[Centre] Centre:new draft

Tue Sep 6 19:27:34 CEST 2011

Dear Sean:

Thanks for the newest version of the proposal.  I think it is fit for purpose with one exception.
The section on externalities has become a victim of 'committee write' (compromises) and I
would make the following (word neutral -- 48 words in each case) suggestion for revision.

As received:

The Centre will extend analysis to externalities in the digital economy: 

5. externalities: The costs of environmental factors as well as the transaction costs of policing copyright are only partly hidden in the prices paid by consumers. This programme will relate copyright transactions to externalities, public goods and resources.

Proposed substitute:

Assessment of externalities will be an important theme for the Centre:

5. Externalities: Copyright and other IPRs impose externalities (benefits and costs outside of the choice framework of the market) that influence consumer welfare, environmental quality and sustainability.  Assessing these externalities will be a research issue for the Centre.

If the phrase '(benefits and costs outside of the choice framework of the market)' seems cumbersome, an alternative is '(windfall benefits and involuntarily imposed costs)' which
adds a bit of colour and still is technically correct.

Best regards, Ed Steinmueller

________________________________________
From: Cubitt S.R. [S.R.Cubitt at soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 06 September 2011 17:44
To: Group working in the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy
Cc: Matthews N.S.; Amelia Wakeford; Taylor C.; Ed Steinmueller; Caroline Bassett; Kirk Woolford
Subject: Centre:new draft

Here's the new version, incorporating everything I could from wiki and
mails and comments; and removing all previous comments and track changes -
you may have to turn track changes back on to make your comments.

The word counts require very sharp writing: not too much detail, not too
much abstraction.

I welcome all suggestions, but we must get this signed on Thursday morning
to be sent in officially.

The paragraph on "strategy for how to bring stakeholders in to the
research process" at the end of the Partnership section is of special
interest: it is an amalgam of a conversation I once had with the late Bill
Mitchell on how MIT Media Lab was funded mixed in with an outsider view of
how Ubuntu make a living from Linux. This I would especially thank you
for help with.

The section on strategic fit is one hundred words over, mainly because
when I'd accommodated all suggestions, I realised we hadn't done the
required bit on pubic communications. I will cut to size after I get your
reactions

The most heavily worked section as you'd expect is the first,
Demonstration of Need. I have tried to be more diplomatic, without
sacrificing the vision, and in a very tight word-budget. We have about 15
words to play with here

In Funding and Legacy, we are near complete figures. These will have to be
digested into the 500 word limit. In the meantime I have included the
draft of the required paragraph on 'potential for a sustainable legacy'
Your comments here also appreciated

Thanks so much for the process so far: even if we don't nail this one, it
is a great, collegial process.

Sean

PS Franco: if not on already, could you add the names in the cc list to
the Group mail? Grazie tanto.