Copyright and Creation: repositioning the argument

Purpose – This paper highlights the challenges and key arguments for digital copyright protection legislation for creative industries. Design/methodology/approach – This briefing is prepared by independent academics who place the arguments in context based upon literature and market data. Findings – Many of the arguments used against copyright protection laws draw upon flawed analysis. Artistic creators should be treated fairly and their work should be afforded the same protection as other property. Practical implications – Digital legislation warrants review, but not for the frequently cited reasons of “stifling innovation” or “restriction” of others using the work. Rather, artists need better protection for their work and fairer treatment with regards their property rights. Originality/value – The paper provides context and practical insights into the data used to influence policy decision makers, providing a stronger case for legislative review.

decides that all the members of the staff will no longer benefit from research income. Instead staff will teach 3 times as many hours per week, on average moving from 6 to 18 hours per week if they wish to maintain their salary. What is likely to be the immediate response? Almost surely academics will complain as they will not have the free time available for their creative activities, which in the academic world is research.
Research is required to generate knew knowledge and enhance future teaching. Without it, there is no intellectual progression and future markets will all draw upon the same teaching material. This would change the centre of value creation from the originator of the work to the teacher. It is unlikely that significant new bodies of research would be undertaken without compensation and the academic research community would collapse. Whilst we have never cited the Christian Bible before, Luke 6:31 appears appropriate: "Do to others as you would have them do to you". Figure 2 (p. 8) uses IFPI digital music report data to show the significant global revenue growth of recorded digital music, from 2% in 2004 to 34% in 2012. Coming from the global trade body for music, the IFPI, these figures can be taken as reliable. The report stresses the growth in the UK is even higher "UK revenues from online music were higher than revenues from CDs and vinyl combined (55% for online and 45% for CDs and vinyl of total revenues from sales of recorded music)". However, it is notable that in the report the vertical axis of the graphs changes between figures 1 and 2. Data is presented as Millions of USD in figure 1, but in figure 2 growth is given as a percentage of total. As a percentage of total revenue, growth is impressive, particularly in the UK.
However, by using IFPI UK data which we have available to us we can put the figures for digital and physical recorded music all into Millions of GBP. This new graph includes the context of the declining recorded music market; exhibit A. From this graph we can see that whilst digital revenue is growing it has been doing so in a fast declining market, gaining an increasingly larger piece of a smaller pie. The report then makes the bold claim "Revenue from online sources including recorded music sales, streaming, online radio, subscriptions and other is increasing, both absolutely and as a percentage of overall revenue" (p. 8). This is true, but when viewed in context of the whole market the figure and the claim no longer present a compelling argument for 'growth'. The copyright holders are not receiving the value from the market for their recorded music which they previously enjoyed. That they are getting more revenue from digital than physical formats is, one imagines, of little comfort.
Restrictions on file sharing stifle innovation: Authors affirm "Intervention to enforce copyright infringement legislation on individual file sharers risks stifling innovation" (p. 5). Now changing the context and employ the laugh test, let us imagine that a home has 3 rooms and one of the rooms is empty. Are stifling innovation because this room could be used by someone to run a business? The house is our private property. The meaning of private property is we can do with our property what we consider best; nobody can dispose of our assets, in this case one of the rooms of our house, without   Danaher et al. (2010Danaher et al. ( , 2012 empirically indicating the contrary. In our view Cammaerts et al. (2013) report that both of the arguments presented, "Creative Industry revenues are not declining overall" and "Restrictions on file sharing stifle innovation" hold true. But when these arguments are tested in context they become less conclusions and would struggle to pass the laugh test (Kennedy, 2003).

Can successful business models be generalized across sectors?
The decline in music revenue is a complex issue that involves considerations of changes in consumer attitude, market environment, the business models employed by organizations and illegal file sharing. For convenience of analysis, these issues are usually treated separately, but they are deeply interrelated. Empirical research shows that 22.5% of global consumers are not interested in downloading or purchasing music digitally (Bustinza et al., 2013b). The same study reports that 28.2% of the population engages in illegally downloading files, violating the rights of the property holders.
Together these groups represent a complex challenge for the sector, requiring consideration of IPR protection and the way consumers are engaged through sales channels. The music industry has had to change its role. As Lewis et al. (2005)  are made between them. The industries differ in format of delivery, potential file size and context of use as, for example, music does not face the same language barrier at the point of consumption as a book and has a much smaller file size than a film. Volumes produced and consumed are also different and much higher for music. Consider how many different songs you have heard in the last week and compare that to the number of computer games you played, films you saw and books you read. These are just some of the many differences. The music industry was the first of the industries to be impacted by file sharing, with early peer-to-peer applications developed specifically to illegally copy and share music online. Piracy affected music first (Daniels et al., 2006) and so far has impacted upon revenue more significantly than other creative industries.
To focus on a single example comparing games and music, Cammaerts et al. (2013, p. 6) argue, "the digital gaming industry is also thriving and introducing innovative ways of generating revenue". Whilst this is statement may be true, video games content protection employs sophisticated means of piracy prevention. It was always more difficult to copy games and game consoles that have mechanisms to avoid the use of

Co-creation and Legislation
The LSE report suggests that providing exclusive ownership rights ignores those who wish to utilize the outputs in their own work, stating "Insisting that people will only produce creative works when they can claim exclusive ownership rights ignores the spread of practices that depend on sharing and co-creation and easy access to creative works; this insistence privileges copyright owners over these creators" (p. 10). Value  analysis based on a critical realism where empirical presentation of facts can be discussed within a socially constructed environment where there may be many truths. In this regard, the LSE report may have been written to stir up debate, but we don't think this report helps move that debate forward as it is more emotive than academically rigorous and unbiased in its presentation of the arguments.

Conclusions.
In this brief research note we have sought to examine in detail the report from Cammaerts et al. (2013), which raises interesting issues with relation to the implementation of the UK Digital Economy Act. Whilst the call for a review of legislation may have some merit, the report has several drawbacks, which could be taken to invalidate the demands made for review. We demonstrate that (1) their bibliographic sources are clearly biased, (2) some of the key arguments cannot pass the 'laugh test' or are not properly defined (i.e. co-creation) and (3)