New UK Copyright Research Center Immediately Under Attack For Daring To Ask About Evidence
from the what's-the-problem? dept
As Techdirt reported last year, some copyright maximalists in the UK seem to be against the whole idea of basing policy on evidence. Last week saw the launch of CREATe: Creativity, Regulation, Enterprise and Technology, a new UK "research centre for copyright and new business models in the creative economy." One of the things it hopes to do is to bring some objectivity to the notoriously contentious field of copyright studies by looking at what the evidence really says; so it was perhaps inevitable that it too would meet some resistance from the extremist wing of the copyright world. What's surprising is that it seems to have happened during the launch itself, as Paul Bernal, an academic who was there, reports:
A key idea is that some of the CREATe projects will be gathering evidence -- and attempting to determine what's really true about what's going on. Indeed, the first publication from CREATe is a piece about what will actually constitute evidence from the many, varied perspectives of the different groups involved -- you can find it here. CREATe represents an invaluable opportunity for this gathering of evidence -- to have the money, the expertise and the time for the kind of research that can really look into this is something very, very special. And yet even before the launch event had finished, not even a day into the four year project it appeared that the lobbyists were already trying to suggest that the project was likely to be unfair and biased. The question that immediately springs to mind is what are they afraid of? Don't they want real evidence? Are they worried that the evidence will suggest that their current models both of business and of enforcement are flawed and ineffective? Are they afraid that CREATe will help put together new business models -- and that the new environment will have no place for the 'old' content industries?
In the spirit of academic enquiry, answering these questions is left as an exercise for the reader....
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't be fooled. It will be around for about the age of Mickey Mouse + 70 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sadly, corporations are, by design, unable to see this field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just to them 'real' is only anecdotal and/or spectral evidence that matches what their fundamental beliefs in their own self importance is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple rule of thumb:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple rule of thumb:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple rule of thumb:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple rule of thumb:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is...
Umm... No disrespect intended to entertainers, but there are more important things in the world, and if the option is curtail our freedom or risk having less entertainment... I prefer to remain sedated, imprisoned and happy (that's the lobby-approved answer, isn't it?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is...
I have seen this claim before and thought it to be total bunk, I would think the evidence points in the opposite direction. A study one subject would be interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is...
With the internet the monopolist leeches have lost the ability to prevent someone releasing their art to the world for free, they have lost the ability to control the revenue streams and can no longer block great artists because they do not like them.
The days of the monopolist leeches time is over finally, and art will once again become about the art and not about how much money the leeches can make from someone else's creations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is...
Shakespeare anyone .... the wheel ... etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is...
Considering that the oldest known paintings, and oldest flutes are about 40,000 years old, one can reasonably assume that copyright is NOT important to the creation of art. It is important to those who build their business on the ownership of other peoples works, and it is these people who want to strengthen copyright.
Weakening or removing copyright will not stop the creation of art. The businesses that rely in copyright also rely on people creating in the hope that they will be published by one of the publishing companies,. Copyright has little to do with the creative urges, and much more to do with commercial control of publishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is...
After the music industry left it, the creative value has increased dramatically and even more danish language music is coming out, though through self-publishing. That was the opinion of a professor and a musician in a tv-debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is...
There's no evidence that this will happen. In fact, lowering the bar seems to be increasing - not reducing - the number of people creating art. Statistics from the movie and music industries do seem to be showing that more art is being crated even if that art isn't converting into financial riches.
If you have evidence that removing copyright does decrease the art being created, now is the time to display and discuss it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is...
The creators however first need to have potential fans find their works. This has become easier by use of social networking, though this does not guarantee finding any fans. The internet at least eliminates artists having to be accepted by a gatekeeper before their creations are made available to the public. Success then depends on how many people really like their work, and become fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/07/copyright-as-a-fundamentalist-religion/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won't be "evidence" unless the legacy gatekeepers can make money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art without copyright? Nonsense!
I don't think we should have any historians look into my claims, because any study of history is bound to be biased and unfair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trick questions?
Let's see if I can get this... no, yes, and yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are already better than 20 studies that show the very opposite of the claims that stronger copyright means more creations. You never hear of them but the articles about this were out last year. I believe it was Zeropaid that put out the results of a long study. They didn't make it, they were showing the studies favoring less copyright were there but buried through neglect from the media not covering the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For us
In the absence of copyright.
There's the entire quote folks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding the presence of lobbyists, he says quite vague things like '...it appeared that the lobbyists were already trying to suggest that the project was likely to be unfair and biased'.
However, at no point does he name the companies the lobbyists work for, how many lobbyists asked questions etc. I found it very hard to get a feel for what actually happened without this sort of evidence.
Maybe the hostile questions or opinions were simply people at the event taking a Devil's Advocate position. I do that sort of thing all the time myself. What words came out of what mouths that said or implied 'We don't want you to gather evidence'? He never says.
Evidence, evidence, evidence!
This means that Glyn Moody's statements above such as '..it was perhaps inevitable that it [CREATe] too would meet some resistance from the extremist wing of the copyright world' are based on little real evidence.
It is also unwarranted, based on the evidence, to headline this Techdirt item as 'New UK Copyright Research Center Immediately Under Attack For Daring To Ask About Evidence'. There is no evidence of any 'attack'.
I'm not saying that Dr Bernal hasn't got this evidence, but he hasn't presented it in his blog posting and therefore I think it unwise to base judgements on his posting as it stands.
Don't take my word for it - go and look at his posting for yourselves. No organization names, no numbers, no quotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It looked to me like he was trying to focus on the content rather than making it into an attack piece on particular people or organizations. Do you suspect that he misunderstood what was said, or is mistaken about who said it?
You can post your feedback on his blog as well, there's a comment on there that he replied to. Maybe you can get a response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]