Copyright and Its Rewards, Foreseen and Unforeseen


Justin Hughes

Responding to Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Foreseeability and Copyright Incentives, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 1569 (2009)

In Foreseeability and Copyright Incentives, Professor Shyamkrishna Balganesh argues that if the exclusive rights of copyright are justified because they create an ex ante incentive, then the exclusive rights — and the financial yields that follow — should be limited to the uses of the copyrighted work that were foreseen by the creator at the time of the work’s creation. In this response, Professor Justin Hughes argues that this idea initially sounds more radical than it actually is. After exploring the parameters of the Balganesh proposal, he describes how, despite its appeal, it is incompatible with how Congress has expressly written the copyright grant; how nonetheless we might try to integrate the proposal into our fair use doctrine; and how, despite rationality being bounded, Balganesh is mistaken that authors cannot factor unforeseen consequences into their ex ante expectations of the rewards that copyright dangles in front of them. He concludes that in the context of current copyright scholarship, the proposal is yet another clever strategy — albeit one that might be cumbersome and ineffectual — to produce what Congress and the Supreme Court have denied copyright minimalists: a shorter copyright term.



122 Harv. L. Rev. F. 81 (2009) | DOWNLOAD PDF

Online Forum

Freeing Employee Choice: The Case For Secrecy in Union Organizing and Voting

Cynthia Estlund :: In his article Enabling Employee Choice, Professor Benjamin Sachs provided a nuanced analysis of what is wrong both with current law and with the leading reform proposal. In this response, Professor Cynthia Estlund argues that Professor Sachs’s reform proposal is likely to set the terms for future scholarly analysis and for serious public debate over the role of law in union organizing regardless of the fate of labor law reform in the current Congress. READ MORE

Not All Statistics Are Created Equal

D. James Greiner :: In Statistics Is a Plural Word, a response to my article Causal Inference in Civil Rights Litigation, Dean Steven Willborn and Professor Ramona Paetzold take issue both with my critique of regression as it is currently used in civil rights litigation and with my advocacy of the potential outcomes framework. In this Reply, I argue that Dean Willborn and Professor Paetzold’s response does not address (and thus cannot refute) the central lessons of Causal Inference, despite purporting to agree with those lessons. In particular, after “agree[ing] wholeheartedly” that a definition of a causal effect is necessary for the use of statistics in civil rights, Plural does not offer a definition. In the absence of such a definition, the purpose of statistics in civil rights litigation is unclear. The potential outcomes framework, in contrast, provides the needed definition and clarifies many subsidiary concepts, with salutary consequences following naturally from a start in the right place. READ MORE

FORUM ARCHIVE


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)