Difference between revisions of "Rappaport (1998)"
m (1 revision imported) |
|||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Source={{Source | |Source={{Source | ||
|Name of Study=Rappaport (1998) | |Name of Study=Rappaport (1998) | ||
− | |Author=Rappaport, E | + | |Author=Rappaport, E. |
|Title=Copyright Term Extension: Estimating the Economic Values | |Title=Copyright Term Extension: Estimating the Economic Values | ||
− | |Year= | + | |Year=1998 |
|Full Citation=Rappaport, E. B. (1998, May). Copyright term extension: Estimating the economic values. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. | |Full Citation=Rappaport, E. B. (1998, May). Copyright term extension: Estimating the economic values. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. | ||
|Abstract=This report considers proposals to extend the duration of copyrights by 20 years (as in H.R. 2589 and other bills) and related proposals to charge a fee to the owners in order to receive the extension. The method of analysis is economic rather than legal. The report reviews the basic economic principals involved in copyright law and gives rough estimates of the value of copyrights on books, music, and movies produced in the 1920s and 1930s — those that would be most immediately affected by an extension of copyright terms. Likely marketplace effects of imposing a user fee are also outlined. This report will not be updated. For more from CRS, see the Guide to CRS Products under “Intellectual Property.” | |Abstract=This report considers proposals to extend the duration of copyrights by 20 years (as in H.R. 2589 and other bills) and related proposals to charge a fee to the owners in order to receive the extension. The method of analysis is economic rather than legal. The report reviews the basic economic principals involved in copyright law and gives rough estimates of the value of copyrights on books, music, and movies produced in the 1920s and 1930s — those that would be most immediately affected by an extension of copyright terms. Likely marketplace effects of imposing a user fee are also outlined. This report will not be updated. For more from CRS, see the Guide to CRS Products under “Intellectual Property.” | ||
|Link=http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs727/ | |Link=http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs727/ | ||
− | |Reference=Siwek, Stephen and Harold Furchgott-Roth (1991); | + | |Reference=Siwek, Stephen and Harold Furchgott-Roth (1991);Bender (1984);Rawsthorn (1997); |
− | |Plain Text Proposition=* Estimated that total expected income from 1998-2017 of books, music, and | + | |Plain Text Proposition=* Estimated that total expected income from 1998-2017 of books, music, and films under extended copyright * Most income from the copyright extension would come from films and second most from books with music being the least economically valuable of the three* Copyright for books owned by authors or beneficiaries, most movies by studios and no clear majority for music ownership* Discussed fees for renewing copyright and how they could be used to support authorship.* Noted that the fees could push less economically viable works into the public domain and that companies would most likely need to bare the cost of their renewal fees.* Additional incentive brought on by the copyright extension would be small as present value for works would be negligible and the chance of a work surviving economically viable for long enough very small* Also mentioned that the extension would cause the total amount of works in the public domain to decrease and thus have a negative effect on creation |
− | + | |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)?,4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) | |
− | * Most income from the copyright extension would come from | + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability),C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing),A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) |
− | |||
− | * Copyright for books owned by authors or beneficiaries, most movies by studios and no clear majority for music ownership | ||
− | |||
− | * Discussed fees for renewing copyright and how they could be used to support authorship. | ||
− | |||
− | * Noted that the fees could push less economically viable works into the public domain and that companies would most likely need to bare the cost of their renewal fees. | ||
− | |||
− | * Additional incentive brought on by the copyright extension would be small as present value for works would be negligible and the chance of a work surviving economically viable for long enough very small | ||
− | |||
− | * Also mentioned that the extension would cause the total amount of works in the public domain to decrease and thus have a negative effect on creation | ||
− | |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)?, 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) | ||
− | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability), C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing), A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) | ||
|Discipline=L8: Industry Studies: Services, L82: Entertainment • Media, O3: Technological Change • Research and Development • Intellectual Property Rights, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | |Discipline=L8: Industry Studies: Services, L82: Entertainment • Media, O3: Technological Change • Research and Development • Intellectual Property Rights, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | ||
− | |Intervention-Response=Suggests extension | + | |Intervention-Response=Suggests extension of copyright to life + 70 years would not be a useful as an incentive to create |
− | |Description of Data=The study looked into | + | |Description of Data=The study looked into music, books, and films that were produced between 1922-1941, which are be the works that would have entered the public domain if it was not for the CTEA. Estimated their potential royalty earnings from 1998-2017 |
|Data Year=1922-1941 | |Data Year=1922-1941 | ||
|Data Type=Secondary data | |Data Type=Secondary data | ||
− | |Data Source=Copyright renewal records; Publishers Weekly; SoundScan; National Music Publishers Association; Phonolog data base; BiB TV Programming Source Book; | + | |Data Source=Copyright renewal records;Publishers Weekly;SoundScan;National Music Publishers Association;Phonolog data base;BiB TV Programming Source Book;Booksinprint.com |
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining | |Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining | ||
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Discourse Analysis | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Discourse Analysis | ||
Line 36: | Line 24: | ||
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
+ | |Government or policy=No | ||
+ | |Literature review=No | ||
|Funded By=Congressional Research Service; | |Funded By=Congressional Research Service; | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | |Dataset= | + | |Dataset={{Dataset |
+ | |Sample Size=266 | ||
+ | |Level of Aggregation=Song | ||
+ | |Data Material Year=1922-1941 | ||
+ | }}{{Dataset | ||
+ | |Sample Size=10 | ||
+ | |Level of Aggregation=Song | ||
+ | |Data Material Year=1914-1947 | ||
+ | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 12:35, 30 March 2021
Contents
Source Details
Rappaport (1998) | |
Title: | Copyright Term Extension: Estimating the Economic Values |
Author(s): | Rappaport, E. |
Year: | 1998 |
Citation: | Rappaport, E. B. (1998, May). Copyright term extension: Estimating the economic values. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. |
Link(s): | Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: | Akerlof, Hahn and Litan (2002), Liebowitz and Margolis (2005), Png (2006), Png and Wang (2006) |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | The study looked into music, books, and films that were produced between 1922-1941, which are be the works that would have entered the public domain if it was not for the CTEA. Estimated their potential royalty earnings from 1998-2017 |
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
This report considers proposals to extend the duration of copyrights by 20 years (as in H.R. 2589 and other bills) and related proposals to charge a fee to the owners in order to receive the extension. The method of analysis is economic rather than legal. The report reviews the basic economic principals involved in copyright law and gives rough estimates of the value of copyrights on books, music, and movies produced in the 1920s and 1930s — those that would be most immediately affected by an extension of copyright terms. Likely marketplace effects of imposing a user fee are also outlined. This report will not be updated. For more from CRS, see the Guide to CRS Products under “Intellectual Property.”
Main Results of the Study
- Estimated that total expected income from 1998-2017 of books, music, and films under extended copyright * Most income from the copyright extension would come from films and second most from books with music being the least economically valuable of the three* Copyright for books owned by authors or beneficiaries, most movies by studios and no clear majority for music ownership* Discussed fees for renewing copyright and how they could be used to support authorship.* Noted that the fees could push less economically viable works into the public domain and that companies would most likely need to bare the cost of their renewal fees.* Additional incentive brought on by the copyright extension would be small as present value for works would be negligible and the chance of a work surviving economically viable for long enough very small* Also mentioned that the extension would cause the total amount of works in the public domain to decrease and thus have a negative effect on creation
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Suggests extension of copyright to life + 70 years would not be a useful as an incentive to create
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 266 |
Level of aggregation: | Song |
Period of material under study: | 1922-1941 |
Sample size: | 10 |
Level of aggregation: | Song |
Period of material under study: | 1914-1947 |