On Wednesday former journalist Andrew Gowers will release the findings of his U.K. government-commissioned study of U.K. copyright law. Great Britain has been a staunch defender of IP and IP has fueled creative and economic success there, so it begs the question, why have a commission at all? What's the problem? Not surprisingly, the existence of the commission has given some copyright defenders pause.

Gowers gave us a sneak peek of his findings in the Sunday Times (another hat-tip to Alec van Gelder). The piece reminded me of the speeches I read by EU officials related to the digital economy. I find myself agreeing with many of their points, then am concerned by the conclusions they seem to draw from those points.

First, let me focus on what I see as the good news, the positive conclusions Gowers presents in his piece. Look at this early passage in his op-ed:

In Britain, the creative industries are growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. IP — if properly enforced — provides the essential framework to promote and protect creativity and innovation by industry, artists and consumers. Without it few, if any, of the innovations that we take for granted would be brought to the market.

Consider that 20 years ago the market value of the top 10 firms listed on the London Stock Exchange roughly equalled their book value — the value of their physical assets in buildings and machinery. Since then, book value has doubled while market value has increased nearly tenfold.

The difference in value between physical assets and share prices is accounted for by intangible assets such as goodwill, brand value and innovative ideas, many of them protected by IP rights.

So what’s the big problem? Actually there isn’t a fundamental one. After conferring with many of the key users of the system and ploughing through more than 500 detailed submissions from interested parties, my review has concluded that the system is not “broke” and does not need a big fix.

Great, so we can all go home now, right?

Not so quick.

Look at his very next pasage:

But there is certainly need for reform. Where IP rights fail — because they are inflexible, poorly enforced or fail to keep pace with change — they can stifle innovation at a cost to us all.

Okay. Yes, yes, nobody wants to stifle innovation. So what does he feel are the problems his year-long study found, after receiving hundreds of comments?

Some libraries have a difficult time making archival copies of old films due to copyright restrictions. Some educators feel restraints in sharing educational materials. Well, we've faced those challenges here as well. Sometimes the market takes care of them, sometimes they're addressed through narrow legislation or U.S. Copyright Office carveouts. If the U.K. needs to take similar steps, so be it.

Gowers then goes on to impress the importance of global IP protection, calling IP rights the "key to seizing the opportunities of globalisation." Kudos. In fact, it seems that he feels further steps are needed to help enforce IP globally, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But in that discussion he throws in references to open source software and sampling. Now he cites them as growing phenomena, which they are. The fact that they are growing suggests that current U.K. IP laws are not overly restrictive or are stifling innovation in this area. But if IP is working with these, why mention them at all? I'm not speaking of everyone in the open source movement, but FOSS zealots are quite open about their hostility to IP. I saw when I spoke at the Vegas Music Conference how hostile many "samplers" are to the notion that they have to ask a copyright holder permission to use a sound recording. But there is a vibrant market for such rights, which IP opponents fail to acknowledge.

Here's Gowers' conclusion:

So although my review will not seek to reinvent the IP wheel, it is vital — in a world where ideas and innovation are increasingly important to our economic wellbeing — that we reform the system to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of a profoundly changing global economy.

I believe the government has a significant opportunity to make improvements to the way IP operates in Britain — and to influence policy in Europe and beyond.

We should seize it with both hands and fashion an IP system that is both conducive to innovation and investment and suited to the digital age.

Based on most of the substance of his op-ed, you'd think the Gowers Commission will call for stronger IP protections. But forgive me if I'm skeptical. IP is already conducive to innovation, by definition. It's not clear why the law needs to be changed in that area. And the digital age has changed many things, but it hasn't changed the importance of IP or its need to be enforced, yet the digital age is often cited by IP opponents as evidence of a brave new world where we should all engage in a shared commons with creativity motivated by altruism and personal satisfaction rather than commercial gain. Thus, IP defenders and detractors can read Gowers' conclusion to support their belief system.

Let's hope the language in the Commission report is more precise, and reflects the substantive merits of this op-ed, namely the positive role in IP in growing the U.K.'s economy and fueling global economic growth and development.