No consensus on copyright extension in Japan

The Intellectual Property Strategic Program of 2007 (PDF version here) has as one of its many goals, to reach a conclusion on whether to extend the term of copyright protection from 50 years to 70 years by the end of the fiscal year (March 31).

Yet the working group convened under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, and Technology is split in whether to recommend the extension or not, according to Daily Yomiuri article by Yoshikazu Suzuki.

It is no wonder that members are split, with the panel being made up of rights holding organisations such as JASRAC and the Japan Writers Association, who of course have extending the term of protection, and lawyers and economists who feel an extension would be unfair, and would not provide any further incentive for creators to generate new copyrighted works.

The following argument makes sense if we consider that people are generally ‘rational actors’. If a novelist writes a work at 30 years of age, the current term will protect her work until she is 80 years old. For artists and creatives older than 20, the chance of the copyright expiring in their living years decreases considerably with every year that passes.

Unless, of course, copyrights are left in estate to relatives, friends, or trust funds. But clearly, those who stand to benefit most from an extension of the copyright term are the rights managing organisations themselves. As we get closer to 2010, the volume of copyrighted works that continue to expire undoubtedly grows. (I have no stats on this, but have the growth in music and television programs – given that broadcasting in Japan started in 1953 – in mind)

While proponents point to the added ‘incentive’ (of posthumous revenue?), there are also economic and creative barriers that an extension potentially raises. As Suzuki writes:

An extension would [not be without drawbacks for] copyright holders. During the Oct. 12 symposium, playwright Minoru Betsuyaku and nonfiction writer Shinichi Sano said the extension would hinder writers seeking to produce new works based on the work of past authors. It also is questionable what kinds of advantages and disadvantages would accrue to people who want to enjoy copyrighted works.

It does appear a tough one, given that the IP Strategic Headquarters wants to reconcile the rights of copyright holders with the ‘multi-use’ and reuse of content by artists and users. We know which way JASRAC are always going to vote.

 

UK government supports games – but not with tax breaks

The UK Government has ruled out tax breaks for the games industry, although commended the industry on its progress.

An MCV article reports Minister for Culture Media and Sports Margaret Hodge let the industry know that the government sees them as leading the creative industries pack financially but that they would not be seeing and development assistance in the way of tax concessions.

The Minister’s comments illustrate the reluctance of governments to give funding to an industry that may be perceived negatively by certain interest groups, and in particular, vocal voters.

Games in the UK arguably face the same issues that the games industry in Australia faces (see previous posts ‘could triple‘ and ‘Aus govt turns down games‘). There is no ‘threat’. Games lack the unique ‘cultural’ identity, and as they are a fast growing industry, they do not display any ‘infant industry’ characteristics.

The obvious critique of such a policy stance is that it is conservative and reactive. Shouldn’t governments be looking for new, high growth, high skills industries to develop rather than propping up old and inefficient ones?

While the answer would seem a clear “yes”, one question in response could be “should governments promote any industries at all?”

Industries that can anchor themselves in a rhetoric of culture and national identity arm themselves with an effective shield, based on the premise that economics (and ‘globalisation’) does not discriminate between qualitative differences in cultural goods. (This is not necessarily the case of course). There are still (if I remember correctly) exceptions in WTO articles for cultural goods, which eases international pressure on states from protecting them.

A second question, is whether governments intent on supporting industries should be looking to unlock the institutional barriers to investment by clarifying IP, tax, and inward foreign investment legislation, and aim their spending efforts at capacity building by investing in human capital formation and infrastructure development rather that giving financial incentives to any one industry.

 

Post-wave Korean Content

Korean content producers, supported by government, are looking to extend their reach further into international markets, beyond Asia.

An article in Variety

• Korea’s content industries are likely to produce ‘more nuanced’ properties rather than relying heavily on the local star system, . Big names appear not to be getting the pre-sales that they were overseas.
• Film commissions in Seoul and Busan are becoming more aggressive at establishing Korea as a viable shooting location.
• The film industry is looking to the US and Hollywood both for distribution and co-production opportunities
• The technological savvy of local firms is helping to give Korea a leg up in certain sectors like special effects and new media.
• Korean animators, who have gained technical expertise through years of outsourced U.S. work, are becoming strong contributors. KOCCA and other government organisations provide significant funding for training in the industry.

My question though, is how developed their storytelling ability has become, and to what extent government policies are aiming to develop these non-technical creative skills.

 

Does size matter? Creatively speaking…

An article in the Taipei Times that argues when it comes to creativity, size isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.

A large volume of work in economics and industrial organisation has looked at how small firms may be more innovative in certain areas than larger firms. Yet this article is referring to the relevance of a nation’s size and economic might.

It is not unpredictable for a Taiwanese source to drum up support, both domestically and abroad, for the viability of small nations, particularly given the their political relations with the ever-expanding economic juggernaut China (PRC).

Yet the article points to the high rankings of Norway, Iceland, and Ireland on the Human Development Index, of Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria in a ‘happiness’ study, of Singapore, Hong Kong, and New Zealand in an International Finance Corp. study on ease of doing business, and of Denmark, Finlan, and Sweden as being high on the 2005 Globalization Index.

For medium-sized countries such as Taiwan, the article recommends:

Taiwan’s policies for development should concentrate on opening up to globalization, and creating a globalized society with Taiwanese characteristics.

An economy of creativity is the most important type of economy in the 21st century. Taiwan has a diverse culture and a climate of unlimited creativity. It should study examples like Ireland and the Boston area in the US and establish a social framework for creativity, to let Taiwan develop a unique position and advantages.

This framework includes three things: First, a good framework for creative industry, like improved financial systems, higher budgets for research and related organizations. Second, a general creative operation models, including creative work environments and flexible production methods. Third, a geographical, cultural and social environment that gives full play to creativity.

There is a mounting body of evidence that suggests a policy framework should include measure to promote both economic freedom as well as political freedom if a nation is to encourage the development of the ‘creative economy’. Providing an solid institutional framework for financial and legal systems, together with investment in education, research, and artistic endeavour appear to be key fundamentals in happy, creative, affluent nations.

Perhaps we should consider a viable and equitable health system and aim for healthy residents as well?

 

Korea in the global character industry

Things are looking up for the character business in Korea, according to an article in the English Chosun.

Industry size. The sales volume of the character industry in Korea totaled W4.288 trillion in 2005, with Korean characters claiming a 41 percent share of the market, up 6 percentage points from three years before.

Trade Surplus. According to data on character-related products, the export volume of W163.6 billion surpassed the import volume of W123.4 billion in 2005. This is a turnaround from the previous year. 2004 figures suggest exports were W134.2 billion and imports W148 billion.

International collaboration.

The successful overseas debut of Pucca was the fruit of a multinational collaboration. Korea’s Vooz Character Systems developed and marketed Pucca, the U.K.’s Jetix put up the funds, Canada’s Studio B produced the animation, and an American writer took care of the story. Korea’s advanced information technology did its part in the development of the character.

 

Singapore an island of buzzing creativity?

It is a little hard to take the Mediacorp news stories ‘Surprise Singapore’ (in ChannelNewsAsia and TODAYonline) without the proverbial grain of salt.

The article reports the findings of a Media Development Authority (MDA)-commissioned international panel, which suggests that creativity in Singapore is alive and well.

Yet does its statement that creativity will ‘continue to flourish in spite of the political climate’ come from the panel being asked directly whether ‘restrictions on political expression would impede the development of a creative culture and Singapore’s aspirations to become a global media hub’?

The answer given skilfully yet obviously avoids answering that sensitive question: “Singapore will continue to be hard on itself and keep asking searching questions like: ‘Are we creative?’ Of course, you are.”

The answer, given by Stanford University professor Paul Saffo is right. Naturally there is significant evidence of creativity in Singapore, and a growing entrepreneurial innovativeness that is relying less on tried and tested business models, and less on would-be entrepreneurs wanting to ‘bring in’ or sell under license a product in Singapore they have seen overseas.

But to the answer of will restrictions on political expression impede the development of a creative culture, the answer may well equally be ‘of course it will.’

This is not to say it will stop creative or cultural development, but it will certainly impede it.

One key question is how much of the “renaissance” that has been taking place in the arts scene over the last five years according to MDA chairman Dr Tan, has been driven by government direction and public funds? Many nations around the world have (heavily?) subsidised arts sectors, but the combination of significant public funding and restrictions on political expression do not bode well for creative development. Perhaps if there was more private sector investment (or even philanthropy) then any lack of political freedom may not be such an issue?

Some of the insightful findings reported include:

Among the recommendations yesterday of the 10-member Media Development Authority (MDA) International Advisory Panel, was one which called for Singapore to “foster an ecosystem that breeds talent for the media industry”.

The panel suggested that Singapore leverage on its strength in education, medicine and technology by developing media content in these sectors. These products could tap on interactive digital media technologies, tools and applications to produce materials such as professional publications or training materials.

 

cultural, creative, and critical diplomacy: the branded state

In this article in The Age, ‘Less Kulcha More Creativity’, Steve Dow raises the issue of what image the Australian government is willing to promote overseas, how much funding they are giving to (or cutting from) arts and cultural industries in their diplomatic representations overseas.

The article criticises the Australian Government for being too interested in economic relations and cutting the funding for cultural counsellors in diplomatic posts around the world that can guide interested parties to Australian culture and creatives, as well as promote the image of Australia as a sophisticated and cultured on the international stage.

Could the creation of an Australian arts advocacy body for the dissemination of Australian culture internationally give our image and culture a broader, more sophisticated focus? Models being considered include France’s Alliance Francaise, Germany’s Goethe-Institut, China’s Confucious Council and the British Council.

While the mix of sources combined in the article does not quite attain what one would called balanced, what the article does raise is to what extent a government should or even can control the image that content and other creative products create of a nation. The article cites an incident where the Department of Foreign Affairs pulled funding from the Jakarta International Film Festival because the ‘Australian films selected for screening would not promote “greater mutual understanding between the people of Australia and Indonesia” ‘.

On the ‘can’ side of the coin, consider the Japanese Government (particularly the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and its minister Aso) hopes for Japanese content to be a(n) (in)tangible but cogent source of soft power, allowing neighbouring nations to see Japan in a positive light. As mentioned in previous posts (and in a forthcoming book chapter), there is nothing to say that private companies will produce works that the government will be proud to peddle overseas or hold up as examples of national pride. If the ‘textbook issue’ (issued by a private publisher) in recent years is not example enough, a certain amount of animation that is produced in Japan services a ‘specific market’ that the Government of Japan might not be happy to announce that exists let alone be excited about using these products as representative works of Japan’s national image.

As anecdotal as these might be, they provide an interesting contrast of a government trying to alter the representation of the nation, and a government being unable (?) to control the image that private citizens and industry may be carving on their own.

 

Order and planning limiting Singapore’s competitiveness

Channel NewsAsia has picked up the Professor Phillippe Lasserre of INSEAD speaking at a seminar discussing the management of regional change. Lassarre has suggested that Singapore needs less central planning in order to catalyse creativity:

The choice – to a certain extent – is to accept some kind of what I have called disorder to promote creativity. It’s extremely difficult to be creative in a very planned and orderly manner

An entry on discontents in April questioned how limits on political freedom and freedom of expression inhibited (or enhanced?) creativity. These comments however, add the other side to that equation – that too much structure, even in a positive sense can reduce the need to innovate and think creatively. How many Singaporeans and expats living in Singapore have you heard refer to the nation as being over-pampered, spoilt, or looked after – just a little too well?

In this vein, Singapore’s Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has come out saying the nation needs to find it’s own ‘buzz’ to attract people in an Xinhua article. Tharman admitted that:

Singapore is referred to as a nanny-state, a “fine city”, with penalties for numerous offenses, and as lacking in creativity and an innovative culture…

…but also annouced ‘five key planks’ to ensure that the ‘Singapore Brand’ endures:

1. Keeping the trust in the Singapore system
2. being the most open city in Asia
3. continuously remaking the country
4. supporting individuals in breaking new ground
5. strengthening a culture of excellence for all.

I wonder whether the ‘most open city in asia’ also includes non-economic openness? Singapore has thrived on its admirable efforts to provide one of the most open economies in the world, but if it wishes to capitalise on the creativity inherent in local and expat populations, it may need to look beyond economic freedom.

____________________

The structure vs freedom dichotomy – and the need for both – is strikingly similar to the success of not just economies and political systems, but in the success of technological communications platforms. There has been some work that has suggested that the success of i-mode mobile internet in Japan for example, was due to NTT DoCoMo’s ability to strike a balance between open and closed systems to provide a platform that provided structure without restricting the activities of users. Perhaps policymakers in designing economic and political systems need to consider the need to allow people not to feel excessively restricted in their workplace, thinking space, and day to day lives.

 

US TV formats a ‘threat to culture’ in China

The trade in television formats has been increasing in recent years, with shows such as Big Brother and American Idol being picked up by broadcasters and production companies around the world, localised with home-grown talent, and re-broadcast to domestic audiences.

Yet in China, authorities are now seeing this boom of popular, ‘low-brow’ entertainment as a threat to the cultural fabric of Chinese society. An AFP news feed article China gives thumbs down to ‘American Idol’ imitators picked up by several sources (ChannelNewsAsia, BrisbaneTimes) indicates that with the launch of a new talent show Happy Boy, a sequel to the wildly successful Super Girl the central government has given strict instructions to broadcaster Hunan Satellite TV.

“No weirdness, no vulgarity, no low taste,” it told Hunan Satellite as it listed 11 restrictions for this year’s series.

Contestants must only sing “healthy and ethically inspiring” songs, while the show must not indulge in “gossip”.

Relate this back to a previous post about Korean Nationalism and the response from imports of Japanese formats. Unlike the Korean case, the negative reaction to the influx of foreign ideas or culture in China is predictably coming from the government rather than concerned private interests.

 

Korean Nationalism re-loaded?

It was interesting (yet hardly surprising) to find an editorial in the English version of the Chosun Ilbo (entitled Korea Can’t Keep Siphoning Off Japanese Culture ) calling for the Korean content industry to stand on its own two feet rather than copying or importing Japanese films, books, and TV dramas.

Korea really only opened up to Japanese cultural imports for TV programming in 2003 (according to my figures at least – I am always open to new info). Koreans have effectively been starved of Japanese content due to government policy banning its importation. They could certainly be forgiven for binging on Japanese popular culture such as music, books, and television drama, if that is indeed what they are doing.

With a massive local content quota of around 80 percent for television broadcast, Korean broadcasters have faced real barriers to broadcasting foreign content (Japanese animation dubbed into Korean for example) and have needed to source local programs. It is no wonder that many of these have been ‘copied’ off Japanese formats, given the financial legal barriers (and financial incentives?) to produce local adaptations.

Proponents of nationalist and protectionist sentiment need to accept that the flows of cultural content has been far from uni-lateral. Korean content does have its own unique style , and Japan was as caught up in the Korean Wave (hallyu) as other countries in Asia. One could even say that the relaxing of restrictions on cultural imports helped to give the Korean Wave some of its momentum, particularly in Japan, as it allowed foreign content traders into Korea, and also gave the Korean industry the impetus to be export-oriented rather than rely on protection from formidable competition across the water. (again, feel free to bring me down on this one)

The editorialist does recognise the popularity of Korean content in Japan:

The reason Korean TV dramas like “Winter Sonata” and Korean movies do well in Japan is because of this market principle. And it is because of that market principle that Japanese products are popular among Koreans. There is no rule that says only our culture should be marketed overseas and not vice versa.

Yet, the writer feels there something fundamentally different about this case than simple market fundamentals, which lies in Japan’s advantage at reaching out to middleclass audiences…

The Japanese know how to embrace middlebrow readers, in between high and popular literature. That genre is nonexistent in Korea. High literature trundles down its own path, without looking back at its readers. In contrast, popular literature can’t see its readers since they are often too embarrassed to admit they are reading it. And fans of literature fall through the gap between the two genres. Readers who cannot find solace in Korean literature have fueled a Renaissance of Japanese literature in Korea.

So by the writer’s own admission, we now have a section of the Korean public that now is satisfied, having been unable to get their hands on the material they desired, and now, with the importing of Japanese content, their entertainment needs have been satisfied.

Forgive me for applauding the newfound happiness of others, but is this not a good thing? I am sure that the depicted polarisation of Korean content is somewhat of an exaggeration, but even if it is so, Japanese content has found a niche in Korea for which consumers are apparently grateful. In any case, the rights for Korean translations of Japanese works will no doubt reach a price in the future where it becomes more economical to produce local content than import it and pay exorbitant license fees. In the meantime, talent who can tap this “middlebrow” market will undoubtably develop locally and will be able to compete. When that happens though, it will be no surprise if certain camps bemoan the fact that local creative talent has taken to copying Japanese cultural imports.

There is enormous value in nurturing and promoting cultural differences. There is a danger, however, in placing nationalistic protection of local culture above the quality of life of those whom proponents purport they are professing to protect. Cultural diversity enriches lives, but there are also scores of cottage industries around the world that survive purely on rents derived from convincing governments of their cultural significance.

Given, nationalism occurs everywhere. In an inverse of the Korea/Japan cultural imperialism saga, the Australian entertainment industry was up in arms in 1998-9 when the High Court (see Project Blue Sky vs Australian Broadcasting Authority) ruled that New Zealand television programs must be considered as Australian programs for broadcasting under the free trade agreement rules (Closer Economic Relations treaty). There was talk of cheap New Zealand programs flooding the market, that NZ productions were unfairly subsidised, that children would be subjected to NZ accents while watching cartoons (cultural imperialism arguments against the US were temporarily forgotten, and the fact that NZ kids were probably sitting through a lot of Australian programming was not even considered). It caused concern that with multilateral trade negotiations, Astro Boy might even be considered Australian.

People working within a protected industry will always fear for their economic security when barriers to trade are removed. Likewise those who sense a vulnerability of their cultural heritage or way of life will tend to fight to shelter it rather than to preserve it by giving it temporal currency.