[Ecommerce] More on UK EU Presidency and "creative economy conference"

[Manon Ress]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
From: "Michelle Childs" <michelle.childs@cptech.org>
Date: October 10, 2005 8:47:43 AM EDT

I attended the Creative economy conference last week in London. The
purported purpose of the conference was  =91 to deliver policy
recommendations to the European Commission on behalf of all stakeholders
in the creative economy=92

The Conference was under the name of the UK EU Presidency but was
initiated jointly by the British Screen Advisory Council (BSAC) and the
British Copyright Council (BCC). ( and sponsorship from companies like
Time Warner and Microsoft)  It had the support and participation of
the UK
Departments for Trade & Industry (DTI) and Culture, Media and Sport
(DCMS)
and the Directorates General Internal Market and Information Society and
Media of the European Commission . WIPO officials were also in
attendance.

As we had feared there was no creativity and no economic analysis of the
role of copyright and the pros and cons of its use in the digital age .
There was no real effort to engage with different stakeholders. It
was an
invitation only event with consumer groups heavily outnumbered. The
whole
thing was stage managed to get the right holders views across with as
little opposition as possible, using the UK Presidency as an official
endorsement. Which the UK Ministers present where more than happy to do.

Summary of Key messages from rights holders :

DRM=92s are central to the creative economy. =91Piracy=92 is widespread and
must
be stopped by the use of criminal sanctions and EU and global co
ordination. Mass education programmes should be established to
promote an
understanding and respect for copyright amongst consumers, particularly
the young. Copyright Terms should be =91equalised=92 ( this is the new
tern to
be used- not extension) at an EU and Global Level, both in length and
application to all rightholders. Problems of access should be dealt with
by contract or voluntary action not legalisation. Consumers only
=91believe=92
that they  have rights. No private copying should be allowed except that
agreed by righholders. Business models are moving from an ownership
model
to a leasing model for content. Consumer Groups have different views on
these things but we won=92t really listen or try to engage with them.

Comments on Conference
It started appropriately enough in the dark where we were subjected
to  3
hours of  copyright right holders viewpoints with no opportunity to ask
questions.  This was the Plenary session which was open to the Press. No
other stakeholder with an opposing view was allowed to speak. The UK
Secretary of State Tessa Jowell gave a speech that could have been
written
by the rightholders, which gave no acknowledgement to the real concerns
that consumers, academics and librarians have about their ability to
access knowledge. Instead it basically equated any attack on copyright
with an attack on society as whole. The EU economy and the Lisbon agenda
depended on it.

To give you a flavour this is how it ended;

If nothing else, we need to understand the power of an idea. Good ideas
developed into high-quality creative content are the lynchpin of a
knowledge economy. Used wisely, they can lead us towards economic
prosperity and success. But if we allow them to be squandered,
stifled or
stolen, we won't just lose our economic edge; we are also risk losing
our
raison d'etre./

You can read the whole thing at:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2005/
creative_economy_conference.htm

There then followed a panel discussion with a group of creators. Key
messages : I can=92t create without copyright. People who steal should be
locked up as long as possible. We need public awareness campaigns
like the
anti smoking and drink driving campaigns to educate consumers about why
copyright is important, preferably it should be part of the education
system.  Its unfortunate that most consumers have had negative
experiences
and 12 year olds and Grandmas were sued but we just need to get our PR
better and head our campaigns with creators as we know people don=92t feel
sorry for big corporations.

The next  presentations were by ..two big corporations . 1)  Thomas
Hesse
President Global Digital Business , Sony BMG.  Key messages: Digital
world
was =91consumer centric=92. However depended on DRM systems to give
consumers
more =91choice=92. Admitted that EU Consumers had had a bad experience with
DRMs  ( on cd=92s- crashing computers etc) but this was in the past. Their
surveys had shown that consumers only wanted to copy things 3- 5
times any
more than that amounted to =91piracy=92

  2) Warner Bros- started with high tech show reel whose main purpose
was
to show that they are not really a big US corporation, but are virtually
European as they invest heavily in EU content. (So no need to worry that
you are passing laws to help US firms).    The rest of the speech was
devoted to debunking 10 =91myths=92 including that DRM systems affect
privacy, that they are against P2P etc. . He also said that NO PRIVATE
COPYING SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE DIGITAL AGE.   Again key message:  DRM
systems are not such much about preventing  =91piracy=92 but fundamental  t=
o
allow business models that can segment the market into different price
points for different activities i.e cheaper to lease  a film than to
keep
it. It would allow more choice for consumers. ( of course these choices
would be decided by the right holders)

The opening and closing sessions were filmed and will be available over
the next two weeks. See for more information:
www.creativeeconomyconference.org

Working Groups

The conference then broke into 5 closed working groups :
* Value for All and More of it ("How can all stakeholders across the IP
value chain work together to realise the potential of the digital
revolution?");
* The Global Challenge ("How to maintain a competitive advantage for
Europe's creative economy in an increasingly crowded global
marketplace");
* Film Online ("Developments in technology ... Media 2007 Programme");
* From Creativity to Commerce ("How to enable Europe's creative
talent to
drive successful, sustainable business");
* Licensing: Fit & Fair ("How to ensure licensing that is fit for
purpose in
the digital environment - with reference to the EU Commission's
proposals on
collective administration")

I was briefly in the From Creativity to Commerce group ,but spent
most of
my time in the Global challenge group. It was exhausting, as I was
heavily
out numbered by rights holders. There was no real attempt to reach
consensus or have a dialogue instead it consisted of right holders
repeating their usual mantras i.e we need =91equalisation of copyright
terms
globally and for all rights holders=92 There was no economic rationale to
back this up. Piracy is the main problem and education and criminal
sanctions the solution.

  It was a bizarre experience. My fellow consumer reps in other groups
reported similar experiences where discussion was curtailed if it went
against the rightholders views. In short if the right holders wanted
legislationnthere was a consensus. If  creators or consumer groups
wanted
legislation for example to deal with unfair contract terms or exceptions
to allow access for libraries these were opposed and merely put forward`
as concerns.

On occasion this obvious bias backfired. A number of Officials expressed
concern to me that there was no real dialogue and that the rights
holders
position was not evidenced based.

If you raised any alternative views you were attacked. For example in my
group the discussion on the Development Agenda at` WIPO started with an
attack on the drafters of the Geneva Declaration on the future of WIPO (
see www.cptech.org) as =91ignorant even if they are law professors=92 ( and
Nobel prize winners but he left that out). No attempt was made to really
justify this belief. There then followed rights holders claims that it
wasn=92t clear` what the DA` was and that most developing countries
supported copyright.  People who supported the DA were =91enemies of IP=92
.The WIPO official pointed out that it would been good to have a
developing country there. When I suggested if they really wanted to
discuss it they should look at the proposals made by the Developing
Countries at WIPO , the discussion was terminated as they didn=92t have
time to look at the facts!. They did have time though to make
unsubstantiated claims.


There were extreme reactions to any attempt to review existing rules.
For
example in my groups DG Int Mrkt officials outlined the policy
options in
their paper on the Database Directive ( to be issues at the end of this
year) These ranged from doing nothing to repeal. The publishers reacted
extremely emotionally to this ( see Johanna Gibson=92s post on the a2k
list)
.

The Publishers Assoc also predicted the end of private publishing, with
only state publishing left, if the Commission even considered
changing and
of the copyright terms to assist its digital libraries plan.Commission
consultation (runs until 20 January
2006)http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/
digital_libraries/consultation/index_en.htm

  Some right holders also showed contempt for data protection. Which in
their view apparently should be overridden to pursue copyright
infringement. We were told in our group that if data was being kept for
one purpose it might as well be used for everything else.  Consumer reps
pointed out that this was against EU Data Protection  laws.

Final Plenary Session

However consumer reps  did  still manage to get  some of our concerns
noted in the recommendations. We also slightly spoilt their public
PR.  In
the public discussions, on the workgroups, at the final plenary session,
the differences between consumer groups and rights holders and
developing
and developed countries on copyright  also had to be acknowledged .
So at
best we stopped  it from being a completely one sided event. The
recommendations from all of the working groups can be found at
http://www.creativeeconomyconference.org/Documents/
FinalConferencePapers.pdf.


There was also an interesting discussion on orphan works in the Film
Online group- where it was recognised by industry reps that this
business
could be undermined if the orphans works issue was not resolved.
There was
a great point from the Rapporteur for the group Phillipe Kern who
said =91If
I was at a conference of social care and said I wanted to take care of
orphans everyone would be happy. But in a creative economy conference
if I
say I want to take care of orphan works people are suspicious.=92

The event ended with a speech from another Uk Minister: Lord Sainsbury =96
Parliamentary Under =96 Secretary of State - For Science and
Innovation,DTI.

Which is anything was even worse that Jowell=92s . Despite hearing the
conclusions of the  working groups and the split between rightholders
and
consumer groups and the limitations on representation` he said that =91the
breadth of participation gives the conclusions  their credibility=92. He
said that DRM was an exciting technology that promised consumers more
choice and praised the music industry for their innovative business
models. His speech is not yet up on the site. I=92ll post it when it is.

To date  UK Ministers have not agreed to meet consumer groups to discuss
their concerns.

Charlie McCreevy ( EU Commissioner for Internal Market) was supposed
to be
there but was fog bound in France. His speech was read by an official
and
was a justification for the Commissions Recommendation on On line music
rights clearance that had been announced that day.

Other =91Presentations=92
A number of documents were=92 presented=92 at the conference. This is
misleading. They were never discussed just left at the back of a working
group meeting. The purpose of  saying they were presented, seems to
be to
give them the imprimatur of the conference and the appearance that they
were somehow endorsed by it. Many of these documents can be found on the
website and include e.g a  report prepared for and endorsed by the
British
Screen Advisory Council promotes widespread digital-rights-management
programs to manage content, while advising shrinking the "window"
between
theatrical and DVD releases.
  "As a final observation, it is worth noting that the increased
range of
content available, and of new services offering this content, should
lead
to an increase in total consumer expenditure on audiovisual services,
even if demand for traditional services falls to some extent," the
report
concludes. "However, significant new infrastructure costs will need
to be
recouped by the telecoms and cable companies that are enabling new
services such as VOD to be launched, and these costs are likely to be
recovered in part within the pricing structures of new audiovisual
services. Therefore, it is too early too [sic] assess whether the
overall
impact of the technological developments discussed in this paper will be
a net increase in margins for content creators."
Read the rest of this story at ExtremeDRM.com: "UK Film Group,
Government
Pushes 'Widespread' DRM"

Also launched was a DVD of the CREATE principles =96 drawn up by the
Education and communication working group  of the Creative Industries IP
forum ( A UK Govt sponsored group). These principles are to help build a
=91shared understanding  of IP=92 and stand for Creativity ,Respect
,Education, Access, Trust Economics. The UK Govt will be pushing
these as
apart of its Presidency


While it was mostly depressing to watch, it was useful to be there to
hear`the argeuments and to talk to officials.

Michelle




--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, USA
Tel.:  1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727