The McGarvie and Mosner paper takes advantage of new resources provided by��, a resource which allowed the authors to compile a systematic data set consisting of payments to authors for first edition print runs in the early part of the nineteenth century. The lion's share of data comes from Longman & Co, the London publisher of some of Sir Walter Scott's novels – one of the most popular authors in history.

Scott's career straddled a significant change to copyright law in Britain. The increased term limits to 28 years, or the rest of an author's life (if he or she were still living at the end of the term). One effect of this extension was that individual authors now had a more substantial right to sell to publishers. These authors could therefore demand higher rates of compensation in exchange for the exclusive licences often granted to publishers as a matter of course.

The results of this study are quite persuasive: following the increase in term limits, the average payment to authors nearly tripled. The authors note that some of this increase is driven by the inordinately large sums of money paid to Sir Walter Scott, as in the nineteenth century, famous authors received considerably more money for their work (a strong parallel with the situation today). Yet even excluding the payments to Scott, McGarvie and Mosner show that payments to the average author nearly doubled in the period following the 1814 increase.

Not everyone was able to benefit from the increase in copyright. As records on the British Fiction database suggest, Jane Austen was regularly disappointed in the terms offered for the sale of the copyright in her novels. In a , she notes with disappointment the deal offered by John Murray, her publisher for her novel Emma:

"Mr Murray's Letter is come; he is a Rogue of course, but a civil one. He offers £450 – but wants to have the copyright of MP [Mansfield Park] & S&S [Sense and Sensibility]. It will end in my publishing for myself, I dare say."

The authors urge caution, however, in using the study to make assumptions about current copyright term limits. The nineteenth century creative industry, after all, bears significant differences from our own:

It is important to keep in mind that the 1814 Act increased the length of copyright starting from a low base of pre-existing rights at 14 and 28 years. By comparison, modern changes increase the length of copyright starting from a high base of pre-existing rights, at 50 years or more beyond the death of authors. At extremely high levels of pre-existing rights, the incentive effects of an additional year are likely to be small. The costs of stronger copyrights in terms of limiting diffusion, however, may be substantial.

McGarvie and Mosner also emphasize that the study shows correlation and not causation. While the extension of copyright may be one factor that led to increased payments to authors, it is important to keep in mind the rapidly changing nature of industry and technology in early-nineteenth century England. The creation of modern finance allowed publishing houses to effectively borrow capital in order to increase their output; developments in paper-making technology probably helped reduce production costs; and the development of railways allowed all consumer goods to be sold in increasingly expansive geographical markets. Just like today, legal protections are meant to protect creative industries and incentivize production – but they do not provide a complete picture of the marketplace.

David Bowden is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Pride and Percentages: Copyright Term Limits and Payments to Authors in the Romantic Period appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The European Commission today welcomed the publication of a study on Intellectual Property Rights, which was carried out jointly by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). This study, “Intellectual Property Rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in Europe” (September 2013), measures the importance of Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the EU economy. Key findings of the study are that about 39% of total economic activity in the EU (worth some €4.7 trillion annually) is generated by IPR-intensive industries, and approximately 26% of all employment in the EU (56 million jobs) is provided directly by these industries, while a further 9% of jobs in the EU stems indirectly from IPR-intensive industries. to read more.

The post Intellectual Property Rights: study indicates that roughly 35% of jobs in the EU rely on IPR-intensive industries appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The incentive theory posits that copyright law encourages the creation of new works by giving authors a financial incentive to produce new works.�� The DiCola study was designed to measure copyright's financial incentive by analyzing what percentage of��musicians' total income is directly related to revenue generated from copyright protection.

The primary method used to accumulate this data was an online survey conducted through the Future of Music Coalition in which 6,700 self-proclaimed musicians took part.�� While not all of these musicians completed the survey in full, almost all answered questions��related to their income, which was the key data set for DiCola.

In setting out the hypotheses of the study, DiCola identifies the preconceptions that he and his researchers shared about the effectiveness of copyright law.�� First, they hypothesized that musicians would have a variety of revenue streams, especially those in the classical music genre.�� Second, they hypothesized that a musician’s focus on a particular aspect of the industry would also affect their revenue stream.�� Third, they hypothesized that those musicians who focused on composing would see diminished revenue streams due to concerns such as unlicenced downloading.�� Lastly, DiCola and his team hypothesized that a majority of musicians would have indifferent opinions towards the internet despite unlicenced downloading.

The study revealed that, on average, musicians only gained 6 percent of their income from sound recordings and another 6 percent on songwriting.�� But before we take those numbers as proof that musicians don’t truly rely on copyright law for their income it is important to note the drawbacks of the study.

The first is that in order to qualify as a musician in the study, one simply needs to make money in the music industry or have made money there in the past.�� It is also important to note that while the average income of “musicians” in the study was $55,561 USD, over 70 percent of participants reported making less than $50,000 USD in the music industry, which indicates that most musicians have income streams outside of the music business.�� However, while the issues with the combined data are apparent to DiCola, he provides a more detailed breakdown of income which takes some of these variables out of the picture.

One of the��notable��aspect about DiCola’s study is that it provides an in-depth analysis of income based on a variety of factors in the music industry. For example, he provides income statistics based on the genre of music that the musicians identified themselves with.�� In doing so, the income numbers became more predictable.�� The composer of classical music, for example, gained more than 6 percent of his or her income through songwriting.�� But the breakdown of the data by these factors does more than make DiCola’s results more predictable, it also supports one of his suggestions going forward.

DiCola makes the point that copyright law��may be altered in creative ways to benefit the musicians who actually rely on that income while increasing public access.�� The study demonstrates that all musicians do not need the same protections and provides the groundwork data for creative changes to copyright legislation.

On the whole the study can be commended for doing the following:��(1) It reports its findings in a number of ways allowing the reader to draw more succinct conclusions from the data; (2) The author is upfront about all its shortcomings and offers suggestions for future research, and; (3) The author explores multiple theories and suggests which one the data supports.�� More importantly, DiCola's initial study will encourage more directed research in this area.

Adam Stevenson is a JD Candidate of Western University, faculty of law��

The post Peter DiCola: A Study of Income from Copyright Protected Sources appeared first on IPOsgoode.