Difference between revisions of "PricewaterhouseCoopers (2016)"
(Created page with "{{MainSource |Source={{Source |Name of Study=PricewaterhouseCoopers (2016) |Author=PricewaterhouseCoopers; |Title=Understanding the costs and benefits of introducing a ‘fair...") |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
|Full Citation=PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia Report 'Understanding the costs and benefits of introducing a ‘fair use’ exception', 2016. | |Full Citation=PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia Report 'Understanding the costs and benefits of introducing a ‘fair use’ exception', 2016. | ||
+ | |Abstract=The Australian Law Reform Commission report recommended that the Copyright Act should be amended to introduce a new copyright exception, based on the United States ‘fair use’ exception, which would allow the use of copyright material for any purpose if the use is ‘fair’ having regard to four factors. The ALRC’s recommendation in favour of fair use is based predominantly on a legal analysis and did not include an economic cost-benefit analysis (CBA). From an economic perspective it is car that they may be new disincentives to create works with the introdction of a 'fair use' provision. As a result, the core task of this analysis is to determine, based on the available evidence, whether it is likely that the economic benefits arising from secondary use will more than offset the economic loss for original local producers. This report provides some insights into elements that should be considered in any formal CBA of the proposed introduction of fair use. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Disclaimer: This Report was prepared for APRA AMCOS, PPCA, Copyright Agency│Viscopy, Foxtel, News Corp Australia and Screenrights. In preparing this Report we have only considered the requirements of these organisations. Our Report is not appropriate for use by persons other than these organisations, and we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than these organisations in respect of our Report. | ||
+ | |Link=http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/195850/sub133-intellectual-property-attachment.pdf | ||
+ | |Reference=Australian Law Reform Commission (2013); Productivity Commission (2015); | ||
+ | |Plain Text Proposition=Both quantitative analyses suggest that there is no firm evidence supporting a direct causational relationship between fair use and improved economic outcomes for the Australian economy as a whole; the linkages between economic growth and innovation are likely a confluence of factors that interact to support a country’s economic outcomes. | ||
+ | |FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare, 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption), 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?, | ||
+ | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction), E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts), A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right), | ||
+ | |Discipline=O3: Technological Change • Research and Development • Intellectual Property Rights, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital, O38: Government Policy, Z1: Cultural Economics • Economic Sociology • Economic Anthropology, Z11: Economics of the Arts and Literature | ||
+ | |Intervention-Response=Both quantitative analyses suggest that there is no firm evidence supporting a direct causational relationship between fair use and improved economic outcomes for the Australian economy as a whole; the linkages between economic growth and innovation are likely a confluence of factors that interact to support a country’s economic outcomes. | ||
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No |
Revision as of 16:18, 20 March 2016
Contents
Source Details
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2016) | |
Title: | Understanding the costs and benefits of introducing a ‘fair use’ exception |
Author(s): | PricewaterhouseCoopers |
Year: | 2016 |
Citation: | PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia Report 'Understanding the costs and benefits of introducing a ‘fair use’ exception', 2016. |
Link(s): | , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | |
Data Type: | |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | No |
Comparative Study?: | No |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: | |
Funder(s): |
Abstract
The Australian Law Reform Commission report recommended that the Copyright Act should be amended to introduce a new copyright exception, based on the United States ‘fair use’ exception, which would allow the use of copyright material for any purpose if the use is ‘fair’ having regard to four factors. The ALRC’s recommendation in favour of fair use is based predominantly on a legal analysis and did not include an economic cost-benefit analysis (CBA). From an economic perspective it is car that they may be new disincentives to create works with the introdction of a 'fair use' provision. As a result, the core task of this analysis is to determine, based on the available evidence, whether it is likely that the economic benefits arising from secondary use will more than offset the economic loss for original local producers. This report provides some insights into elements that should be considered in any formal CBA of the proposed introduction of fair use.
Disclaimer: This Report was prepared for APRA AMCOS, PPCA, Copyright Agency│Viscopy, Foxtel, News Corp Australia and Screenrights. In preparing this Report we have only considered the requirements of these organisations. Our Report is not appropriate for use by persons other than these organisations, and we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than these organisations in respect of our Report.
Main Results of the Study
Both quantitative analyses suggest that there is no firm evidence supporting a direct causational relationship between fair use and improved economic outcomes for the Australian economy as a whole; the linkages between economic growth and innovation are likely a confluence of factors that interact to support a country’s economic outcomes.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Both quantitative analyses suggest that there is no firm evidence supporting a direct causational relationship between fair use and improved economic outcomes for the Australian economy as a whole; the linkages between economic growth and innovation are likely a confluence of factors that interact to support a country’s economic outcomes.