Difference between revisions of "Widdows and McHugh (1984)"
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) | |Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) | ||
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Regression Analysis | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Regression Analysis | ||
− | |Industry= | + | |Industry=Sound recording and music publishing; |
|Country=United States; | |Country=United States; | ||
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No |
Revision as of 11:53, 13 December 2016
Contents
Source Details
Widdows and McHugh (1984) | |
Title: | Taxing Purchases of Home Tape Recorders and Supplies to Compensate for Copyright Infringements: An Econometric Analysis of the Role of Economic and Demographic Factors |
Author(s): | Widdows, R., McHugh, R.J. |
Year: | 1984 |
Citation: | Widdows, R., & McHugh, R. J. (1984). Taxing purchases of home tape recorders and supplies to compensate for copyright infringements: An econometric analysis of the role of economic and demographic factors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 18(2), 317-325. |
Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | The data for total prerecorded music sales were obtained from RIAA press releases. Employment data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; income and price data are from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis Survey of Current Business. |
Data Type: | Secondary data |
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
Faced with a sharp decline in sales in the early 1980’s, the music industry looked for an explanation which could be converted into windfall gains for itself. The explanation proposed by the industry was increased home taping of pre-recorded music. Through the introduction of federal legislation, the industry hoped to realize gains at the expense of the consumer of home taping equipment and media. The analysis presented here indicates that the independent effect of taping on pre-recorded music sales may not have been as high as the recording industry has claimed, so that consumers may end up paying more than their fair share toward the windfall.
Main Results of the Study
It is still possible that a surcharge will be placed on sales of home taping equipment and media, as a follow-on from the aforementioned Mathias Amendment. In effect this would represent a royalty tax placed on consumers. It will be justified by reference to artist and producer copyrights over prerecorded work. While there is some merit in the argument put forth by the owners of copyrights, our worry is that the amount of the surcharge may be derived from crosssectional studies which do not assess the independent impact of economic and demographic change on sales. Our attempt to control for economic and demographic effects on sales of pre-recorded music in recent years through a dynamic economic model indicates that the independent effect of economic and demographic change is much greater than legislators have been led to believe.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
At the very least, this finding suggests that much more econometric analysis needs to be done before a “tax” is approved which would transfer millions of dollars from consumers to the recording industry.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 1 |
Level of aggregation: | Total yearly sales of prerecorded music |
Period of material under study: | 1977-1978 |
Sample size: | 1 |
Level of aggregation: | Average individual income level |
Period of material under study: | 1977-1978 |
Sample size: | 1 |
Level of aggregation: | Yearly unemployment rate |
Period of material under study: | 1977-1978 |