[Centre] draft

[Cubitt S.R.]

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" <S.J.Norman at sussex.ac.uk> 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.
>
>