Agency in Institutional Context: Utilitarian Copyright and Technological Disruption

References

• Aufderheide, P., & Jaszi, P. (2011). Reclaiming fair use:. How to put balance back in copyright: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, P. (2014). The copyright wars:. three centuries of trans-atlantic battle: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beets, R. P. (2001). RIAA v. Napster: The struggle to protect copyrights in the Internet age. Georgia State University Law Review, 18(2), 507–562. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol18/iss2/7/
   Google Scholar
• Bell, S. (2011). Do we really need a new ‘constructivist institutionalism’ to explain institutional change? British Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 883–906. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123411000147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, S. (2017). Historical institutionalism and new dimensions of agency: Bankers, institutions and the 2008 financial crisis. Political Studies, 65(3), 724–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716675884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, S., & Feng, H. (2013). The rise of the People’s Bank of China. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, S., & Feng, H. (2019). Rethinking critical juncture analysis: Institutional change in Chinese banking and finance. Review of International Political Economy, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1655083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridy, A. (2009). Why pirates (still) won't behave: Regulating P2P in the decade after Napster. Rutgers Law Journal, 40(3), 565–611.
   Google Scholar
• Burks, M. A. (1985). Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 104 S. Ct. 774 (1984): Is copyright law in need of congressional action. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 12(1), 157–179.
   Google Scholar
• Capoccia, G. (2015). Critical junctures and institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Advances in comparative-historical analysis (pp. 147–179). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59(3), 341–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartwright, M. (2018). Who cares about Reddit? Historical institutionalism and the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT Intellectual Property Act. Policy Studies, 39(4), 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1472757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartwright, M. (2019). Historical institutionalism and technological change: The case of Uber. Business and Politics, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2019.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, A. (2008). The chronicles of Grokster: Who is the biggest threat in the P2P battle? UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 15(2), 291–326. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/96v7k0sj
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth of Australia. (2006). Copyright Amendment Act 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Decherney, P. (2012). Hollywood’s copyright wars:. From Edison to the internet: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Decherney, P. (2014). Fair use goes global. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 31(2), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2014.921321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diedring, M. C. (1984). VCR home recording and title 17: Does congress have the answer to Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Syracuse Law Review, 35(2), 793–827.
   Google Scholar
• Farazmand, A. (2002). Emergent theories of organization: An overview and analysis. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Modern organizations: Theory and practice (pp. 63–96). Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Ficsor, M. (1997). Copyright for the digital era: The WIPO internet treaties. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 21(3–4), 197–223.
   Google Scholar
• Ficsor, M. (2002). Law of copyright and the internet: The WIPO treaties and their implementation. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giblin, R. (2013). Submission to the Australian law reform commission’s inquiry on copyright in the digital age.
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, J. S., Pierson, P., & Thelen, K. (2015). Drift and conversion: Hidden faces of institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Advances in comparative-historical analysis (pp. 180–208)). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, A. J. (2005). MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. & In re aimster litigation: A study of secondary copyright liability in the peer-to-peer context. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 20(2), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38509G
   Google Scholar
• Litman, J. (1989). Copyright legislation and technological change. Oregon Law Review, 68(2), 275–361.
   Google Scholar
• Litman, J. (2005). The Sony paradox. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 55(4), 917–961. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1611&context=caselrev
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. (pp. 1–38). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Grokster, Ltd., et al. Supreme Court of United States (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Miles, E. (2004). In re Aimster & (and) MGM, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.: Peer-to-Peer and the Sony Doctrine. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19(1), 21–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24117528?seq=1
   Google Scholar
• Okediji, R. (2000). Toward an international fair use doctrine. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 39(1), 75–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & King, D. S. (2005). The politics of path dependency: Political conflict in historical institutionalism. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1275–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00360.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierson, P. (2015). Power and path dependence. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Advances in comparative-historical analysis (pp. 123–146). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketson, S. 1987. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: 1886-1986: Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary College. London, UK: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. (2005a). Did MGM Really Win the Grokster Case? Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1089107.1089125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. (2005b). The Generativity of Sony v. Universal: The Intellectual Property Legacy of Justice Stevens. Fordham Law Review, 74(4), 1831–1876. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol74/iss4/10/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. (2009). Unbundling Fair Uses. Fordham Law Review, 77(5), 2537–2621. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol74/iss4/10/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A. (2009). Putting the political back into political economy by bringing the state back in yet again. World Politics, 61(3), 516–546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887109000173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sony Corporation of America et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of United States 1984).
   Google Scholar
• Steinmo, S., & Thelen, K. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (pp. 1–30). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• The United States of America. (1787). The Constitution of the United States of America.
   Google Scholar
• Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp. of Amer., 480 F. Supp. 429 (C.D. Cal.). (1979) (US District Court for the Central District of California 1979).
   Google Scholar