[Centre] draft

Mon Sep 5 15:49:31 CEST 2011

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: p2p-centre-bounces at lists.ourproject.org [mailto:p2p-centre-bounces at lists.ourproject.org] 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." <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