IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v83y2025ics0144818825000377.html

Notice-and-takedown as dispute resolution: An empirical analysis of GitHub notices

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Pengfei
  • Li, Ji

Abstract

The Section 512(c) notice-and-takedown regime is a primary mechanism that enforces online copyright in the U.S. The objective is to enable the disputants to settle on their own, but asymmetric information can lead to claimant abuse and bargaining impasse, as critics of Section 512 have pointed out. This paper studies the dispute resolution aspect of the notice-and-takedown. We evaluate two platform remedies (chance-to-change policy and revise-and-resubmit policy) and the recent trend of professionalization in the context of GitHub. We collect a novel sample of 4,684 takedown notices from GitHub and use it to empirically test the disputants’ settlement behavior. Our estimates show that the chance-to-change policy is associated with a higher settlement rate, whereas the revise-and-resubmit policy has little effect. The results are consistent with a signaling theory between the copyright owner and the infringer. To address the potential selection effects of GitHub, we apply text analysis to quantify and control latent attributes of the notices, including writing styles and informativeness, in addition to more substantive features. We also discuss the role of expert representatives and certain textual characteristics that appear influential in the dispute resolution process.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Pengfei & Li, Ji, 2025. "Notice-and-takedown as dispute resolution: An empirical analysis of GitHub notices," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:83:y:2025:i:c:s0144818825000377
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2025.106281
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818825000377
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irle.2025.106281?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viscusi, W Kip, 1988. "Product Liability Litigation with Risk Aversion," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 101-121, January.
    2. Waldfogel, Joel, 1998. "Reconciling Asymmetric Information and Divergent Expectations Theories of Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 451-476, October.
    3. Dana, James D, Jr & Spier, Kathryn E, 1993. "Expertise and Contingent Fees: The Role of Asymmetric Information in Attorney Compensation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 349-367, October.
    4. Dyer, Travis & Lang, Mark & Stice-Lawrence, Lorien, 2017. "The evolution of 10-K textual disclosure: Evidence from Latent Dirichlet Allocation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 221-245.
    5. Jonathan H. Choi, 2024. "How to Use Large Language Models for Empirical Legal Research," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 180(2), pages 214-233.
    6. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    7. Yun-chien Chang & William Hubbard, 2021. "New Empirical Tests for Classic Litigation Selection Models: Evidence from a Low Settlement Environment," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 348-394.
    8. Paul Pecorino & Mark Van Boening, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of the Signaling and Screening Models of Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 214-244.
    9. Daniel Klerman & Lisa Klerman, 2015. "Inside the Caucus: An Empirical Analysis of Mediation from Within," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 686-715, December.
    10. Jennifer F. Reinganum & Louise L. Wilde, 1986. "Settlement, Litigation, and the Allocation of Litigation Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 557-566, Winter.
    11. Bernardo S. Silveira, 2017. "Bargaining With Asymmetric Information: An Empirical Study of Plea Negotiations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 419-452, March.
    12. Perloff, Jeffrey M & Rubinfeld, Daniel L & Ruud, Paul, 1996. "Antitrust Settlements and Trial Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(3), pages 401-409, August.
    13. Kuo‐Chang Huang, 2008. "How Legal Representation Affects Case Outcomes: An Empirical Perspective from Taiwan," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 197-238, June.
    14. Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Rubinfeld, Daniel L., 2002. "A note on settlements under the contingent fee method of compensating lawyers," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 217-225, August.
    15. Earnhart, Dietrich & Rousseau, Sandra, 2019. "Are lawyers worth the cost? Legal counsel in environmental criminal court cases," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    16. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1984. "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    17. Muhamet Yildiz, 2011. "Bargaining with Optimism," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 451-478, September.
    18. Deepak Somaya, 2003. "Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 17-38, January.
    19. Ahn, Kiefer & Trujillo, Antonio & Gibbons, Jason & Bennett, Charles L. & Anderson, Gerard, 2023. "Settled: Patent characteristics and litigation outcomes in the pharmaceutical industry," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    20. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amy Fanner & Paul Pecorino, 2005. "Dispute Rates and Contingency Fees: An Analysis from the Signaling Model," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(3), pages 566-581, January.
    2. Joni Hersch, 2006. "Demand for a Jury Trial and the Selection of Cases for Trial," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 119-142, January.
    3. Lee, Yoon-Ho Alex & Klerman, Daniel, 2016. "The Priest-Klein hypotheses: Proofs and generality," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 59-76.
    4. Orley C. Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game: Evidence from Long Run Play," NBER Working Papers 18834, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Peter Grajzl & Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl & Katarina Zajc, 2016. "Inside post-socialist courts: the determinants of adjudicatory outcomes in Slovenian commercial disputes," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 85-115, February.
    6. Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe & Deffains, Bruno & Lovat, Bruno, 2011. "The dynamics of the legal system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 95-107.
    7. Claudia M. Landeo, 2018. "Law and economics and tort litigation institutions: theory and experiments," Chapters, in: Joshua C. Teitelbaum & Kathryn Zeiler (ed.), Research Handbook on Behavioral Law and Economics, chapter 9, pages 247-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Orley Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 399-423, September.
    9. Katrin Cremers & Paula Schliessler, 2015. "Patent litigation settlement in Germany: why parties settle during trial," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 185-208, October.
    10. Heikkilä, Jussi & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2019. "Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2009. "Why Challenge the Ivory Tower? New Evidence on the Basicness of Academic Patents," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 488-499, November.
    12. Daniel P. Kessler & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2004. "Empirical Study of the Civil Justice System," NBER Working Papers 10825, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Chopard, Bertrand & Cortade, Thomas & Langlais, Eric, 2010. "Trial and settlement negotiations between asymmetrically skilled parties," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 18-27, March.
    14. J.J. Prescott & Kathryn E. Spier & Albert Yoon, 2014. "Trial and Settlement: A Study of High-Low Agreements," NBER Working Papers 19873, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Roland Kirstein & Neil Rickman, 2004. ""Third Party Contingency" Contracts in Settlement and Litigation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 555-575, December.
    16. J.J. Prescott & Kathryn E. Spier & Albert Yoon, 2014. "Trial and Settlement: A Study of High-Low Agreements," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 699-746.
    17. Amoncio, Egbert & Chan, Tian & Storz, Cornelia, 2025. "Using computer vision to measure design similarity: An application to design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(9).
    18. Graevenitz, Georg von, 2007. "Which Reputations Does a Brand Owner Need? Evidence from Trade Mark Opposition," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 215, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    19. Lin, Chang-Ching & Chang, Yun-chien & Chen, Kong-Pin, 2020. "Knowledge in youth is wisdom in age: an empirical study of attorney experience in torts litigation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Jean O Lanjouw & Josh Lerner, 2004. "The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Literature," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000486, David K. Levine.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • K24 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Cyber Law
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:83:y:2025:i:c:s0144818825000377. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.