/ Full archive

Comment on copyright term extension

Publishing

The deed is done. Copyright term extension for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years was adopted yesterday (12 September 2011) by qualified majority in the European Council. The remaining opposition came from Belgium, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. Austria and Estonia abstained.

The chorus of approval has been led by aging artists, masking the fact that for more than a decade the lobby for copyright extension has been resourced by the multinational record industry (see related BBC news item). Labels do not want to lose the revenues of the classic recordings of the 1960s which are reaching the end of their current 50 year term. Rather than innovating, right holders find it much easier to exclude competition. Europe is in danger of locking away her music heritage just as digital technology is enabling the opening of the archives.

It is not surprising that many performers’ organisations and collecting societies support the Directive. They do not have to carry the costs – which will exceed EURO 1 billion to the general public (based on the Commission’s own figures – see calculations in Joint Academic Statement issued by Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM, Bournemouth University), the Centre for Intellectual Property & Information Law (CIPIL, Cambridge University), the Institute the Institute for Information Law (IViR, University of Amsterdam), and the Max Planck Competition and Tax Law (Munich).

72 percent of the financial benefits from term extension will accrue to record labels. Of the 28 percent that will go to artists, most of the money will go to superstar acts, with only 4 percent benefiting those musicians mentioned in the European Council press release as facing an “income gap at the end of their life times” (New rules on term of protection of music recordings, Council of the EU, 12/09/11). Many performers also do not appear to understand that the proposal would lead to a redistribution of income from living to dead artists.

In an interview with the NY Times yesterday, I said: “This is a dreadful day for musicians and consumers. Policymakers are schizophrenic, speaking a language of change and innovation, but then respond to lobbying by extending the right which gave rise to the problem in the first place. This only entrenches a cynical attitude toward copyright law and brings it into further disrepute.”

Sweden and Belgium issued dissents after the vote in the Council. They are worth quoting in full: Interinstitutional File: 2008/0157 (COD)

Declaration by Sweden

Throughout the negotiations, Sweden has had strong reservations regarding the commission’s proposal to extend the term of protection for sound recordings.

As regards copyright regulation in general Sweden has always stressed the importance of taking all relevant aspects and involved interests into account, in order to maintain a fair balance in the copyright system. We believe this to be essential if we are to successfully uphold respect for the copyright system in the future.

Extending the term of protection for sound recordings as proposed is neither fair nor balanced. It therefore risks undermining the respect for copyright in general even further. Such a development is very unfortunate for all those who depend on copyright protection to make a living.

Sweden believes there to be good reasons for measures aiming at improving the situation for those professional musicians and other artists who often operate under economically difficult conditions. Extending the term of protection will however not primarily be of benefit to this group.

Against this background Sweden regrets the decision to adopt the proposal amending Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.

Belgian declaration

With regard to the proposal for a directive on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, Belgium believes that a term extension is not an appropriate measure to improve the situation of the performing artists. Furthermore, we believe that the negative consequences the proposal entails do not outweigh the advantages it brings. We can therefore not support this proposal.

It seems that the measure will mainly benefit record producers and not performing artists, will only have a very limited effect for most of the performing artists, will have a negative impact on the accessibility of cultural material such as those contained in libraries and archives, and will create supplementary financial and administrative burdens to enterprises, broadcasting organisations and consumers. Therefore, the overall package of the proposal appears, as demonstrated by a large amount of academic studies [1], unbalanced.

Finally, one has to observe that several initiatives which have clear links with and impact on the proposal, have recently been adopted or announced by the Commission in its Communication of 24 May 2011 [2]. These initiatives include for example a proposal for a directive on orphan works, a new initiative on collective management, and a new initiative on online distribution of audiovisual works. Taking into account this global approach of copyright issues in the internal market, we think that it would only be reasonable to re-examine the merits of this proposal in the context of this global approach.

Notes

[1] See e.g. “The Proposed Directive for a Copyright Term Extension – A backward-looking package” Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM, Bournemouth University), the Centre for Intellectual Property & Information Law (CIPIL, Cambridge University), the Institute the Institute for Information Law (IViR, University of Amsterdam), and the Max Planck Competition and Tax Law (Munich); N. HELBERGER, N. DUFFT, S. VAN GOMPEL, B. HUGENHOLTZ, ‘Never forever: why extending the term of protection for sound recordings is a bad idea’, EIPR 2008, 174; S. DUSOLLIER, ‘Les artistes-interprètes pris en otage’, Auteurs & Media 2008, 426.

[2] Communication from the Commission of 24 May 2011, A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights Boosting creativity and innovation to provide economic growth, high quality jobs and first class products and services in Europe, COM (2011) 287

EuropeAid Development & Cooperation Funding

EuropeAid is responsible for designing EU development policies and delivering aid through programmes and projects across the world. Funding is provided as a grant or a contract focusing on designing EU development policies; governance and human rights; human development; food and natural resources; economy and trade. Grants fall into two categories:
1. Grants for Actions: aim to achieve an objective that forms part of an external aid programme.
2. Operating Grants: finance the operating expenditure of an EU body that is pursuing an aim of general European interest or an objective that forms part of an EU policy

Grant calls can be found on the EuropeAid webpage. You can also perform a criteria-based search, using the ‘Advanced Search’ tab and subscribing to the RSS feed will ensure you are kept up to date of calls being released. Contracts are launched as procurements by an organisation wanting to purchase a service, goods or work Contract calls can also be found on the EuropeAid webpage or through a criteria based search, using the ‘Advanced Search’ tab.

Previously awarded grants and contracts can be viewed on this EuropeAid search page which should help familiarise you with the types of project funded.

Methodology Training – Building Momentum in the School of Tourism

With many of the leading journals in the field of Tourism and related studies now recording rejection rates in excess of 90%, the pressure is on all of us with an interest in publishing in such journals to enhance our level of engagement with the variety of alternative research methodologies available to us and to deepen our level of knowledge of those deemed most appropriate; as well as to improve the level of rigour with which we apply them in our work! In addition to constructive criticism from panel members of the level of conceptual and theoretical engagement in many papers reviewed for RAE2008, feedback from reviewers points to methodological weaknesses in papers submitted and a sense of frustration over the a lack of rigour and an apparent unwillingness to try contemporary approaches. 

In response, the School of Tourism has invested much time in developing the methodological expertise of its staff and for 2011-12 is launching a new programme of Research Methods on Wednesday mornings throughout the year. Available to all School staff and PhD students, the new programme, being led by Professor Roger Vaughan and Dr Lorraine Brown, explores both quantitative and qualitative approaches to research, a number of emerging methods of contemporary interest, with the programme concluding with sessions on the use of “voice” and “trustworthiness” on the writing up of qualitative research and the presentations of quantitative findings.

For further information please contact Dr Lorraine Brown at lbrown@bournemouth.ac.uk

Got a burning question on biodiversity?

Live, interactive UN webcast: The UN Decade on Biodiversity 2011-2020.

On Tuesday 20th September there will be a live and interactive web TV programme from New York, where two of the key figures driving the response to the planet’s loss of biodiversity will be answering your questions about the UN Decade on Biodiversity (UNDB).  You can submit questions to the panel before the programme here. 

The panel will be Ahmed Djoghlaf, who is Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and Monique Barbut who is CEO and Chair of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), whose funding will be vital in assisting developing countries to implement the CBD’s Strategic Plan.  They will discuss the CBD’s bold plans and the importance of taking action now to avert even more serious loss of biodiversity; how the entire UN system is driving to make the UNBD a lasting success, and the role of the GEF.

Biodiversity is of vital importance to us all. It is the basis for a wide range of ecosystem services on which we depend for food security, human health, clean air and water. Biodiversity contributes to local livelihoods and economic development and is essential in the fight against poverty. 

Despite its huge importance, the planet’s biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate.  The main causes, including habitat and climate change, overexploitation and pollution, are constant or increasing in their intensity. As a result ecosystems such as forests, coral reefs and the rivers of our world are declining in most parts of the world and many species moving closer to extinction. The earliest and most severe impacts of biodiversity loss are felt by the poor, but ultimately all societies and communities will suffer.

Faced with this reality, in May 2010 the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) urged that concerted and effective action was needed if we were to avoid reaching irreversible global ecological tipping points. Five months later the CBD adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 to inspire and drive change by every country.

In support of this Plan, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2011 – 2020 as the UN Decade on Biodiversity (UNDB). Through the Decade, the entire UN system will work to support implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its 20 ambitious yet achievable targets, collectively known as the Aichi Targets.  The UNDB will encourage every government, business and individual to take biodiversity into account in all their planning and actions. 

Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Monique Barbut, CEO and Chair of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) will be live online at http://www.studiotalk.tv/show/live-interactive-un-webcast-the-un-decade-on-biodiversity-20112020  at 5pm UK time (12.00 EST / 16.00 GMT / 18.00 CET) on Tuesday 20th September.

For more information visit: www.cbd.int/2011-2020

EC proposes a mammoth €80 billion for Horizon 2020

The EC has made a proposal for the EU budget for the next programme period (2014-2020). Horizon 2020 is proposed to have a whopping budget of €80 billion – a significant increase on the FP7 budget which stands at €52 billion.
The proposal calls for the fields of education and vocational training to be strengthened and it is proposed to overcome current fragmentation in the area by creating a new integrated programme for education, training and youth. The budget earmarked for this is €15.2 billion, and the aim is to have a clear focus on developing skills and mobility.
It is also proposed to increase spending on environmental and climate change issues, with spending on climate-related issues to increase by at least 20% compared to current levels.

Institute for European Environmental Policy aren’t happy with Horizon 2020 proposals

The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)has published a report on what the implications of Horizon 2020 on research into environmental issues. In the report, they express concerns over the lack of attention given to biodiversity in particular, also resource efficiency and suggest that the scale of funding proposed for infrastructure projects is likely to have adverse effects on the environment.

It’s official – FP7 has competetive success rates

FP7 has unfairly gained a reputation as being extremely difficult to obtain. The latest figures released from the EC show that FP7 actually had a success rate of 21% last year (a massive €3.9 billion of research funding was distributed through 63 calls for proposals). Our recent blogpost on Research Councils show that the EC is actually higher than many of our home funders.

The statistically greater chance of success, coupled with the added benefits of gaining EU funding as testified by BU academics such as Sherry Jeary and Dimitrios Buhalis shows that we should all be looking to the EU for funding. If you are a BU member of staff and have an idea for EU funding you want to discuss, drop me an email.

Participate in the JISC “Good Data Management Conference” online today

JISC is live streaming its research integrity conference today 13 September looking specifically at the importance of good research data management.  The aim is to bring together the current thinking on effective practice and give senior staff and researchers an opportunity to debate the thornier issues, like whose responsibility this is and how to manage freedom of information requests. 

You are welcome to participate by submitting questions via twitter by using #jiscres11 or emailing jiscevents@gmail.com, your questions will be put to the panel.  You can also watch the keynote speakers live who are:

  • Professor David Baker, deputy chair of JISC
  • Professor Dave De Roure, professor of e-research, Oxford University e-Research Centre and national strategic director of Digital Social Research
  • Professor Sir Tim O’Shea, principal and vice chancellor of University of Edinburgh and chair of JISC
  • Professor Kevin Schürer, pro vice chancellor (Research and Enterprise), University of Leicester
  • Sarah Porter, JISC’s head of innovation

During the conference you can:

  • Learn why research data management matters and who should be responsible for research data management in your organisation
  • Read recommended reports and resources as they are referred to by the speakers
  • Understand from case studies what success might look like
  • Watch key experts describe the routes to successful data management
  • Participate on Twitter and ask questions of the speakers using #jiscres11
  • View technical requirements for watching live stream via Mediasite

There’s no need to register – simply join online today from 09.45.

How does the UK do in FP7?

A report recently released by the EC gives facts and figures on participation in FP7, including participant patterns, proposal evaluation assessments, success rates and review times. There is also a special section on Marie Curie actions and an outline of the top university and industry partners.
Highlights are that under FP7 funding 10, 524 grant agreements have been signed (involving 58, 945 participants), totalling a whopping 18.5 billion Euros.

The UK does well in FP7, representing 13 of the top 50 academic participants, featuring in the top 20 research organisations who participated and 4 of the top 50 industry partners in FP7 are from the UK. In terms of the amount of funding awarded in successful applications, the UK shows we’re not shy in asking for money, ranking second out of the 27 EU Member States.

One man’s experience of the Research Proposal Review Service

A short while ago Richard Berger, Head of Postgraduate Research for the Media School, submitted a proposal to the Research Proposal Review Service.  This is his story…..

I recently used RPRS for the first time. It’s a system that’s been running for a while, and before then I used to informally ask colleagues to look over bids I was in the process of putting together. This time however, I used the RPRS for a recent Expression of Interest. Previously, I had always been in a rush to get bids in and felt that I wouldn’t have time to go through a formal peer-review process. But I was wrong.

Despite quite a tight deadline and the fact that this took place in August – when many colleagues and support staff are on leave – the service was very prompt and extremely diligent. I was asked to select some designated reviewers from the Media School, and in a week, I received two comprehensive reviews of my EOI. The comments were extremely useful, and I incorporated most of them into my document. It was clear that both reviewers, and Caroline at the Centre for Research and Enterprise, had read the quite complex (and lengthy!) call for expressions-of-interest – which much have taken some time.

I’ll have to wait and see, but I do feel the process was very worthwhile. Bid-writing is often quite a lonely process, and it’s nice to know that there is now a great deal of support at BU, even in the height of summer. It’s quite difficult to get the balance right between being objective and critical, and being supportive; I think the team at CRE have got it just about right.

So, in future, I will still show work-in-progress to colleagues and friends at BU, but I’ll use the RPRS too, as it’s more formal and doesn’t take as long as you perhaps think it might. Also, your colleagues may not be as critical as RPRS no doubt will be. Being successful at getting research funding will benefit everyone who works at BU in the long-run, as the reputation of our institution increases. So, why not try for yourselves?

To find out more about the RPRS and how we can support your proposal,  please contact Caroline O’Kane. 

What makes a good impact section?

Guidance

In writing an FP7 bid the marks allocated for Impact are the same as those for Science & Technological Excellence. So, how do you make sure you score top marks?

Beta Technology (sponsored by DEFRA) are the UKs National Contact Point for three of the FP7 themes and offer a number of good tips. They’ve also provided real-life examples of a good and not so good Impact Section together with the evaluators’ mark and feedback – these are essential reading for any propective FP7 applicant! 

Impact section examples can be found on the I drive at the following address: \\Lytchett\IntraStore\CRKT\Public\Research Blog Docs\Impact Summary

If you would like more information on the impact advice from Beta Technology please contact Shelly Maskell.

Thinking of submitting to FP7 Energy? There is a free support service available!

The deadline for proposals to the FP7-ENERGY-2012-1 Call is 25th October 2011 and the EU Energy Focus team is providing online support sessions, proposal clinic (one to one meetings of 1 hour with a member of the team to discuss your proposal) and proposal review services prior to the this deadline.

Online support session: This will be held on the key aspects of the preparation of a Stage 1 proposal 3- 4pm on Thursday15th September.  The online support session will provide you with a comprehensive and interactive presentation on key aspects of the stage 1 proposal preparation and submission process and an opportunity to ask questions.   If you would like to join this session please email and you will be sent the telephone conference call dial in details and the weblink where you will be able to view the slides. 

Proposal clinic sessions: These are available in London on Thursday 22nd September.  Register your interest in attending a clinic session by emailing a proposal summary.  They will then allocate the sessions and inform you of the time for your meeting.  If you would like to attend a clinic session but are unable to attend on this date in London they will try to accommodate you on alternative dates or at other locations if this can be arranged.   

Proposal review service: This service is available between Monday 3rd October and the proposal deadline.  Email to express your interest in this. All proposals will be treated as confidential.

FP7 Marie Curie submissions on the up – but so is the budget!

The Marie Curie scheme has had a significant increase in submissions over the last year. The Intra-Europe and International Outgoing Fellowship submissions were up 17% on last year and the International Incoming Fellowships had an 11% increase in submissions.
Don’t be put off applying next year however as the increase in application numbers may be offset by the higher budgets in forthcoming calls. The IEF budget is €15m higher than in 2010 and the IOF and IIF budgets €12m higher.      
Evaluation summary reports for the 2011 proposals are expected at the end of November 2011, with final results due in December; I will post these on the blog when they are released.

fEC step by step guide to costing! ~ Step 5 Exceptional costs

Guidance

This week is fEC week on the Blog! Each day we have been explaining a different element of fEC as a quick reference guide to help you prepare the budgets for your research proposals. Today is the last in the series and the focus is on Exceptional costs.

See Friday’s blog post (Introduction to full economic costing) for an explanation of what fEC actually is and why we use it.

Step 5 – Exceptional costs

For Research Council applications in particular, certain costs will be classified as Exceptional and will be subject to a different funding arrangement to the rest of the costs on the project. These are:

  • Postgraduate student fees and stipends
  • Equipment costing in excess of £10k
  • Large survey fees

Research Councils will usually pay 100% of the fEC of these exceptional costs, with the exception of equipment costing in excess of £10k for which the Research Councils will pay approximately 50-100% of the fEC depending on the total cost of the equipment. For further information, see the RCUK statement on the Changes to Requests for Equipment from 1st May 2011.

Tuition fee and stipend levels for Research Council funded students can be found on the RCUK webpages.

This is the final installment of this week’s step by step guide to fEC. The other steps can be accessed here:

Step 1 – Directly Incurred costs

Step 2 – Estimating staff time

Step 3 – Directly Allocated costs

Step 4 – Estate and Indirect costs

Funding for International Partnering

RCUK-FAPESP Bilateral Agreement for the International Partnership and Networking Scheme: Under this scheme, bilateral applications which involve international collaborative teams from the UK and the state of Sao Paulo will be considered. The maximum amount of funding available from the ESRC is £25,000. Deadline 12.10.11

EC Cooperation Projects with Third Countries: Grants support cooperation projects aimed at cultural exchanges between the countries taking part in the programme and selected third countries. Funding is worth between €50,000 and €200,000 over a maximum of 24 months. Deadline: 03.05.12

fEC step by step guide to costing! ~ Step 4 Estate and Indirect costs

Guidance

This week is fEC week on the Blog! Each day we will be explaining a different element of fEC as a quick reference guide to help you prepare the budgets for your research proposals. Today’s focus is on estate and indirect costs.

See Friday’s blog post (Introduction to full economic costing) for an explanation of what fEC actually is and why we use it to cost projects.

Step 4 – Estate and Indirect costs

There are some major items of expenditure in support of research activities made both by the School and centrally by the University. These costs are important as they ensure that the University has a well-maintained infrastructure and administrative support to enable research and enterprise activities to be carried out. Under fEC these are termed estate costs and indirect costs.

Estate and indirect cost charges replace the previous ‘overhead’ charge that was applied to research projects. Whereas the overhead was a fairly arbitrary charge, the estate and indirect costs are true costs that the University is incurring and are based on the expenditure contained within the audited annual accounts.

The calculation of estate and indirect costs is a mandatory requirement for all UK HEIs, and is done using the same methodology in each institution. The costs that are calculated will be different, but they will have been calculated in a standardised and consistent way.

Estate costs – these provide a share of the cost of providing the physical infrastructure for research, and are calculated by each HEI using its own cost rates.

Indirect costs – these are non-specific costs charged across all projects based on estimates that are not otherwise included as directly allocated costs. Examples of costs included in the indirect cost charge are:

  • academic support time not spent on teaching, research or other (as defined by TRAC)
  • clerical and technical staff costs
  • non-staff costs in academic departments
  • staff and non-staff costs in central service departments
  • gross cost of capital employed (i.e. restructuring and interest costs and the net COCE)

Estates and indirect costs are driven by the academic/research FTE allocated to the project and will be calculated by the CRE Operations team as part of the costing.

See tomorrow’s blog post on exceptional costs for the final exciting installment of fEC!

Free Cake Today!!

Today between 11am-1pm the Research Development Unit will be in the Atrium.  Drop by for an informal chat and grab yourself a cake.

If you want to know about the new BU internal research funds (the Open Access Publication Fund and the Research Development Fund), the internal peer review service (RPRS), UK, EU and international funding opportunities, the REF, BU’s new research management system, the changes we’re making to RED, Research Professional, the emerging BU Research Themes, publishing and research outputs, in fact anything at all to do with research then now is your chance!