|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{MainSource
| |
| − | |Source={{Source
| |
| − | |Name of Study=Ku, Sun, and Fan (2009)
| |
| − | |Author=Ku, R. S. R.; Sun, J.; Fan, Y.;
| |
| − | |Title=Does Copyright Law Promote Creativity? An Empirical Analysis of Copyright's Bounty
| |
| − | |Year=2009
| |
| − | |Full Citation=Ku, R. S. R., Sun, J., & Fan, Y. (2009). Does Copyright Law Promote Creativity? An Empirical Analysis of Copyright's Bounty. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63, 09-20.
| |
| − | |Abstract=Modern copyright law is based upon a theory: increase copyright protection and you increase the number of creative works available to society. This theory has been the driving force behind an economic vision that has expanded, beyond all recognition, the original law created by the Statute of Anne. And with this expansion, we are told that the costs associated with copyright are worthwhile because of the bounty it produces. What if this theory could be tested? After all, this is not a question of faith or morality, nor is it a statement on how humans should behave; it is a theory about how humans do behave. In this article, we use statistical analysis to test the theory that increasing copyright protection usually increases the number of new creative works. Relying upon U.S. copyright registrations from 1870 through 2006 as a proxy for the number of works created, we considered how four variables, population, the economy, law changes, and technology influenced subsequent copyright registrations. Based upon this data, our findings cast serious doubt on the idea that with copyright law, one size fits all. While individual law changes may be associated with changes in subsequent copyright registrations, overall, the relationship between law changes and registrations is neither consistent nor completely predictable.
| |
| − | |Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1410824
| |
| − | |Reference=Landes and Posner (2003); Bouldrin and Levine (2008); Breyer (1970);
| |
| − | |Plain Text Proposition=The study examines the relationship of changes in copyright law with respect to individual categories of works, including monographs and sound recordings, and sub-categories of works, such as performing arts.
| |
| | | | |
| − | It considers all 56 congressionally created statutes and Supreme Court decisions that occurred between 1870 and 2006 together with four other concurrent variables; population, the economy, registration fees, and technological change.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The major hypothesisis that any change in copyright protection will result in changes in the number of works produced.
| |
| − | The related minor hypotheses are that increasing copyright protection will increase the number of works produced and—its corollary—that decreasing copyright protection will reduce the number of works produced.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Findings demonstrate that the historic long-run growth in new copyrighted works is largely a function of population.15 Sharp changes are mostly due to procedural shifts in copyright registration, such as those created by the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Statistical analysis and demonstrated that one cannot predict when a legal change will be associated with a change in copyright registrations
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Finally concluded with 4 ways to increase creative output. 1. Improve likelyhood of success 2. Reduce cost of creation 3. Recgnise saliency and optimism bias and 4. Genuinely value creativity and the arts.
| |
| − | In particular, composers, higher-income musicians, and to a lesser extent rock and pop musicians earn a larger share of their revenue from sources directly related to copyright.
| |
| − | |FundamentalIssue=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)?,
| |
| − | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right),
| |
| − | |Discipline=A1: General Economics, A11: Role of Economics • Role of Economists • Market for Economists, A12: Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines, K: Law and Economics, K11: Property Law, K23: Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
| |
| − | |Intervention-Response=Author suggested that creation should be made easier and less costly which would suggest that policies which would facilitate creation would aid in the creation of new works and knowledge.
| |
| − | |Description of Data=Used data of copyright registrations from 1870-2006
| |
| − | |Data Year=1870-2006
| |
| − | |Data Type=Secondary data
| |
| − | |Data Source=U.S. Copyright Registrations;
| |
| − | |Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining
| |
| − | |Method of Analysis=Correlation and Association, Multivariate Statistics, Regression Analysis
| |
| − | |Industry=Sound recording and music publishing;
| |
| − | |Country=United States;
| |
| − | |Cross-country=No
| |
| − | |Comparative=No
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | |Dataset=
| |
| − | }}
| |
Add Study
