隨著數位科技發展，媒體創作設備的革新，帶來更多元的作品。消費者對娛樂產品需求增加，著作成為更具有經濟價值的產品。各國透過著作權法賦予作者享有一定專有權期間，使作品經濟價值能夠回饋作者，期待作者創造更多元的作品，豐富文化生活。在賦予作者一定專有保護期間之議題上，各國的著作財產權保護期間規定以伯恩公約「作者生存期間加上五十年」作為最低保護期間之標準。近年來，歐美相繼延長著作財產權保護期間，且我國欲加入之跨太平洋夥伴全面進步協定將著作財產權保護期間訂為「作者生存期間加上七十年」。
本文以音樂產業之著作為著作財產權保護期間為研究主題，探討制定著作權財產權保護期間之緣由與帶來之影響。先以著作權法制史研究討論保護期間制度設計的過程與因素，分析相關國際條約規定、歐盟、美國及我國對保護期間制度之設計及立法理由，發現歐陸和英美著作權保護期間制度初始所制定的法理基礎著重不同，進而走向不同發展路徑，卻由於國際貿易頻繁而走向同一個標準。而各國在修正延長著作財產權保護期間的理由中，都一再強調的人類預期壽命增加，作品之經濟利益應歸屬於作者與其子代，因而延長保護期間。
因此，本文以音樂產業之著作討論「作者生存期間加上一定期間」作為著作財產權保護期間制度之合理性。透過數據分析與學者實證研究之文獻得出作品經濟報酬期間比著作財產權保護期間來得短，「作者生存期間加上一定期間」作為著作財產權的保護期間實在過長，加劇著作權人與唱片公司之間因較長的保護期間產生的議價與代理成本，對社會則是增加作品利用之交易成本。於文末建議應將著作財產權保護期間改為「兩階段保護期間」，在作者透過作品取得之經濟報酬與公共近用作品的機會之間取得平衡。

As technology advances, authors create a wider variety of works. The growing public demand for these works elevates their value as products. While this is going on, countries have established copyright laws that granted authors a certain period of exclusive rights. By this means, authors who produce works can receive financial profit so they can continue to produce new works and contribute to culture. In terms of granting a certain period of exclusive protection to the author, most countries follow the Berne Convention “the life of the author plus fifty years” is the standard for the minimum duration. However, the duration of copyright has been extended to “the author's life period plus seventy years” in both Europe and the United States. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) that Taiwan is ready to join also sets the duration of copyright as “the author's life plus seventy years”.
This dissertation first introduces the development of copyright duration, followed by the analysis of the relevant international conventions, treaties, and legislative reasons for copyright duration in the European Union, the United States, and Taiwan. In the beginning, civil law and common law legal systems focused on different jurisprudences, which led to differences in copyright duration. However, two legal systems moved towards a consistent standard because of frequent international trade. The reasons for countries extending the duration of copyright are that human life expectancy has increased, and the economic benefits of works should be attributed to the author and his descendants.
Therefore, this dissertation discusses the rationality of the “lifetime model” as the duration of copyright. Through data analysis and empirical research by academics, this study indicates that the period of economic remuneration of musical works is shorter than the copyright duration. The “lifetime model” as the copyright duration is too long, increases the negotiation and agency costs and intensifies the tension between authors and record companies. In addition, it compresses the public domain, making it disadvantageous for the public to utilize these works. In conclusion, this dissertation suggests that in order to strike a balance between the economic remuneration of the authors and the opportunity for public access to the works, the copyright duration should be changed to a “two-stage protection period”.

第一章 緒論 -------------------------------------------------- 1 -
第一節 研究動機與目的 ----------------------------------------- 1 -
第二節 文獻回顧 ---------------------------------------------- 3 -
第一項 法律經濟分析著作權保護期間制度 -------------------------- 3 -
第二項 保護期間對公共領域之影響 -------------------------------- 6 -
第三項 著作人格權保護期間 ------------------------------------- 7 -
第三節 研究範圍與研究方法 ------------------------------------- 9 -
第一項 研究範圍 ---------------------------------------------- 9 -
第二項 研究方法 ---------------------------------------------- 9 -
第三項 研究限制 --------------------------------------------- 11 -
第四節 章節配置 --------------------------------------------- 11 -
第二章 著作權與其限制 ---------------------------------------- 13 -
第一節 著作權之發展脈絡 -------------------------------------- 13 -
第一項 基於出版業競爭與言論控制 ------------------------------- 14 -
第二項 從鞏固出版商、印刷商利益轉變為保護作者與促進公益 --------- 18 -
第三項 著作權後續之發展 -------------------------------------- 24 -
第二節 著作權之法理 ------------------------------------------ 28 -
第一項 自然權利與人格權理論 ----------------------------------- 28 -
第二項 功利主義與激勵理論 ------------------------------------ 30 -
第三節 著作權之限制：著作財產權保護期間制度設計之緣起 ----------- 32 -
第一項 保護期間制度緣由 -------------------------------------- 34 -
第二項 著作權公共領域概念與範圍 ------------------------------- 40 -
第三章 以比較法觀察著作財產權保護期間之規定 ------------------- 45 -
第一節 國際公約 -------------------------------------------- 45 -
第一項 伯恩公約 -------------------------------------------- 45 -
第二項 羅馬公約 -------------------------------------------- 51 -
第三項 視聽表演北京條約 ------------------------------------- 53 -
第四項 世界著作權公約 --------------------------------------- 54 -
第五項 與貿易有關智慧財產權協定 ------------------------------ 57 -
第六項 世界智慧財產權組織著作權條約 --------------------------- 58 -
第七項 世界智慧財產權組織表演及錄音物條約 --------------------- 59 -
第八項 國際條約整理（依保護權利分為著作權與著作鄰接權） -------- 61 -
第二節 歐盟 ------------------------------------------------ 63 -
第一項 著作權及特定相關權利保護期間協調指令 ------------------- 63 -
第二項 歐盟議會和理事會著作權及特定相關權利保護期間指令 -------- 66 -
第三項 歐盟議會和理事會著作權及特定相關權利保護期間修正指令 ----- 67 -
第四項 各會員國著作權對保護期間之規定 ------------------------- 69 -
第三節 美國 ------------------------------------------------- 70 -
第一項 立法過程 --------------------------------------------- 70 -
第二項 一九七六年全盤修正著作權法 ----------------------------- 72 -
第三項 一九九八年CTEA法案 ------------------------------------ 73 -
第四項 相關判決 --------------------------------------------- 75 -
第四節 我國 ------------------------------------------------- 81 -
第一項 國民政府創建初期 ----------------------------------- 81 -
第二項 美方壓力下回溯著作財產權保護期間 -------------------- 83 -
第三項 配合國際趨勢修正著作財產權保護期間 ------------------ 84 -
第五節 國際對保護期間規定不同觀點統整 ------------------------- 89 -
第一項 保護期間制度的意見 ------------------------------------ 89 -
第二項 國際貿易談判籌碼 -------------------------------------- 90 -
第三項 各國著作權保護期間之統整 ------------------------------- 92 -
第四章 著作權保護期間制度帶來之影響：以音樂產業為例 ------------- 96 -
第一節 音樂著作權人與唱片公司 --------------------------------- 96 -
第一項 音樂產業生態關係 -------------------------------------- 96 -
第二項 音樂著作財產權保護期間與作品商業利用性 ----------------- 102 -
第三項 著作權人之收益與出版商之尋租成本 ----------------------- 109 -
第二節 保護期間與著作權公共領域之調和 ------------------------ 112 -
第一項 音樂著作利用資源 ------------------------------------- 112 -
第二項 公共領域之音樂作品之案例 ------------------------------ 114 -
第三節 對著作財產權保護期間制度之建議 ------------------------- 117 -
第五章 結論 ------------------------------------------------ 119 -
參考文獻 --------------------------------------------------- 124 -
（一）中文資料 ---------------------------------------------- 124 -
一、書籍 --------------------------------------------------- 124 -
二、期刊論文 ----------------------------------------------- 124 -
三、網路資料 ----------------------------------------------- 125 -
（二）外文資料 --------------------------------------------- 126 -
I. CASES ----------------------------------------------- 126 -
II. BOOKS, REPORT, AND NONPERIODIC MATERIAL ------------ 127 -
III. PERIODICAL MATERIALS ------------------------------ 130 -
IV. INTERNET ------------------------------------------- 133 -
V. UNPUBLISHED & FORTHCOMING SOURCES ------------------- 134 -

（一）中文資料
一、書籍
陳鎮宏、陳心怡（2017），《比八卦更重要的事：大明星、歌手、網紅以及幫他們喬事的大律師》，本事出版。
錢存訓（2002），《中國古代書籍紙墨及印刷術》，北京圖書出版社。
Ranjit Kumar （著）；胡龍騰、黃瑋瑩、潘中道（譯）（2000），《研究方法：步驟化學習指南》，學富文化。
R.H. Coase，陳坤銘譯，廠商、市場與法律，初版，遠流。
蕭雄淋（2017），《著作權法論》，八版，五南。
羅明通（2014），《著作權法》，八版，三民。

二、期刊論文
林利芝（2021），〈從區塊鏈技術探究著作權登記之爭議〉，《東吳法律學報》，第32卷第3期，頁1-24。
林依璇（2006），〈青空文庫的省思：有關 TPP 日本著作權保護期間延長之討論〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第214期，頁57-80。
林廷機、葉德輝（2006），〈日本與新加坡著作財產權保護期限延長之研究〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第87期，頁89。
姚信安（2017），〈論公共領域於著作權法之界限〉，《中正財經法學》，第14期，頁165-222。
姚信安（2016），〈論著作權與公共領域調和－從著作財產期間延長談起〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，第304期，頁15-26。
陸義淋、王怡蘋（2011），〈著作人格權之比較研究〉，《經濟部智慧局》，頁16-19，28、34。
陳新民（2008），〈著作權的社會義務：從德國憲法學的角度檢視智慧財產的保障及其限制〉，《台大法學論叢》，第37卷4期，頁115-177。
陳建基（2005），〈音樂著作保護與利用（上）〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第78期，頁88-107。
黃居正、邱盈翠（2011），〈公共領域的結構轉型：以美國著作權法的理論變遷與實務觀點為中心〉，《歐美研究》，41卷4期，頁1036。
黃舒芃（2005），〈比較法作為法學方法：以憲法領域之法比較為例〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第120期，頁183-198。
馮震宇、胡心蘭 吳佩芬（2001），〈著作權合理使用之研究〉，《經濟部智慧局》，頁209。
蕭雄淋（2014），〈著作權法上有關著作人格權修正的若干議題〉，《智慧財產月刊》，185期，頁34-51。
朱稚芬（2006），〈論著作權法與公共領域之衝突與調和機制〉，世新大學法學院碩士論文，台北。
杜惠錦（2005），〈著作權存續期間之變遷與著作權公共領域之研究〉，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，新竹。
顏明瑋（2014），〈著作人格權與著作財產權內在衝突之問題研究－以法律經濟分析為中心〉，東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，花蓮。
經濟部智慧局（2005），〈國際間對著作財產權保護期限之趨勢研究〉，經濟部智慧局。
文化部（2019），〈2019年文化統計提要分析〉，文化部。

三、網路資料
台灣唱片出版事業基金會延長著作權保護期間聯合陳情書, available at http://www.rit.org.tw/index.php/6-0/6-2.（最後瀏覽日期：3/12/2022）。
KKBOX風雲榜, available at https://kma.kkbox.com/charts/?terr=tw&lang=tc.（最後瀏覽日期：3/12/2022）。
五大唱片官網, available at http://www.5music.com.tw/cdtop.asp（最後瀏覽日期：3/12/2022）。
YouTube音樂排行榜與數據分析, available at https://charts.youtube.com/charts/TopSongs/global/20170310-20170316?hl=zh-TW（最後瀏覽日期：3/12/2022）。
財政部關務署貿易統計, available at https://cuswebo.trade.gov.tw/FSC3210F/FSC3210S（最後瀏覽日期：6/26/2022）。
文化部歷年文化統計資料查詢, available at http://stat.moc.gov.tw/HS_UserItemResultView.aspx?id=15
蕭雄淋，台灣是否應延長著作財產權保護期間？, available at https://blog.udn.com/2010hsiao/18516162.（最後瀏覽日期：3/12/2022）。
外交部「國家與地區」分類, available at https://www.mofa.gov.tw/CountryAreaInfo.aspx?casn=5&n=5&sms=33

（二）外文資料
I. Cases
The U.S.A.
St-Amour v. Richmond Org., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 3d 277 (2019).
We Shall Overcome v. The Richmond Org., Inc., Copr. L. Dec. P 31, 152 (2017).
Marya v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc, 131 F.Supp.3d 975 (2015).
Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012).
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186. (2003).
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 471 (1984).
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975).
Mazer v. Stein, 347. U.S. 201, 219 (1954).
White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1, 19 (1908).
Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834).

The United Kingdom
Donaldson v. Beckett, (1774) 1 Eng. Rep. 837 (H.L.).
Millar v. Taylor, (1769) 98 Eng. Rep. 201 (K.B.).
Millar v. Kinkaid, (1750) 98 ER 210. Hinton v. Donaldson, (1773) 5 Brn 508.

The European Union
EMI Electrola v Patricia, 1989 E.C.R. 79, 2 C.M.L.R. 544 (1989).

II. Books, Report, and Nonperiodic Material
ALEXANDER, ISABELLA, COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY (2010).
ANDREW GOWERS, GOWERS REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 52-53 (2006).
BALDWIN, PETER, THE COPYRIGHT WARS THREE CENTURIES OF TRANS-ATLANTIC BATTLE (2014).
BLAKE, N. F., WILLIAM CAXTON AND ENGLISH LITERARY CULTURE (2003).
BOYLE, JAMES, THE PUBLIC DOMAIN: ENCLOSING THE COMMONS OF THE MIND (2008).
Copyright Office, Sixty-Fourth Annual Report of the Register of Copyright for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1961, The Library of Congress WASHINGTON 1962.
COOTER, ROBERT & THOMAS ULEN, LAW AND ECONOMICS (6th ed. 2016).
DEAZLEY, RONAN, RETHINKING COPYRIGHT HISTORY, THEORY, LANGUAGE (2006).
DEAZLEY, RONAN, ON THE ORIGIN OF THE RIGHT TO COPY CHARTING THE MOVEMENT OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BRITAIN (1695-1775) (2004).
DREYFUSS, ROCHELLE C.＆JUSTINE PILA, THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2018).
EECHOUD, MIREILLE VAN & HUGENHOLTZ, P. BERNT & GOMPEL, STEF VAN & LUCIE, GUIBAULT & HELBERGER, NATALI, HARMONIZING EUROPEAN COPYRIGHT LAW THE CHALLENGES OF BETTER LAWMAKING (2011).
FEATHER, JOHN, A HISTORY OF BRITISH PUBLISHING (1st ed. 1988).
LÉVÊQUE, FRANÇOIS & MÉNIÈRE, YANN, THE ECONOMICS OF PATENTS AND COPYRIGHT (2004).
LORD KING, THE LIFE OF JOHN LOCKE, WITH EXTRACTS FROM HIS CORRESPONDENCE, JOURNALS AND COMMON PLACE BOOKS VOL 1 (1830).
Green Paper on Copyright and the Challenge of Technology, at 5, COM (1988) 172 final, Jun. 7, 1988.
GROVES PETER J, SOURCEBOOK ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (1997).
HAGGART, BLAYNE, COPYFIGHT: THE GLOBAL POLITICS OF DIGITAL COPYRIGHT REFORM (2014).
Impact assessment on the legal and economic situation of performers and record producers in the European Union, COM (2008) 464 final.
INT’L FED’N OF THE PHONOGRAPHIC INDUS., IFPI GLOBAL MUSIC REPORT 2021: GLOBAL MARKET OVERVIEW 2020 10 (2021).
KRUEGER, ALAN B., ROCKONOMICS: A BACKSTAGE TOUR OF WHAT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY CAN TEACH US ABOUT ECONOMICS AND LIFE (2019).
LANDES, WILLIAM M.＆POSNER, RICHARD A., THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2003).
MACQUEEN, HECTOR, RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON THE HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT LAW (Alexander & HT Gomez-Arostegui eds., 2016).
MERGES, ROBERT P., JUSTIFYING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (2011)
MUSGRAVE, RICHARD ABEL, THE THEORY OF PUBLIC FINANCE: A STUDY IN PUBLIC ECONOMY (1959).
PAGE, WILL, TARZAN ECONOMICS: EIGHT PRINCIPLES FOR PIVOTING THROUGH DISRUPTION (2021).
PATRY, WILLIAM, HOW TO FIX COPYRIGHT (2011).
PATTERSON, LYMAN RAY, COPYRIGHT IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (1968).
Pfister, Laurent, Author and Work in the French Print Privileges System: Some Milestones, in PRIVILEGE AND PROPERTY: ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT 131 (Ronan Deazley & Martin Kretschmer & Lionel Bently eds., 2010).
PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ARRANGEMENTS, INQUIRY REPORT NO. 78, CANBERRA 128-130 (2016).
RICKETSON, SAM ＆ JANE C. GINSBURG, INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBORING RIGHTS: THE BERNE CONVENTION AND BEYOND (reprt. 2006).
Rideau, Frédéric, Aspects of French literary property developments in the eighteenth (and nineteenth) centuries, in RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON THE HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT LAW 417-418 (Alexander & HT Gomez-Arostegui eds., 2016).
ROSE, MARK, AUTHORS AND OWNERS: THE INVENTION OF COPYRIGHT (3RD ED. 2002).
Sherman, B. and Bentley, L., Balance and Harmony in the Duration of Copyright: the European Directive and its Consequences, in TEXTUAL MONOPOLIES: LITERARY AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 27-28 (P. Parrinder and W. Chernaik eds., 1997).
Shiffrin, Seana, Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property, in NEW ESSAYS IN THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL THEORY OF PROPERTY (Stephen R. Munzer ed., 2001).
SPILSBURY, LOUISE, JOHANNES GUTENBERG AND THE PRINTING PRESS (reprt. 2015).
STATIONERS’ COMPANY, A TRANSCRIPT OF THE REGISTERS OF THE COMPANY OF STATIONERS OF LONDON: 1554-1640 A.D. (Edward Arber ed. 1875).
TOWSE, RUTH, CREATIVITY, INCENTIVE, AND REWARD: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COPYRIGHT AND CULTURE IN THE INFORMATION AGE (2001).
Towse, Ruth, Copyright and Culture Policy for The Creative Industries, in Economics, LAW AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: SEEKING STRATEGIES FOR RESEARCH AND TEACHING IN A DEVELOPING FIELD 419–438 (O. Granstrand ed., 2003).
TROYER, JOHN, THE CLASSICAL UTILITARIAN BENTHAM AND MILL (2003).
U.S. Gov’t Copyright Office, L.C. Card No. 10-35017, Sixty-Fourth Annual Report of the Register of Copyright for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1961, 4 (1962).
WIPO, WIPO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HANDBOOK: POLICY, LAW AND USE (2nd. ed. 2004).

III. Periodical Materials
Astbury, Raymond, The Renewal of the Licensing Act in 1693 and its Lapse in 1695, Oxford University Press, Volume s5-XXXIII, Issue 4, 296, 309 (1978).
Boyle, James, The Second Enclosure Movement and Construction of Public Domain, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 33, 68(2003).
Bracha, Oren, The Adventures of the Statute of Anne in the Land of Unlimited Possibilities: The Life of a Legal Transplant, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1427, 1466 (2010).
Buccafusco, Christopher & Heald, Paul J., Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter the Public Domain?: Empirical Tests of Copyright Term Extension, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 18-28 (2013).
Epstein, Richard A., Liberty versus Property - Cracks in the Foundations of Copyright Law, 42 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 1, 1 (2005).
Epstein, Richard A., The Dubious Constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act, 36 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 123, 123-124 (2002).
Decherney, Peter, Will Copyright Stifle Hollywood, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 5, 2011, at A27.
Desai, Deven R., The life and death of copyright, 2 WIS. L. REV. 219 (2011).
Drassinower, Abraham, Death in Copyright: Remark on Duration, 99 B.U. L. REV. 2559 (2019).
Draper, John W., Queen Anne's Act: A Note on English Copyright, 36 JHUP. 146 (1921).
Drummy, Daniel Houston, Strawberry Fields Forever? United Kingdom Copyright Duration for Sound Recordings, 21 PAC. MCGEORGE GLOBAL BUS. & DEV. L.J. 313, 332(2008).
Dixon, Jenny L., The Copyright Term Extension Act: Is Life Plus Seventy Too Much?, 18 HASTINGS COMM. ENT L.J. 945(1996).
Dubin, Joseph S., The Universal Copyright Convention, 42 CAL. L. REV. 89, 98-100 (1954).
Emilianides, Achilles C., The Author Revived: Harmonisation without Justification, 26 E.I.P.R. 538, 540 (2004).
Feather, John, The Book Trade in Politics: The Making of the Copyright Act of 1710, 8 PUBL. HIST. 19 (1980).
García, Kristelia A. & Justin McCrary, A Reconsideration of Copyright’s Term, 71 ALA. LAW REV. 351(2020).
Garon, Jon M., Normative Copyright: A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy and Ethics, 88 CORNELL L. REV. 1278, 1306 (2003).
Gifford, Christina N., The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 30 U. MEM. L. REV. 363, 367 (2000).
Ginsburg, Jane C., Wendy J. Gordon, Arthur R. Miller, William F. Patry, The Constitutionality of Copyright Term Extension: How Long Is Too Long?. 18 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 651 (2000).
Hardin, G., The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162 SCI. 1243, 1244–1245 (1968).
Harris, Donald P., TRIPS' Rebound: An Historical Analysis of How the TRIPS Agreement Can Ricochet back against the United States, 25 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 99, 104-105 (2004).
Haggerty, Patrick H., The Constitutionality of The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, 70 U. CIN. L. REV. 651(2002).
Hamilton, Marci A., Copyright Duration Extension and The Dark Heart of Copyright, 14 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 655(1996).
Hatch, Orrin G., Toward a Principled Approach to Copyright Legislation at the turn of the Millennium, 59 U. PITT. L. REV. 719, 729 (1998).
Houweling, Molly S. Van, Disciplining the Dead Hand of Copyright: Durational Limits on Remote Control Property, 30 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 53(2017).
Hugenholtz, P. Bernt & Eechoud, Mireille van & Gompel, Stef van & Helberger, Natali, The Recasting of Copyright & Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy (March 8, 2012). Report to the European Commission, DG Internal Market, p. 308, November 2006, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2012-44, Institute for Information Law Research Paper No. 2012-38.
Hughes, Justin, Locke's 1694 Memorandum (and More Incomplete Copyright Historiographies), 27 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J. 555 (2010).
Hughes, Justin, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Geo. L.J. 287, 297 (1988).
Jaszi, Peter A., Goodbye to All That-A Reluctant (and Perhaps Premature) Adieu to a Constitutionally Grounded Discourse of Public Interest in Copyright Law, 29 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 595, 610 (1996).
Khan, B. Zorina, ‘Intellectual Property and Economic Development: Lessons from American and European History’, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights: Study Paper 1a (2002).
Laddie, H., Copyright: Over-Strength, Over-Regulated, Over-Rated, 18 E.I.P.R. 253, 256-257 (1996).
Lavigne, Jeseph A., For the Limited Times? Making Rich Kids Richer Via Copyright Term Extension Act of 1996, 73 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 311, 319 (1996).
Lester, Simon & Huan Zhu, Rethinking the Length of Patent Terms, 34 AM. U. INT’L L. REV. 788 (2019).
Litman, Jessica D., Copyright, Compromise, and Legislative History, 72 CORNELL L. REV. 857, 858(1987).
Lunney, Jr, Glynn S., Copyright and the 1%, 23 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1 (2020).
Moore, Adam D., Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Social Progress: The Case Against Incentives Based Arguments, 26 HAMILINE L. REV. 601, 606 (2003).
O’Connor, Sean M., The Lost “Art” of the Patent System, 4 U. ILL. L. REV. 1397, 1477 (2015).
Patry, William, The Failure of the American Copyright System: Protecting the Idle Rich, 72 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 907, 915-16 (1997).
Parc, Jimmyn & Patrick Messerlin, The true impact of shorter and longer copyright durations: from authors’ earnings to cultural creativity and diversity, 27 INT. J. CULT. POLICY 607 (2021).
Rose, Mark, The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v. Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship, 23 UC PRESS. 51 (1988).
Samuelson, Pamela, Enriching Discourse on Public Domains, 55 DUKE L.J. 783 (2006)
Shepard, Robert E., Copyright's Vicious Triangle: Returning Author Protections to Their Rational Roots, 47 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 731(2014).
Walterscheid, Edward C., Defining the Patent and Copyright Term: Term Limits and the Intellectual Property Clause, 7 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 315 (2000).
Yoo, Christopher S., Copyrigh and Public Good Economics: A Misunderstood Relation, 155 U. PA. L. REV. 635, 708-709 (2007).

IV. Internet
文化審議会著作権分科会（平成二十一年一月），文化審議会著作権分科会報告書，available at https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/chosakuken/hokaisei/h21_hokaisei/pdf/21_houkaisei_houkokusho.pdf
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership art. 18.63, Mar. 8, 2018 , available at https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/cptpp/outcomes-documents/Pages/cptpp-suspensions-explained
Chris Cooke, Artist and management community welcome Sony Music’s decision to pay royalties to artists on unrecouped pre-2000 record deals, CMU DAILY, (June. 14, 2021), https://completemusicupdate.com/article/artist-and-management-community-welcome-sony-musics-decision-to-pay-royalties-to-artists-on-unrecouped-pre-2000-record-deals/
Henry Steinhau, Peter Baldwin:In zehn Jahren werden wir über Open Access nicht mehr reden müssen (Mar. 14, 2014), https://irights.info/artikel/peter-baldwin-in-zehn-jahren-werden-wir-ueber-open-access-in-der-wissenschaft-nicht-mehr-reden-muessen/22009
INT’L FED’N OF THE PHONOGRAPHIC INDUS., IFPI GLOBAL MUSIC REPORT 2021:GLOBAL MARKET OVERVIEW 2020 10 (2021) available at https://www.ifpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GMR2021_STATE_OF_THE_INDUSTRY.pdf
Megan Garber, How Chain Restaurants Sing ‘Happy Birthday’: An Elegy (Sep. 24, 2015), https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/09/the-chilis-version-of-happy-birthday-an-elegy/406999/
P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Mireille van Eechoud, Stef van Gompel, Natali Helberger, The Recasting of Copyright & Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy (March 8, 2012). Report to the European Commission, DG Internal Market, p. 308, November 2006, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2012-44, Institute for Information Law Research Paper No. 2012-38, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2018238
WIPO LEX, available at https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/ShowResults?search_what=C&treaty_id=15
WIPO LEX, available at https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/ShowResults?search_what=C&treaty_id=17
WIPO LEX, available at https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/ShowResults?start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&code=ALL&treaty_id=841
WIPO LEX, available at https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/parties/208
WIPO LEX, available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/amendment_e.htm
WIPO LEX, available at https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/ShowResults?search_what=C&treaty_id=16
WIPO LEX, available at https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/ShowResults?search_what=C&treaty_id=20

V. Unpublished & Forthcoming Sources
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Isaac McPherson Monticello (Aug. 13, 1813), in 13 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 326-338 (Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Burgh eds., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association 1905).