Edwards, Klein, Lee, Moss and Philip (2015)

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Edwards, Klein, Lee, Moss and Philip (2015)
Title: Discourse, justification and critique: towards a legitimate digital copyright regime?
Author(s): Edwards, L, Klein, B, Lee, D, Moss, G, Philip, F
Year: 2015
Citation: Edwards, L., Klein, B., Lee, D., Moss, G., & Philip, F. (2015). Discourse, justification and critique: towards a legitimate digital copyright regime?. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(1), 60-77.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Alongside a literature review, the authors carry out an analysis of film, music and television industries marketing campaigns aimed at users and, through corporate and industry association websites, industry submissions to two major reviews of copyright commissioned by the UK government: The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property in 2006 and the Hargreaves Review of Digital Opportunity and Growth in 2011.
Data Type: Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: Yes
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • Non stated
Funder(s):
  • Economic and Social Research Council

Abstract

Digitization and the internet have posed an acute economic challenge to rights holders in the cultural industries. Faced with a threat to their form of capital accumulation from copyright infringement, rights holders have used discourse strategically in order to try and legitimate and strengthen their position in the digital copyright debate with governments and media users. In so doing, they have appealed to general justificatory principles – about what is good, right, and just – that provide some scope for opposition and critique, as other groups contest their interpretation of these principles and the evidence used to support them. In this article, we address the relative lack of academic attention paid to the role of discourse in copyright debates by analysing user-directed marketing campaigns and submissions to UK government policy consultations. We show how legitimacy claims are justified and critiqued, and conclude that amid these debates rests some hope of achieving a more legitimate policy resolution to the copyright wars – or at least the possibility of beginning a more constructive dialogue.

Main Results of the Study

  • Discourse can play a strategic role, alongside structural advantages, in promoting the interests of particular groups
  • Discourse should not be reduced entirely to economic interests and so dismissed as just so much more ideology in the Marxian sense. Rather, in legitimating economic arrangements actors appeal to general justificatory principles – about what is good, right and just – which involve a broader claim to public legitimacy.
  • Policy consultations do not always translate neatly into political outcomes and may be short circuited by other processes such as the direct lobbying of politicians
  • The rights holders’ strategic use of discourse reinforces the structural advantages they already tend to enjoy in the copyright debate. As a result, the copyright debate remains a far cry from a more deliberative process of copyright policy-making where a more legitimate détente to the copyright wars may be achieved.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

  • According to the authors, the legitimate resolution to the copyright wars or at least of beginning a more constructive dialogue will only become a reality through a more deliberative process of policy-making, where the discursive claims of actors are exchanged and debated more fully.
  • The authors stress the need to meaningfully involve members of the public themselves as a source of legitimate perspectives, not just as copyright infringers who need to be better educated or regulated: users are more than capable of offering rational justifications in relation to copyright, even in the absence of clear and detailed knowledge about it
  • The generic structures through which copyright policy is currently debated are limited because they do not require participants to engage directly with each other. In government consultations and even more so in industry campaigns, the stakeholders need not respond fully to counter arguments or account publicly for the apparent limitations and inconsistencies in the justificatory discourses they employ.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Green-tick.png
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Green-tick.png
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Green-tick.png
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 78
Level of aggregation: Publication
Period of material under study: Non stated


Sample size: 34
Level of aggregation: Corporate and Industry Associations Website
Period of material under study: Non stated


Sample size: 4
Level of aggregation: Marketing campaign
Period of material under study: Non stated