Citations (3)


Footnotes (224)



Beyond Abstraction: The Law and Economics of Copyright Scope and Doctrinal Efficiency

Matthew Sag

Loyola University Chicago School of Law

Tulane Law Review, Vol. 81
Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 916603

Uncertainty as to the optimum extent of protection has generally limited the capacity of law and economics to translate economic theory into coherent doctrinal recommendations in the realm of copyright. This article explores the relationship between copyright scope, doctrinal efficiency and welfare from a theoretical perspective to develop a framework for evaluating specific doctrinal recommendations in copyright law.

The usefulness of applying this framework in either rejecting or improving doctrinal recommendations is illustrated with reference to the predominant law and economics theories of fair use. The metric driven analysis adopted in this article demonstrates the general robustness of the market failure approach to fair use and the relative frailty of the competing cost benefit approach. The metric driven analysis also indicates how the market failure approach can be improved by adopting a more discriminating allocation of the burden of proof in fair use cases.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 48

Keywords: Copyright, copyright scope, cost-benefit analysis, doctrinal efficiency, fair use, law and economics, secondary liability, market failure, and private ordering

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: July 12, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Sag, Matthew, Beyond Abstraction: The Law and Economics of Copyright Scope and Doctrinal Efficiency. Tulane Law Review, Vol. 81; Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 916603. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=916603

Contact Information

Matthew Sag (Contact Author)
Loyola University Chicago School of Law ( email )
25 E. Pearson
Chicago, IL 60611
United States

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,613
Downloads: 347
Download Rank: 63,348
Citations:  3
Footnotes:  224
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.187 seconds