[Centre] draft

[Cubitt S.R.]

Thanks for spotting that!

S

-- 
Sean Cubitt 
Professor of Global Media and Communication
Research Centre in Global Art and Culture
Winchester School of Art
Park Ave
Winchester SO23 8DL,
United Kingdom

E: S.R.Cubitt at soton.ac.uk
Web: http://wsa.soton.ac.uk/
Skype: seancubitt
Work Phone: +44 (0)23 8059 6900

Editor-in-Chief Leonardo Book Series
http://leonardo.info <http://leonardo.info/>








On 05/09/2011 14:36, "Sally-Jane Norman" <S.J.Norman at sussex.ac.uk> wrote:

>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." <N.S.Matthews at soton.ac.uk> 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: p2p-centre-bounces at lists.ourproject.org
>>[p2p-centre-bounces at lists.ourproject.org] On Behalf Of Cubitt S.R.
>>[S.R.Cubitt at soton.ac.uk]
>>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" <vgrass at rz.hu-berlin.de> 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