Thanks Ed, very much I'll use your notes also to respond to comments by Max in a similar vein Hope to have a draft later today for further comment sean On 06/09/2011 07:39, "Sally-Jane Norman" <[email protected]> wrote:
Sean, all
General comment below forwarded by Ed Steinmueller as contribution to ongoing revisions.
In the text, the participant paragraph for Sussex, re Ed, should read Prof. Ed Steinmueller of SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), an economist with experience in cultural and technology policy (attached brief bio with selected publications appended indicates relevant expertise).
Ed has annotated the appended version of the document sent last week, annotations in blue . These reflections essentially contribute towards the broader thrust funders will expect from the SINGLE copyright centre they'll select, thereby strengthening as Ed suggests the proposal's original components. Annotations also query jargon - mine included - so provide a useful pair of fresh eyes on this.
Apologies for this contribution being late in proceedings but Ed's points strike me as pretty crucial; we're only likely to break any ground on this subject with RCUK as a credible one-stop-shop (oh the irony!) for copyright expertise if we're seen as a bridge, rather than an island.
Best wishes
Sally Jane
Short Comment on Proposal for Copyright Centre Ed Steinmueller
Given that there will only be one such Centre funded it is important not to be too specialized. The wording of the current proposal (I an no doubt several versions behind) suggests that we are proposing the Œalternative centre on copyright¹ which is immediately a losing proposition given the nature of the contest. A bit more credence should be provided to the conventional logic of copyright:
1. It provides incentives for publishers to identify and promote new talent and to engage in the promotion of works of creative content.
2. It does raise the prospect of market power, particularly in areas which are subject to Œnetwork externalities¹ such as software where alternative competitive products may find it difficult to compete due to the spillovers in skills (e.g. user familiarity with a particular software application) and data exchange (exchanged documents need to be revisable by others). In other areas, however, it is generally expected that competitive alternatives will constrain market power while profit seeking will provide incentives for innovation.
3. Individuals engaged in creative industries on a professional basis will ultimately depend upon some restraints on the copying of their work although it is true that the collapse of some forms of protection (e.g. through peer to peer sharing of music) leads to other forms of protection (e.g. gate charges to live performance). Some creative professionals do not have a Œperformance option.¹
With a little more balance, the innovative and original components of the proposal will be better highlighted.
Given our modest depth in law, I would not propose to undertake the rewriting of copyright law. I think it is a very good idea to propose alternative assessments of the social, cultural, and economic consequences of alternative institutional arrangements for building the business models of the creative industries.