Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Copyright

  • Antonio Rodriguez AndresEmail author
  • Nora El-Bialy
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_122

Abstract

IPRs indices in general developed to measure the quality or strength of IPR institutions across countries usually do not differentiate between de jure and de facto IPR institutions. In addition, they neglect the different impact these individual variables comprising these indices might have by simply averaging all variables or assigning arbitrary weights. The main contribution of this essay is to shed light on the relative importance of individual institutional variables in forming the de facto institutional framework of IPR protection as opposed to their de jure counterparts mainly focusing on Copyright. For that purpose we discuss the drawbacks of the common indices and offering some suggestions for building more reliable ones. Our main recommendation is to look at the formal copyright institutions in a more careful way to be able to code the different provisions that we think are probably most influential for Institutional Quality and that would enable better enforcement. Second: Countries must make data available about the enforcement process of Copyright laws and number of piracy cases filed in courts and the imposed sanctions in order to be able to develop a de facto measure for the quality of copyright institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andrés A.R. 2006. The relationship between copyright software protection and piracy: evidence from europe. European Journal of Law and Economics, 21, 29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagchi K, Kirs P, Cerveny R (2006) Global software piracy: can economic factors alone explain the trend? Commun ACM 49(6):70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Business Software Alliance (BSA) (2009) Sixth annual BSA and IDC global software piracy studies (online). BSA. http://global.bsa.org/globalpiracy2008/index.html. Accessed Mar 2010
  4. Fischer J, Andrés A (2005) Is software piracy a middle class crime? Investigating the inequality-piracy channel. University of St. Gallen working paper series, Department of Economics, University of St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  5. Ginarte JA, Park W (1997) Determinants of patent rights: a cross-national study. Res Policy 26:283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gopal R, Sanders G (1998) International software piracy: an analysis of key issues and impacts. Inf Syst Res 9(4):380–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gopal RA, Sanders G (2000) Global software piracy: you can’t get blood out of a turnip. Commun ACM 43(9):82–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harris J, Hunter J, Lewis C (1995) The new institutional economics and third world development. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Holm H (2003) Can economic theory explain piracy behaviour? Top Econ Analy Pol 3(5):1–15Google Scholar
  10. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2006) Governance matters V: governance indicators for 1996–2005. World Bank policy research working paperGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2011) Worldwide governance indicators Acessed at: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp, Accessed on 20 Feb 2014
  12. Knack S, Keefer P (1995) Institutions and economic performance: cross-country tests using alternative institutional measures. Econ Polit 7:207–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mansfield E (1994) Intellectual property protection, foreign direct investment and technology transfer, International finance corporation discussion paper, 19. The World Bank. http://www.bvindecopi.gob.pe/colec/emansfield2.pdf. Accessed Oct 2008
  14. Marron D, Steel D (2000) Which countries protect intellectual property? The case of software piracy. Econ Inq 38:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maskus K (2000) Intellectual property rights in the global economy. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Maskus K, Penubarti M (1995) How trade related are intellectual property rights? J Int Econ 39:227–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. North D (1981) Structure and change in economic history. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. North D (1990) Institutions. Institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Papadopoulos T (2003) Determinants of international sound recording piracy. Econ Bull 6(10):1–9Google Scholar
  20. Png IP (2010) On the reliability of software piracy statistics. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9:366–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Park W (2001) Intellectual property and economic freedom. In J. Gwartney and R. Lawson (eds.), Economic Freedom of the World, Vancouver: Fraser InstituteGoogle Scholar
  22. Park W, Ginarte J (1997) Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Contemp Econ Policy 15(3):51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ronkainen I, Guerrero-Cusumano J (2001) Correlates of intellectual property violation. Multinatl Bus Rev 9(1):59–65Google Scholar
  24. Sened, I (1997) The political institution of private property. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Shadlen K, Schrank A, Kurtz M (2005) The political economy of intellectual property protection: the case of software. Int Stud Q 49:45–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Kranenburg H, Hogenbirk A (2005) Multimedia, entertainment, and business software copyright piracy: a cross-national study. The Journal of Media Economics, 18:109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Voigt S (2013) How (not) to measure institutions? J Institut Econ 9(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williamson O (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a Study in the economics of internal organization. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship (online). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1496220. Accessed Mar 2010
  29. WIPO (2001) WIPO intellectual property handbook: policy, law, and use, vol 489(E), WIPO Publication. WIPO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  30. Lambsdorf J (2000) Background paper to the 2000 corruption perceptions index, Transparency International, Sept. www.transparency.org. Accessed on Feb 2014

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de ADE y EconomíaUniversidad Camilo José CelaVillanueva de la Cañada, MadridSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Law and EconomicsUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany