Since the earliest days of philosophy, thinkers have debated the meaning of the term happiness and the nature of the good life. But it is only in recent years that the study of happiness—or “hedonics”—has developed into a formal field of inquiry, cutting across a broad range of disciplines and offering insights into a variety of crucial questions of law and public policy. Law and Happiness brings together the best and most influential thinkers in the field to explore the question of what makes up happiness—and what factors can be demonstrated to increase or decrease it. Martha Nussbaum offers an account of the way that hedonics can productively be applied to psychology, Cass R. Sunstein considers the unexpected relationship between happiness and health problems, Matthew Adler and Eric A. Posner view hedonics through the lens of cost-benefit analysis, David A. Weisbach considers the relationship between happiness and taxation, and Mark A. Cohen examines the role crime—and fear of crime—can play in people’s assessment of their happiness, and much more. The result is a kaleidoscopic overview of this increasingly prominent field, offering surprising new perspectives and incisive analyses that will have profound implications on public policy.

Кл.слова:
закон -- філософія

Intellectual property rights have undergone a significant expansion over the last half century, particularly since the Copyright Act of 1976. In The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Law, William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner (AEI Press; July 1, 2004) attempt to explain this expansion of intellectual property rights, and how it could have coincided with the deregulation movement. Should intellectual property be thought of as a form of regulation? Why did the movement for greater protection of intellectual property coincide with the deregulation movement? Landes and Posner apply public-choice theory to the growth and character of intellectual property protection over the last half-century. The authors argue that public-choice theory alone cannot explain the coincidence of the deregulation movement and the rapid growth of intellectual property protection. Political forces and ideological currents associated with the deregulation movement, combined with interest-group pressures, best explain the increases in intellectual property protection since 1976. The authors urge caution in equating intellectual property rights to physical property rights. They counsel skeptics of government to hesitate before extending a presumption of efficiency to a process by which government grants rights to exclude competition.

Кл.слова:
авторське право