Difference between revisions of "Rogers (2013)"
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Source={{Source | |Source={{Source | ||
|Name of Study=Rogers (2013) | |Name of Study=Rogers (2013) | ||
| − | |Author= | + | |Author=Rogers, E. |
|Title=Substantially Unfair: An Empirical Examination of Copyright Substantial Similarity Analysis among the Federal Circuits | |Title=Substantially Unfair: An Empirical Examination of Copyright Substantial Similarity Analysis among the Federal Circuits | ||
|Year=2013 | |Year=2013 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Authentic Link=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mslr2013&div=30&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals | |Authentic Link=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mslr2013&div=30&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals | ||
|Reference=Lippman (2013); | |Reference=Lippman (2013); | ||
| − | |Plain Text Proposition=The study finds differences in win rates across circuit courts. The 2nd and 9th circuits have substantially better win rates for plaintiffs on appeal than at trial, with reverse being true of 11th. The author this suggests this is due to the 11th circuit explicitly adopting a defined substantial similarity test, and thus having more clarity and precision in their initial ruling; whereas the 2nd and 9th circuits' lack of defined test results in frequent overturning. | + | |Plain Text Proposition=The study finds differences in win rates across circuit courts. The 2nd and 9th circuits have substantially better win rates for plaintiffs on appeal than at trial, with reverse being true of 11th. The author this suggests this is due to the 11th circuit explicitly adopting a defined substantial similarity test, and thus having more clarity and precision in their initial ruling; whereas the 2nd and 9th circuits' lack of defined test results in frequent overturning.Circuit courts may be further grouped into preferred substantial similarity tests:• 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th = ordinary observer• 4th 8th and 9th = intrinsic/extrinsic• 6th, 10th, 11th = filtration/comparison testThe test employed has a tangible outcome, with the filtration/comparison statistically less likely to win, and extrinsic/intrinsic more likely to win. Furthermore, so-called “high-tech” (e.g. science, architecture, software) cases are 13% more likely to be successful than low tech (e.g. literature, music, movies) cases. |
| − | + | |FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media) | |
| − | Circuit courts may be further grouped into preferred substantial similarity tests: | + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness) |
| − | |||
| − | • 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th = ordinary observer | ||
| − | |||
| − | • 4th 8th and 9th | ||
| − | |||
| − | • 6th, 10th, 11th filtration/comparison | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media) | ||
| − | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness) | ||
|Discipline=O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | |Discipline=O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | ||
|Intervention-Response=Given the differences in success rates across courts, the author suggests vesting one court with subject-matter jurisdiction in order to promote consistency. Secondly, given the disproportionate likelihood of high-tech cases to succeed, the author suggests that experts should be involved in court testimony (currently restricted), as this may reduce uncertainty and cautious approaches. | |Intervention-Response=Given the differences in success rates across courts, the author suggests vesting one court with subject-matter jurisdiction in order to promote consistency. Secondly, given the disproportionate likelihood of high-tech cases to succeed, the author suggests that experts should be involved in court testimony (currently restricted), as this may reduce uncertainty and cautious approaches. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 20: | ||
|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=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; Software publishing (including video games); Film and motion pictures; Television programmes; Sound recording and music publishing; Architectural; Specialised design; Photographic activities; | |Industry=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; Software publishing (including video games); Film and motion pictures; Television programmes; Sound recording and music publishing; Architectural; Specialised design; Photographic activities; | ||
| − | |Country= | + | |Country=United States |
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
| Line 36: | Line 26: | ||
|Literature review=No | |Literature review=No | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 08:02, 20 May 2020
Contents
Source Details
| Rogers (2013) | |
| Title: | Substantially Unfair: An Empirical Examination of Copyright Substantial Similarity Analysis among the Federal Circuits |
| Author(s): | Rogers, E. |
| Year: | 2013 |
| Citation: | Rogers, E. (2013) Substantially Unfair: An Empirical Examination of Copyright Substantial Similarity Analysis among the Federal Circuits. Mich. St. L. Rev. 893 |
| Link(s): | Definitive |
| Key Related Studies: | |
| Discipline: | |
| Linked by: | |
| About the Data | |
| Data Description: | The study builds on the regression analysis initially conducted by Lippman (2013), examining and coding 230 circuit court substantial similarity cases. 12 variables were used including e.g. subject-matter, court level, methods used to determine similarity (e.g. ordinary observer, total concept and feel etc.). |
| Data Type: | Primary and 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 Note builds upon the regression analysis presented in Lippman's The Beginning of the End. The prior lack of empirical data on the substantial similarity test of copyright infringement law was responsible for inciting legal commentary, which often placed blame on the judiciary for maintain- ing tests that were both impossible to use and unfriendly to all.’ This Note builds upon Lippman's work by assigning "hard numbers" to the results of substantial similarity cases at the appellate level, while determining how selected variables influence case outcomes. This empirical data then will help evaluate the accuracy of the legal commentary.“
Main Results of the Study
The study finds differences in win rates across circuit courts. The 2nd and 9th circuits have substantially better win rates for plaintiffs on appeal than at trial, with reverse being true of 11th. The author this suggests this is due to the 11th circuit explicitly adopting a defined substantial similarity test, and thus having more clarity and precision in their initial ruling; whereas the 2nd and 9th circuits' lack of defined test results in frequent overturning.Circuit courts may be further grouped into preferred substantial similarity tests:• 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th = ordinary observer• 4th 8th and 9th = intrinsic/extrinsic• 6th, 10th, 11th = filtration/comparison testThe test employed has a tangible outcome, with the filtration/comparison statistically less likely to win, and extrinsic/intrinsic more likely to win. Furthermore, so-called “high-tech” (e.g. science, architecture, software) cases are 13% more likely to be successful than low tech (e.g. literature, music, movies) cases.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Given the differences in success rates across courts, the author suggests vesting one court with subject-matter jurisdiction in order to promote consistency. Secondly, given the disproportionate likelihood of high-tech cases to succeed, the author suggests that experts should be involved in court testimony (currently restricted), as this may reduce uncertainty and cautious approaches.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
{{{Dataset}}}
