The question was posed – in the absence of effective copyright regimes, what is the incentive for creators to create? One response was that they should seek to capitalise on revenue from added value services or advertising. A further point was raised in relation to confusion between the distribution and creation of content. The traditional content providers use a number of mechanisms (versioning, windowing and merchandising) in order to maximise revenue. However, our new hyper-connected world has fostered the growth of a diversity of different narrative forms of content as well as the ability to recycle and remix that content. In a context where many content providers and platforms merely offer aggregation services, there is significant scope for other actors (such as libraries) to deliver curatorial strategies which more amply respond to the values and needs of local cultures. However, it was also commented that in some instances aggregation can be a form of content creation in and of itself (depending upon the sophistication of the aggregation process).
It was suggested that the fact that the group discussion had focused on “monetizing content” instead of copyright was a potential indication that the centre of this debate had migrated from IPR protection towards an examination of viable business models.