Difference between revisions of "Sag (2013)"
From Copyright EVIDENCE
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
|Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2330256 | |Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2330256 | ||
| − | |Reference=Boccafusco and Sprigman (2011); Boccafusco and Heald (2013); Dicola (2013); | + | |Reference=Boccafusco and Sprigman (2011);Boccafusco and Heald (2013);Dicola (2013); |
| − | |Plain Text Proposition=* 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. | + | |Plain Text Proposition=* 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. |
| − | + | |FundamentalIssue=4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) | |
| − | * The reliability of PACER’s Nature of Suit coding for empirical studies is fundamental to the design of inquiries about copyright law. | + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right),D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) |
| − | |||
| − | * 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. | ||
| − | |FundamentalIssue=4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) | ||
| − | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right), D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) | ||
|Discipline=K2: Regulation and Business Law, K41: Litigation Process | |Discipline=K2: Regulation and Business Law, K41: Litigation Process | ||
|Intervention-Response=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. | |Intervention-Response=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. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 18: | ||
|Data Year=2000-2012 | |Data Year=2000-2012 | ||
|Data Type=Secondary data | |Data Type=Secondary data | ||
| − | |Data Source= | + | |Data Source=LexisNexis |
|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, Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining) | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining) | ||
| Line 34: | Line 30: | ||
|Dataset={{Dataset | |Dataset={{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=472 | |Sample Size=472 | ||
| − | |Level of Aggregation=Court cases | + | |Level of Aggregation=Court cases |
|Data Material Year=2000-2012 | |Data Material Year=2000-2012 | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:04, 13 April 2021
Contents
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: |
|
| 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
Datasets
| Sample size: | 472 |
| Level of aggregation: | Court cases |
| Period of material under study: | 2000-2012 |
