in particular areas, while the derivative products can be easily distributed widely across the world.
 
 
There is some evidence from a small minority of countries on the effectiveness of different enforcement practices. For instance, stakeholders suggest that graduated response letters are relatively successful. As far as supply-side sanctions are concerned, evidence shows that making it easier, quicker and cheaper for rights holders to act against infringers is effective but also challenging. A key policy concern relates to the reflexes of enforcement authorities in response to changing technology, behaviour and legislation, as well as to the fact that so far reactions have been mainly therapeutic rather than preventive.
 
 
Despite the significant progress made by some groups of researchers, such as the OHIM infringement observatory projects and the Ofcom/Kantar/IPO infringement tracker surveys, we still lack rigorous evidence and data related to copyright and users’ behaviour. In particular, there is an increasing demand for more data and evidence, from more countries and the use of new research methods for the design of future policies. Importantly, evidence-based policies require the identification of causal effects for particular policies and the examination of both direct and indirect welfare implications, as copyright enforcement is linked to innovation, privacy, civil liberties and freedom of speech, among others, which perplexes further the evaluation of policy effectiveness.
 
 
 
''References''
 
 
Adermon, A., & Liang, C. Y. (2014). Piracy and music sales: The effects of an anti-piracy law. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 105, 90-106.
 
 
CDPA (1988), Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
 
 
Danaher, B., Smith, M. D., Telang, R., & Chen, S. (2014). The effect of graduated response anti‐piracy laws on music sales: evidence from an event study in France. Journal of Industrial Economics, 62(3), 541-553.
 
 
Danaher, B., Smith, M. D., Telang, R. (2015). Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Age: Empirical Economic Evidence and Conclusions. WIPO/ACE/10/20.
 
 
Frosio, G. (2014). Open Access Publishing: A Literature Review. CREATe Working Paper 2014/01.
 
 
Gowers, A. (2006). Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. The Stationery Office
 
 
Hall, B., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: a review. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(2), 375-423.
 
 
Hargreaves, I. (2011). Digital Opportunity. A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth.
 
 
IPO (2015). International Comparison of Approaches to Online Copyright Infringement: Final Report.
 
 
Liebowitz, S. (2014). The Impacts of Internet Piracy. In The Economics of Copyright: A Handbook for Students and Teachers, Watt, eds. Edward Elgar Publishers, pp. 225-240.
 
 
Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Strumpf, K. (2007). The effect of file sharing on record sales: An empirical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 115(1), 1-42.
 
 
Rob, R., & Waldfogel, J. (2006). Piracy on the High C’s: Music Downloading, Sales Displacement, and Social Welfare in a Sample of College Students. Journal of Law and Economics, 49(1), 29-62.
 
 
Waldfogel, J. (2012). Copyright Protection, Technological Change, and the Quality of New Products: Evidence from Recorded Music since Napster. Journal of Law and Economics, 55(4), 715-740.
 
 
Weatherall, K., Webster, E., & Bently, L. (2009). IP Enforcement in the UK and Beyond: A Literature Review. Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy Report, Number EC001.
 
 
 
''Related studies''
 
 
{{#ask: [[Category:Studies]] [[Has relationship with evidence based policy::F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)]]
 
|?Has full citation=Citation
 
|?Creation date=Created
 
|format=table
 
|limit=5
 
|offset=0
 
|class=front-page-table sortable wikitable smwtable jquery-tablesorter
 
}}
 
 
==Editorial Information==
 
 
===Editors===
 
*Theo Koutmeridis (economics) [lead editor]
 
*Kris Erickson (media & communications)
 
*Martin Kretschmer [chair of editorial board]
 
 
===Methodology===
 
 
Guidelines for the cataloguing of copyright evidence where developed following a CREATe workshop on 20 October 2014, attended by Sayantan Ghosal (Dpt of Economics, University of Glasgow), Georg v Graevenitz (Queen Mary University of London & CREATe Fellow in Innovation Economics), Morten Hviid (Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia) and Ruth Towse (Bournemouth University & CREATe Fellow in Cultural Economics). Further consultations have taken place with Chris Buccafusco (New York University), Smita Kheria (University of Edinburgh), Joost Poort (Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam & CREATe Fellow in Economics of copyright and media industries) and Steven Watson (Lancaster University).  
 
Guidelines for the cataloguing of copyright evidence where developed following a CREATe workshop on 20 October 2014, attended by Sayantan Ghosal (Dpt of Economics, University of Glasgow), Georg v Graevenitz (Queen Mary University of London & CREATe Fellow in Innovation Economics), Morten Hviid (Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia) and Ruth Towse (Bournemouth University & CREATe Fellow in Cultural Economics). Further consultations have taken place with Chris Buccafusco (New York University), Smita Kheria (University of Edinburgh), Joost Poort (Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam & CREATe Fellow in Economics of copyright and media industries) and Steven Watson (Lancaster University).  
  
Line 397: Line 241:
 
The text which appears in the main page has been commissioned and reviewed by the editorial team. In particular, the initial texts for 'evidence-based copyright policy' have been written by Kris Erickson and Elena Cooper (B. Exceptions) and by Theodore Koutmeridis (F. Enforcement).
 
The text which appears in the main page has been commissioned and reviewed by the editorial team. In particular, the initial texts for 'evidence-based copyright policy' have been written by Kris Erickson and Elena Cooper (B. Exceptions) and by Theodore Koutmeridis (F. Enforcement).
  
===How to cite ''The Copyright Evidence Wiki''===
 
If you use material from CopyrightEvidence.org, please cite the resource appropriately:
 
  
Koutmeridis, T., Erickson, K., & Kretschmer, M. (Eds.). (2015). ''The Copyright Evidence Wiki: Empirical Evidence for Copyright Policy''. www.CopyrightEvidence.org. CREATe Centre: University of Glasgow. Accessed dd/mm/yyyy.
+
'''How to use and cite ''The Copyright Evidence Wiki'''''
 +
 
 +
The material collected on CopyrightEvidence.org is offered on a free and open basis. The resource may be cited in the following way:
 +
 
 +
Koutmeridis, T. Erickson, K. & Kretschmer, M. (eds.) (2014-2017) ''The Copyright Evidence Wiki: Empirical Evidence for Copyright Policy.'' CREATe Centre: University of Glasgow. http://CopyrightEvidence.org.  Accessed dd/mm/yyyy.
 +
 
 +
When citing, we suggest including the date when the platform was accessed, as the content is subject to revisions.
 +
|}
  
When citing make explicit reference to the date when the platform was accessed, as the content is subject to revisions.
+
|}
 +
-->
 +
<!--        Footer Bar        -->
 +
{| id="mp-topbanner" style="width:100%; background:#fff; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
 +
 
 +
|[[File:Create logo.jpg|link=http://www.create.ac.uk/|160px|center]]
 +
|[[File:Rcuklogo.jpg|link=http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/|160px|center]]
 +
|[[File:GULogo.jpg|link=http://www.glasgow.ac.uk/|160px|center]]
 +
 
 +
|}
 +
''This is a project of the CREATe copyright research centre at the University of Glasgow. With support from Research Councils UK.''

Revision as of 16:27, 5 March 2018

Welcome to the Copyright Evidence Wiki
The open platform that collects evidence about copyright's role in society
909 studies have been fully catalogued
Book on.png Books
Broadcasting on.png Broadcasting
Education on.png Education
Film on.png Films
Music on.png Music
Photography on.png Photography
Software on.png Software
Television on.png Television
Blue square.png All industries

Introducing Copyright Evidence

Copyright Evidence is a digital resource developed by CREATe at the University of Glasgow. The purpose of the Wiki is to categorise existing empirical studies on copyright to inform public debate and policy based on rigorous evidence. Among others, the evidence is catalogued by country, industry and research method, offering an in-depth view of existing findings. The evidence from empirical studies can be complemented with new results from CREATe research databases, such as those related to online consumption behaviour (OMeBa), litigation of IP cases (Litigation Explorer) and real-time infringement on file sharing networks (IPWatchr).

More about Copyright Evidence

Copyright Evidence intends to establish a body of evidence that allows better decision making in a contested policy field. Competing claims can be assessed and challenged transparently using underlying data and methods. Robustness and limitations of findings are carefully collected and are available here for all to reference.

This project is a form of dynamic literature review in a rapidly changing technological, business and socio-legal landscape. Only very recently, new research methods in combination with the development of big data techniques, which are richer both in size and in depth, have allowed researchers to test empirically key theoretical propositions and forced them to build theories which are consistent with observation. This generated the need to evaluate political decisions and design policy interventions based on evidence.

This open online platform builds on an innovative research philosophy and examines copyright from an interdisciplinary perspective, while it also facilitates bringing evidence to the debate from studies in fields that were previously overlooked. Relevant empirical work spreads across conventional methodological and disciplinary boundaries and it does not need to have "copyright" in the title.

A crucial dimension of the existing evidence examines different stages of production (e.g. creation, innovation, diffusion, distribution), in various creative industries (e.g. music, film and motion pictures, TV programmes, computer software, books), and estimates the effects of copyright on diverse agents in each sector, such as creators, investors, distributors, users or society as a whole. The fact that the impact of copyright law differs across various actors, industries and demographic groups, implies the need for more specific policies (for instance, even though the Ofcom (2011) survey provides evidence of heterogeneous consumption patterns, this remains an understudied aspect in most of the existing studies).

The transition to a global digital economy is associated with new challenges for enforcement authorities, for copyright law and for new business models. Imaginative use of the increasing volume of data is crucial for the design of more effective policies at the national and international level. Importantly, the effects of copyright protection and infringement for welfare, creativity and innovation require that policy decision making be consistent with rigorous empirical analysis.

I. Fundamental issues about the copyright incentive

II. Copyright policy issues

Propose-study.pngUserguide.png

Featured Study

Fauchart and Hippel (2006) Fauchart, E., & Von Hippel, E. (2008). Norms-based intellectual property systems: The case of French chefs. Organization Science, 19(2), 187-201.

Semantic Drilldown

This feature allows users to browse all studies in the Wiki. See all studies categorised by country, industry, research method, and more. Click here to try it.

Methodology (Analysis)

Editorial Information

Editorial Board
Prof. Martin Kretschmer (chair), University of Glasgow
Assoc. Prof. Kristofer Erickson (co-chair), University of Leeds
Dr Kenneth Barr, University of Glasgow
Dr Heather Ford, University of Leeds
Assoc. Prof. Rebecca Giblin, Monash University
Prof. Paul Heald, University of Illinois
Dr Thomas Margoni, University of Glasgow
Dr Theo Koutmeridis University of Glasgow
Assoc. Prof. Joost Poort, University of Amsterdam
Fred Saunderson, National Library of Scotland
Prof. Ruth Towse, Bournemouth University & CREATe
Amy Thomas (sub-editor), University of Glasgow
Managing Editors

From 2014 to 2017, the copyright evidence wiki was developed by Theo Koutmeridis (lead editor), Kris Erickson and Martin Kretschmer. Research assistants coding entries were PhD candidates with CREATe, including Kenny Barr, Megan Blakely, Jaakko Miettinen, Victoria Stobo and Andrea Wallace. We have archived a version with GitHub that was produced under the responsibility of this team in January 2018, containing 593 studies.

Following the constitution of the editorial board in December 2017, a sub-editor was appointed, managing a search based process to identifying new studies. At this stage, all coding is still performed by research assistants at CREATe but we intend to open the Wiki to users in the future (who already can propose new studies). An editorial review process will be devised that will be open, yet robust enough to prevent capturing of the Wiki platform by any specific interests.

'Selection Methodology

Guidelines for the cataloguing of copyright evidence where drawn up following a CREATe workshop on 20 October 2014, attended by Sayantan Ghosal (Dpt of Economics, University of Glasgow), Georg v Graevenitz (Queen Mary University of London & CREATe Fellow in Innovation Economics), Morten Hviid (Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia) and Ruth Towse (Bournemouth University & CREATe Fellow in Cultural Economics). Further consultations took place with Chris Buccafusco (New York University), Smita Kheria (University of Edinburgh), Joost Poort (Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam & CREATe Fellow in Economics of copyright and media industries) and Steven Watson (Lancaster University).

An initial selection of studies was drawn from four sources:

  1. A scoping review of the "piracy" literature commissioned by CREATe from Watson, Fleming and Zizzo, published in 2014. This used a review technique from the medical sciences to identify more than 50,000 academic sources that were potentially relevant for assessing unlawful file sharing, covering music, film, television, video games, software and books. During the review process, the sources were narrowed down to 206 articles which examined human behaviour.
  2. Working papers and pre-prints published in the SSRN e-journal Intellectual Property: Empirical Studies (edited by Christopher J. Buccafusco and David L. Schwartz). 710 papers published between November 1996 and July 2015 were narrowed down to 132 studies relevant to copyright law. These were further reviewed by the core editorial team of the Wiki (Koutmeridis, Erickson, Kretschmer) if they contained "sufficient empirical material" that warranted coding. "Sufficient empirical material" could be quantitative or qualitative. Our working definition excluded anecdotal or journalistic treatment, though single case studies were acceptable if the methodology was articulated and justified. A total of 103 studies were selected and catalogued from this SSRN source.
  3. Expert literature reviews conducted by Handke (2011), Kretschmer (2012) and Kheria (2013). They were used to fill some of the gaps left by the "piracy" review, in particular relating to creator perspectives. A total of 81 studies will be catalogued under this method.
  4. 50 governmental reports on intellectual property/copyright policy, proposed by CREATe doctoral candidates Kenny Barr and Megan Blakely, and reviewed by the core editorial team of the Wiki (Koutmeridis, Erickson, Kretschmer).
This selection of studies was pragmatic. The aim was to set a standard of review, and allocate limited resources for coding. The text that appears in the main page has been commissioned and reviewed by the editorial team. In particular, the initial texts for 'evidence-based copyright policy' have been written by Kris Erickson and Elena Cooper (B. Exceptions) and by Theodore Koutmeridis (F. Enforcement).


How to use and cite The Copyright Evidence Wiki

If referring to the earlier version archived with GitHub [1] in January 2018, we suggest that the resource is cited in the following way: Koutmeridis, T., Erickson, K. & Kretschmer, M. (eds.) (2014-2017) The Copyright Evidence Wiki: Empirical Evidence for Copyright Policy. CREATe Centre: University of Glasgow. http://CopyrightEvidence.org When citing the current version, we suggest: The Copyright Evidence Wiki: Empirical Evidence for Copyright Policy. CREATe Centre: University of Glasgow. http://CopyrightEvidence.org Please include the date when the resource was accessed.

Create logo.jpg
Rcuklogo.jpg
GULogo.jpg

This is a project of the CREATe copyright research centre at the University of Glasgow. With support from Research Councils UK.