【正文】 rnings. This general line of argument stemmed from the original Making a Business of Information report, but it was then linked to more general work on the petitiveness of the British economy and, inspired by the work of management gurus such as Michael Porter, it fed into statistical work on the export earnings and potential of the cultural industries (British Invisibles 1991) and into both Myerscough’s (1988) study on The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain and into the report by Gorham and Partners (1996) for the British Council entitled Export Potential for the Cultural Industries. It is from this strand of policy analysis that derives: The measurement of the creative industries in the “Creative Industries Mapping Document”(DCMS 2020) and the associated claims that they now represent the fastest sector of economic growth。軟件行業(yè)試圖推動加強(qiáng)對于軟件保護(hù)的力度。準(zhǔn)備將“國家遺產(chǎn)部門”更名為“文化、媒體、體育部門”，一方面標(biāo)志著將重心從傳統(tǒng)的高“藝術(shù)”（通常與保護(hù)鼎盛時期的文物方面有關(guān)），轉(zhuǎn)移到那 些創(chuàng)造性的新型的事物（通 常與年輕，時尚和“酷”有關(guān)）。關(guān)鍵的問題是如果我們希望把重點放在成功上而拒絕公眾簡單的測試，我們只會留下難以定義和衡量優(yōu)點的難題。 。這些和在廣播中為大家所熟知的“質(zhì)量”“公眾服務(wù)”是有爭議的。在這顯著的轉(zhuǎn)變中，關(guān)于商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)政策的四個關(guān)鍵主題是“使用”、“卓越”、“教育”和“經(jīng)濟(jì)價值”。在所有的情況下，這都要涉及破壞現(xiàn)有的公用規(guī)定，同時， 根據(jù)一些分析家分析，這相對于鼓勵來說根本就對創(chuàng)新的破壞。 and the stress on the protection of intellectual property. This is the source of the view expressed in the Labour Party’s Create the Future that the cultural industries “are vital to the creation of jobs and the growth of our economy. The creative and media industries world wide are growing rapidly – we must grasp the opportunities presented” (Labour Party 1997). Note the distinction made at this stage between creative and media industries. It is also the source of Chris Smith’s claim (at the time, the responsible government minister) in his Creative Britain that “given the levels of growth already experienced in these fields, given the flow of changing technology and digitalisation, given our continuing ability to develop talented people, these creative areas are surely where many of the jobs and much of the wealth of the next century are going to e from” (Smith 1998, p. 25). It is in justifying these claims and the policies that derive from them that the use of the term “creative” has been crucial. In the Mapping Document, the term “creative” was chosen so that the whole of the puter software sector could be included. Only on this basis was it possible to make the claims about size and growth stand up. However, this inclusion had two valuable policy consequences for the interests involved. It enabled software producers and the major publishing and media conglomerates to construct an alliance with cultural workers, and with smallscale cultural entrepreneurs, around a strengthening of copyright protection. The software industry was pushing for the contentious widening of intellectual property protection of software. The major media conglomerates wanted an extension of copyright protection and its reinforced policing. In all cases, this involved the undermining of existing public use provisions and also, according to some analysts, a break on innovation rather than its encouragement. It suited these interests to sell the extension of copyright as a defence of the in