Evaluating justifications of copyright: an exercise in public engagement

TLDR: In this article, the authors argue that copyright law has a significant impact on public access to and use of creative works and can lead to the imposition of sanctions for infringements, and that decisions about copyright law should therefore be made accordingly.

Abstract: Copyright law has a significant impact on public access to and use of creative works and can lead to the imposition of sanctions for infringements. Decisions about copyright law should therefore be...

Figures

Table 8: post-event Q-sort results

Table 6: Respondents and explained variance, rotated factors (post-event)

Table 7: Correlation matrix, rotated factors (post-event)

Table 2, Session 3

Table 2, Session 3

Table 2, Session 3

Full text

Lee Edwards
Evaluating justifications of copyright: an
exercise in public engagement
Article (Accepted version)
(Refereed)
Original citation:
Edwards, Lee Evaluating justifications of copyright: an exercise in public engagement.
Information, Communication and Society. ISSN 1369-118X
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90388/
Available in LSE Research Online: October 2018
LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the
School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual
authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any
article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research.
You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities
or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE
Research Online website.
This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be
differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the
publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.

Running head: EVALUATING JUSTIFICATIONS OF COPYRIGHT 1
Evaluating Justifications of Copyright: An Exercise in Public Engagement
Lee Edwards
Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political
Science, London, UK
Giles Moss
School of Media and Communication, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
This is the final manuscript, accepted for Information, Communication and Society on
September 24, 2018

EVALUATING JUSTIFICATIONS OF COPYRIGHT 2
Abstract
1
Copyright law has a significant impact on public access to and use of creative works
and can lead to the imposition of sanctions for infringements. Decisions about
copyright law should therefore be justified to the public, but current consultation
practices have not included the public voice adequately. This article presents the
findings of a deliberative event where members of the UK public were asked to engage
in-depth with different aspects of copyright law and its implementation. Participants
drew on different justifications in assessing copyright, which we interpret in terms of
Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006[1991]) ‘market’, ‘civic’, and ‘inspired’ orders of
worth, and their views shifted over the course of the weekend as a result of the
deliberative process. The findings challenge common perceptions that copyright policy
is both too dry and too complex for the public to engage in and demonstrate the value
of deliberation as a means of involving the public more effectively in this complex
policy issue.
Keywords: Copyright; policy consultation; deliberation; justification; Q
methodology

EVALUATING JUSTIFICATIONS OF COPYRIGHT 3
Evaluating Justifications of Copyright: An Exercise in Public Engagement
Introduction: The Public Voice in Copyright Debates
Reaching agreement on how to manage markets for intellectual property is a process
of negotiation, where limitations on public access must be explained and justified to citizens
(Hettinger, 1989). However, despite the use of government-initiated consultations, the public
voice in negotiations about copyright policy has been limited. At times, the public has made
its presence felt in other ways: In 2012, the Stop Online Piracy and Protect Intellectual
Property Acts (SOPA/PIPA) generated significant public protests in the United States of
America (Lee, 2013; Sell, 2013), while the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement also faced public opposition (Baraliuc, Depreeuw, & Gutwirth, 2013; Levine,
2012; Matthews & Žikovská, 2013). But beyond rejecting unwelcome forms of regulation,
what the public thinks copyright law should be has been difficult to determine.
One problem with including the public voice in policy debates is the lack of public
understanding of copyright law and how it works. Another factor is the various purposes
copyright serves: it may protect the rights of inspired creators, incentivize creative
production, facilitate efficient markets, and/or maximize public access to creative work.
Evaluating copyright and its application therefore requires the ability to travel between
different justificatory ‘worlds’, in Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006[1991]) terms, reconciling
or balancing competing principles and priorities.
Deliberation may help to overcome these barriers (Klein, Moss, & Edwards, 2015).
Deliberative processes engage stakeholders in discussing a complex topic, drawing on a
range of evidence that allows them to come to an informed opinion. Studies of deliberative
events, such as deliberative polls, have demonstrated that participants can become more
informed and change their opinions as a result of deliberation (Himmelroos & Christensen,
2013; Luskin, Fishkin, & Jowell, 2002). Deliberation may promote understanding of different

EVALUATING JUSTIFICATIONS OF COPYRIGHT 4
perspectives and lead to wider agreement about contested issues (Niemeyer & Dryzek, 2007).
Many deliberative processes focus on specific policy issues and choices, rather than
participants’ views about the values underpinning policy. To this extent, deliberative
initiatives can replicate a shortcoming of government consultations, where the terms of the
debate are decided before public input is invited (Freedman, 2008, 2010). This is a particular
problem in the context of copyright, where fundamental principles are especially contested
(Duff, 2008; Klein et al., 2015).
In this paper, we focus on whether deliberation can help participants to understand
and reflect on the values — or justificatory ‘worlds’ — that underpin copyright, rather than
on specific policy details or practicalities of implementation. We report on a two-day
deliberative exercise about copyright policy, conducted with 88 members of the public in a
city in the north of England. We explore the patterns of justification and critique of copyright
that participants engaged in, the different justificatory worlds they drew on, and whether their
views changed over the course of the event. We used surveys
2
and Q methodology to identify
participants’ views about copyright before and after the event and conducted a thematic
analysis of their discussions to explore how the latter connected to changes in their views. We
note that people need not change their views for deliberation to be beneficial: it can be
valuable in helping people to reach a better understanding and appreciation of the views of
those they disagree with (Baccaro, Bächtiger, & Deville, 2016; Couldry, 2010; Niemeyer &
Dryzek, 2007). However, because the public tend to lack a detailed understanding of
copyright, we anticipated that access to more information was likely to change the basis for
their opinions, as well as lead to better understanding of others’ perspectives (Sanders, 2012).
We first outline our theoretical framework, focused on deliberative democracy and the
sociology of justification. We then describe the deliberative event and the methods we used
to capture the views of participants. Finally, we present the analysis of the Q sorts and the

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in "Evaluating justifications of copyright: an exercise in public engagement" ?

This article presents the findings of a deliberative event where members of the UK public were asked to engage in-depth with different aspects of copyright law and its implementation. 

Q2. What was the important factor for the participants loading onto this factor?

Participants loading onto this factor felt that moral judgements of the (mis)use of copyrighted work were the least important consideration. 

Q3. What was the main argument in the Q sort?

Some participants felt that the public as a whole should have greater access to creative work, reflecting the positions in Q sort Factors 4 and 3a:Some participants drew on civic justifications to relate creative work to free speechand education, questioning whether copyright hinders these public values, and discussed the cultural significance of creative work such as music and art, beyond their importance to individual producers. 

Q4. What are the three factors that reflect a lack of concern with civic priorities?

The three negatively-loading statements also reflect a lack of concern with civic priorities: copyright is not more important than other rights, individuals may find it difficult to defend themselves against infringement, and changes in practice can prompt new thinking about copyright. 

Q5. What is the common form of copyright infringement?

Copyright infringement takes a wide variety of forms 2 0.76 0 0 Non-commercial institutions, such as libraries, schools, churches and universities, want to use creative work easily 0 0.27 -2 -0.57 

Q6. What was the effect of the rotation on the variance?

Varimax rotation was applied and after rotation, including a fifth factor explained 8% of the additional variance, but accounted for fewer sorts overall. 

Q7. How did the authors ensure that the statements were written in lay terms?

The authors ensured they were written in lay terms and they were reviewed for suitability, clarity and comprehensiveness by two other academic colleagues: one copyright expert and one Q methodologist.