Thanks.... I'd used a previous template and hadn't spotted that. Nikki Nicola Matthews Collaboration Manager (Social & Human Sciences, Humanities, Business& law) Research & Innovation Services Building 37, R4107 University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ Phone: 023 8059 8340 Internal: 28340 web: www.soton.ac.uk/ris/ "This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person." -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sally-Jane Norman Sent: 05 September 2011 14:37 To: Group working in the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Subject: Re: [Centre] draft Dear Nikki, all Ouch. Just noticed while co-drafting with colleagues that support letter template specifies AHRC Knowledge Exchange Hub.... Perhaps rephrase as per below? ESPSRC and ESRC will be miffed if they're not mentioned. Sorry not to pick up on this earlier - multitasking noise. RE: Statement of Support as part of the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy XXXX wishes to express its full support of the Expression of Interest led by Prof. Jeremey Howells of the University of Southampton, entitled “Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy”, submitted in response to the jointly funded AHRC, EPSRC and ESRC Research Council call. Etc etc Not sure who else has been forwarding the template. Best sj On 02/09/2011 16:55, "Matthews N.S." <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear All,
Please find attached a template that can be used for the letters of support from partner organisations.
Jeremry, Sean, Lorraine, does this look ok to you? It's based on a previous AHRC EOI support letter.
With Regards
Nikki
________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cubitt S.R. [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:13 PM To: Group working in the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Subject: Re: [Centre] draft
Sorry I wasn't round earlier to respond tp this excellent set of coments - I have one document which must be completed today; after that I'll read the latest draft of the proposal, which I imagine already responds to these great critiques
sean
On 26/08/2011 04:14, "Volker Grassmuck" <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Sean for your first draft and Sally-Jane — Great to meet you again! Even greater if we would be working together in this centre! — and Lorraine and Franco for edits.
Franco, you’re right, we have to agree on a mode of editing. From the interaction so far, the wiki doesn’t seem popular, while everybody seems comfortable with editing text files. So I would suggest we go with that. Please turn on „track changes”. Franco, your changes can only be extracted by a time-consuming „compare documents” procedure. Lorraine, in your version nearly all of the text is marked as „newly attributed”. So again I’m not seeing your amendments. It might be an issue of me using OpenOffice. I hope we are not losing edits.
So I’ll continue from Sally-Jane’s version with a few edits and remarks inside the text and some more points here:
1. The call is expressly for a Centre for Copyright, not for IPRs in general. I was surprised about the strong emphasis on IPRs in the draft. Do you think it increases our chance that we offer them something more than what they’ve asked for, or decreases them for missing the point?
"We believe that intellectual property rights (IPRs) need to be assessed in relation to one another, rather than isolating copyright, when so many creative entrepreneurs and practitioners look instead to patents, trademarks and designs.” — Really? I for one have been embracing rms’s campaign against the term „intellectual property” because I agree from experience that bunching the very different systems does more harm than good. And then: Authors, composers, photographers etc. protect their works with patents, trademarks and designs rather than copyright? I can’t imagine what this refers to. Could you give examples?
What seems like an example for the problems of bunching: „Should the rigorous tests of originality in patent law be applied in copyright?” — Are you implying that this is the case and we are asking whether it should be, or is this a suggestion that it should be so? Confusingly, „originality” is used both in patent and copyright law but means something very different: novelty vs personal, intellectual creation.
2. "Demonstration of need." Here you list seven areas of research we’re going to pursue. I think they should go into the next section „key features”. I also think we need to talk about them a bit more, e.g. how does 1. modeling creative practice as business relate to 6. digital labour? For establishing need I think we should talk about a fundamental shift in the industrial basis and the disruptive effects of the digital revolution. The crisis in public funding of art and culture should be mentioned, as well as the millions that the Hargreaves-based copyright reform supposedly will add to the UK economy. The whole field is in flux. We are in a large-scale in situ experiment, inventing the future as we go along. To guide political and economic actors, systematic production of empirical evidence is needed (Hargreaves).
Then it’s asking for target sectors. So we should talk about the music, film, games etc. sectors and what we can do for them. As for distinctive features, I would highlight interdisciplinarity. Existing copyright centres are ’naturally’ located inside law schools and lack intensive exchanges with media science, cultural studies, informatics, art, civil society etc. which will be one of our Centre’s strong points.
3. Business: I understand that we are catering to "painfully retarded "Creative Britain” thinkers”. But: "The creative economy is not in large part industrial in structure.” I think this is overdoing catering to the SME trope. Large corporations are in fact responsible for a large part of revenues and jobs in creative industries and most of copyright lobbying. Also, SMEs don’t come up again in the rest of the text. P2P is mentioned only because large companies are using it. And then you mention that start-ups = SMEs are typically bought out by market dominators. If Sally-Jane is right in that this is a key concern we have to work on making it more consistent and compelling.
I hope this is useful for moving our discussion forward.
Best, Volker
_______________________________________________ Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Wiki space: http://p2pfoundation.net/projects/doku.php/centre:start _______________________________________________ Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Wiki space: http://p2pfoundation.net/projects/doku.php/centre:start
_______________________________________________ Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Wiki space: http://p2pfoundation.net/projects/doku.php/centre:start