Sag (2013)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Sag (2013)
Title: Empirical studies of copyright litigation: Nature of suit coding
Author(s): Sag, M.
Year: 2013
Citation: Sag, M. (2013). Empirical studies of copyright litigation: Nature of suit coding. Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Research Paper No. 2013-017.
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Sag (2017)
About the Data
Data Description: As part of a broader ongoing study of copyright litigation, the author selected every case in the Lexis database published between 2000 and 2012 that included the word “copyright”. From this broad sample, the author randomly selected one fifth of the district court opinions and all of the court of appeals opinions. A team of Loyola Law School students reviewed each opinion following a detailed coding form. A total of 472 cases were coded.
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:
  • 2000-2012
Funder(s):

Abstract

The creation and distribution of copyrighted works is an important economic driver of the U.S. economy and copyright law’s interactions with freedom of expression and cultural participation have made it an area of significant public policy focus. This article investigates reliance on the Nature of Suit coding in the PACER records for empirical studies of copyright litigation. It concludes that although the PACER Nature of Suit for copyright does not in fact capture all copyright cases, it is a good enough sample for most purposes.

Main Results of the Study

  • The creation and distribution of copyrighted works is an important economic driver of the U.S. economy and copyright law’s interactions with freedom of expression and cultural participation have made it an area of significant public policy focus.
  • The reliability of PACER’s Nature of Suit coding for empirical studies is fundamental to the design of inquiries about copyright law.
  • The PACER Nature of Suit coding should probably not be relied on to make generalizations about pro se litigants or cases where copyright was not the primary issue. These are exactly the kinds of cases that are likely to be omitted. But overall, given that the 820 code captures 80 to 85% of true copyright cases leading to written opinions, as long as researchers are clear about their methods and what data they are excluding, it is a good enough sample for most purposes.


Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The PACER Nature of Suit coding should probably not be relied on to make generalizations about pro se litigants or cases where copyright was not the primary issue.


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Green-tick.png
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 472
Level of aggregation: Court cases
Period of material under study: 2000-2012