The affs expansion of copyright through enforcement furthers a path of the criminalization of copyright that has been used to securitizes its theft and existence.

From a popular perspective, intellectual property' has gone from being, until recently, a niche area of dry legal practice to a hotly contested mainstream subject. Aside from topical debates such as the role and ethics of pharmaceutical companies and issues of generic drug accessibility in developing nations, arguably the most publicised topic of discussion relates to copyright, and its exploitation in the digital economy. This debate is highly emotive and divisive, resulting in heated arguments between those who wish to further strengthen copyright law and those that wish to see it relaxed, with neither party conceding a common ground. Based on on-going legal developments in the field of copyright, it would appear that proponents of the former viewpoint have the upper hand. International, European and even national levels are seeing increases in intellectual property protection measures, despite numerous academics frequently criticising these moves2 . Intellectual property law has traditionally been considered as part of civil law, regulating the relationship between private parties and the rights and penalties to be applied in cases of infringement of copyright. The legal protection given by copyright has intended to rectify a “market failure” by providing incentives that encourage the production and dissemination of works...'(providing) a legal means by which those who invest time and labour in producing...goods can be confident that they will not only be able to recoup that investment, but also reap a profit proportional to the popularity of their work3 '. Until relatively recent legal developments, copyright protection has not been considered an area requiring criminal law regulation. Why is it, then, that copyright appears to be moving inextricably in the direction of stronger and broader protection? Why are different concepts such as counterfeiting and copyright infringement being inextricably linked and the terms used interchangeably? Why is the act of infringement of copyright now being associated with serious criminal issues such as the creation and distribution of child pornography, or the facilitation of organised crime and terror? More importantly why, when protection has always been discussed in terms of author incentives and rewards, is copyright now being discussed in terms of security? It must be stated that the question of whether copyright should be increasingly strengthened, and the imbalance perceived in copyright have been frequently written about from a legal perspective. The objective of this article is not to re-tread this well-trodden ground, but to contribute to the debate by re- evaluating this trend through inter-disciplinary means. While the study of Law and Economics is increasingly used in the analysis of intellectual property law, the purpose of this article is to seek assistance from the field of International Relations, and more specifically, Critical Security Studies. Whereas traditional legal analysis can explain what legal changes are occurring, and what impact these changes may have, the use of securitisation theory may help us to more effectively explain 'how' these changes have come to occur. Securitisation theory can be a useful tool in analysing the importance of discourse and language in the development of law, and the role that non-legal actors can have in the development of a particular policy. In the opinion of the authors, whilst it is indeed possible from a 'pure' legal perspective to consider the role of actors in legislation, and to consider issues such as vested interests, securitisation theory can provide a deeper and more thorough understanding of how legislation which may appear to be counter-intuitive can nevertheless be presented as being so essential that there is no choice but to take such a course of action. In order to explore how the securitisation framework may be a valid approach to a subject such as copyright law and to determine the extent to which the latter may be said to have been securitised, this article will begin by explaining the origins and main features of securitisation theory, and its applicability to legal study. The authors will then attempt to apply this framework to the development of the area of copyright, by focusing on the security escalation it has undergone, developing from an economic issue into one of international security. The analysis of this evolution will be mainly characterised by the securitisation moves taking place at national, European and international levels. Finally, a general reflection will be carried out on whether the securitisation of copyright has indeed been successful and on what the consequences of such a success could be. 1. The concept of securitisation and its applicability in law The concept of securitisation was introduced to Security Studies by a school of thought which came to be known as the 'Copenhagen School', originally developed in the context of the Conflict and 3 Peace Research Institute of Copenhagen, with perhaps the most influential of the works being 'Security: - A new framework for analysis'4 . The concept of securitisation migrated from the world of finance to the world of International Relations – originally the concept dealt with a riskdistribution process and the 'ring-fencing' of assets in order to limit potential loss and reduce the risk of bankruptcy should a particular asset or section of the business fail5 . In International Relations, securitisation refers to the process by which an issue is acted upon following its presentation as posing a very serious threat to security6 . 'Security is about survival. It is when an issue is presented as posing an existential threat to a designated referent object (traditionally, but not necessarily), the state, incorporating government, territory, and society'7 . Where the Copenhagen School differed from traditional security studies analysis was that the authors proposed a new framework for understanding security by widening its classical military concept to nontraditional security issues, such as the environment, the economy, politics and society. In other words, 'security' is not perceived as being limited to issues of conventional State military violence, but can refer to security threats posed by non-State actors against the State or other non-State actors. This can include the risk of great economic harm, or, to take a more recent example, the multiple threats posed by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This threat has environmental elements, with estimates of 40,000 barrels of oil a day leaking from the broken pipe8 , which have significant effects on the ecosystem and wildlife in the Gulf and surrounding wetlands, in addition to political and social effects stemming from the fishermen unable to work in the area. In addition, security threats may be posed to public health, from the known and unknown effects of the hazardous substances poisoning the area. This attempt to enlarge the concept of security and what it means to be secure or insecure is directly linked to the Copenhagen School’s proposal that security is not 'out there' waiting to be discovered as an objective reality. Instead, security is developed as a social process and therefore depends heavily on perception. In this sense, the Copenhagen School has a social constructivist take on security: - 'Security is...a self- referential practice, because it is in this practice that the issue becomes a security issue - not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as such a threat'9.