[Upd-discuss] New Labour and Trysts: Creative Industries Forum

Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:54:01 EDT

-------------------------------1129064041
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

I am forwarding this message - does the account reflect the state of play. =20=
I=20
sent James Purnell an email sometime after the elections as to his views on=20=
=20
how the Government/Dept can assist in the promotion of the Public Domain. I=20=
=20
think the account below is an apt response:
=20
The following is Michelle Childs' report from the UK conference on
the  "creative economy."  Jamie

-----------------------------
Begin  forwarded message:

From: "Michelle Childs"  <michelle.childs@cptech.org>
Date: October 10, 2005 8:47:43 AM  EDT
To: a2k@lists.essential.org
Cc: ip@tacd.org
Subject: [A2k] UKEU  Presidency creative economy conference

I attended the Creative economy  conference last week in London. The
purported purpose of the conference  was  =E2=80=98 to deliver policy
recommendations to the European Commission on  behalf of all stakeholders
in the creative economy=E2=80=99

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=E2=80=99s are central to the creative economy. =E2=80=98Piracy=E2=80=99=20=
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 =E2=80=98equalised=E2=80=99 ( this is t=
he  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
=E2=80=98believe=E2=80=99
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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t create without copyright. People who steal shoul=
d 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=E2=80=99t=
 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 =E2=80=98consumer centric=E2=80=99. However  depended on DRM systems to=20=
give
consumers
more =E2=80=98choice=E2=80=99. Admitted that EU  Consumers had had a bad exp=
erience with
DRMs  ( on cd=E2=80=99s- crashing  computers etc) but this was in the past.=20=
Their
surveys had shown that  consumers only wanted to copy things 3- 5
times any
more than that  amounted to =E2=80=98piracy=E2=80=99

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 =E2=80=98myths=E2=80=99 including  that DRM systems=20=
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  =E2=80=98piracy=E2=80=99 but fu=
ndamental  to
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 =E2=80=98equalisation of copyrigh=
t
terms
globally and for all rights  holders=E2=80=99 There was no economic rational=
e 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  =E2=80=98ignorant even if they are law professors=
=E2=80=99 ( 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=E2=80=99t clear` what the DA` was and  that most developing countries
supported copyright.  People who  supported the DA were =E2=80=98enemies of=20=
IP=E2=80=99
.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=E2=80=99t  ha=
ve
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=E2=80=99s post on the a2=
k
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 =E2=80=98If
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.=E2=80=99

The event ended  with a speech from another Uk Minister: Lord Sainsbury =E2=
=80=93
Parliamentary Under  =E2=80=93 Secretary of State - For Science and
Innovation,DTI.

Which is  anything was even worse that Jowell=E2=80=99s . Despite hearing th=
e
conclusions of  the  working groups and the split between rightholders
and
consumer  groups and the limitations on representation` he said that =E2=80=
=98the
breadth of  participation gives the conclusions  their credibility=E2=80=99.=
 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=E2=80=99ll post it when it=20=
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  =E2=80=98Presentations=E2=80=99
A number of documents were=E2=80=99 presented=E2=80=99 at the conference.  T=
his 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 =E2=80=93  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
=E2=80=98shared understanding  of IP=E2=80=99 and stand for  Creativity ,Res=
pect
,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
##################################
=20

-------------------------------1129064041
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20=
Arial"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7>
<DIV>I am forwarding this message - does the account reflect the state of pl=
ay.=20
I sent James Purnell an email sometime after the elections as to his views o=
n=20
how the Government/Dept can assist in the promotion of the Public Domain. I=20
think the account below is an apt response:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The following is Michelle Childs' report from the UK conference on t=
he=20
"creative economy."&nbsp; Jamie ----------------------------- Begi=
n=20
forwarded message: From: "Michelle Childs"=20
&lt;michelle.childs@cptech.org&gt; Date: October 10, 2005 8:47:43 AM=20
EDT To: a2k@lists.essential.org Cc: ip@tacd.org Subject: [A2k] UKEU=
=20
Presidency creative economy conference I attended the Creative econom=
y=20
conference last week in London. The purported purpose of the conference=20
was&nbsp; =E2=80=98 to deliver policy recommendations to the European Com=
mission on=20
behalf of all stakeholders in the creative economy=E2=80=99 The Co=
nference was=20
under the name of the UK EU Presidency but was initiated jointly by the=20
British Screen Advisory Council (BSAC) and the British Copyright Council=20
(BCC). ( and sponsorship from companies like Time Warner and Microsoft)&n=
bsp;=20
It had the support and participation of the UK Departments for Trade &=
amp;=20
Industry (DTI) and Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Directorate=
s=20
General Internal Market and Information Society and Media of the European=
=20
Commission . WIPO officials were also in attendance. As we had fea=
red=20
there was no creativity and no economic analysis of the role of copyright=
 and=20
the pros and cons of its use in the digital age . There was no real effor=
t to=20
engage with different stakeholders. It was an invitation only event wi=
th=20
consumer groups heavily outnumbered. The whole thing was stage managed=
 to=20
get the right holders views across with as little opposition as possible,=
=20
using the UK Presidency as an official endorsement. Which the UK Minister=
s=20
present where more than happy to do. Summary of Key messages from rig=
hts=20
holders : DRM=E2=80=99s are central to the creative economy. =E2=80=
=98Piracy=E2=80=99 is=20
widespread and must be stopped by the use of criminal sanctions and EU=
 and=20
global co ordination. Mass education programmes should be established=20
to promote an understanding and respect for copyright amongst consumer=
s,=20
particularly the young. Copyright Terms should be =E2=80=98equalised=E2=
=80=99 ( this is the=20
new tern to be used- not extension) at an EU and Global Level, both in=
=20
length and application to all rightholders. Problems of access should be=20
dealt with by contract or voluntary action not legalisation. Consumers=20
only =E2=80=98believe=E2=80=99 that they&nbsp; have rights. No private=
 copying should be=20
allowed except that agreed by righholders. Business models are moving fro=
m an=20
ownership model to a leasing model for content. Consumer Groups have=20
different views on these things but we won=E2=80=99t really listen or try=
 to engage=20
with them. Comments on Conference It started appropriately enough=20=
in=20
the dark where we were subjected to&nbsp; 3 hours of&nbsp; copyright r=
ight=20
holders viewpoints with no opportunity to ask questions.&nbsp; This was t=
he=20
Plenary session which was open to the Press. No other stakeholder with an=
=20
opposing view was allowed to speak. The UK Secretary of State Tessa Jowel=
l=20
gave a speech that could have been written by the rightholders, which=20=
gave=20
no acknowledgement to the real concerns that consumers, academics and=20
librarians have about their ability to access knowledge. Instead it basic=
ally=20
equated any attack on copyright with an attack on society as whole. The E=
U=20
economy and the Lisbon agenda depended on it. To give you a flavou=
r=20
this is how it ended; If nothing else, we need to understand the powe=
r of=20
an idea. Good ideas developed into high-quality creative content are the=20
lynchpin of a knowledge economy. Used wisely, they can lead us towards=20
economic prosperity and success. But if we allow them to be=20
squandered, stifled or stolen, we won't just lose our economic edge; w=
e=20
are also risk losing our raison d'etre./ You can read the whole=
=20
thing=20
at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2005/ creat=
ive_economy_conference.htm There=20
then followed a panel discussion with a group of creators. Key messages :=
 I=20
can=E2=80=99t create without copyright. People who steal should be locked=
 up as long=20
as possible. We need public awareness campaigns like the anti smoking=20=
and=20
drink driving campaigns to educate consumers about why copyright is=20
important, preferably it should be part of the education system.&nbsp; It=
s=20
unfortunate that most consumers have had negative experiences and 12 y=
ear=20
olds and Grandmas were sued but we just need to get our PR better and hea=
d=20
our campaigns with creators as we know people don=E2=80=99t feel sorry fo=
r big=20
corporations. The next&nbsp; presentations were by ..two big corporat=
ions=20
. 1)&nbsp; Thomas Hesse President Global Digital Business , Sony=20
BMG.&nbsp; Key messages: Digital world was =E2=80=98consumer centric=
=E2=80=99. However=20
depended on DRM systems to give consumers more =E2=80=98choice=E2=80=
=99. Admitted that EU=20
Consumers had had a bad experience with DRMs&nbsp; ( on cd=E2=80=99s- cra=
shing=20
computers etc) but this was in the past. Their surveys had shown that=20
consumers only wanted to copy things 3- 5 times any more than that=20
amounted to =E2=80=98piracy=E2=80=99 &nbsp; 2) Warner Bros- started w=
ith high tech show=20
reel whose main purpose was to show that they are not really a big US=20
corporation, but are virtually European as they invest heavily in EU cont=
ent.=20
(So no need to worry that you are passing laws to help US firms).&nbsp;=20
&nbsp; The rest of the speech was devoted to debunking 10 =E2=80=98myths=
=E2=80=99 including=20
that DRM systems affect privacy, that they are against P2P etc. . He also=
=20
said that NO PRIVATE COPYING SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE DIGITAL=20
AGE.&nbsp;&nbsp; Again key message:&nbsp; DRM systems are not such much a=
bout=20
preventing&nbsp; =E2=80=98piracy=E2=80=99 but fundamental&nbsp; to allow=20=
business models that=20
can segment the market into different price points for different activiti=
es=20
i.e cheaper to lease&nbsp; a film than to keep it. It would allow more=
=20
choice for consumers. ( of course these choices would be decided by the r=
ight=20
holders) The opening and closing sessions were filmed and will be=20
available over the next two weeks. See for more=20
information: www.creativeeconomyconference.org Working=20
Groups The conference then broke into 5 closed working groups : *=20
Value for All and More of it ("How can all stakeholders across the IP val=
ue=20
chain work together to realise the potential of the=20
digital revolution?"); * The Global Challenge ("How to maintain a=20
competitive advantage for Europe's creative economy in an increasingly=20
crowded global marketplace"); * Film Online ("Developments in technolo=
gy=20
... Media 2007 Programme"); * From Creativity to Commerce ("How to enable=
=20
Europe's creative talent to drive successful, sustainable business");<=
BR>*=20
Licensing: Fit &amp; Fair ("How to ensure licensing that is fit for purpo=
se=20
in the digital environment - with reference to the EU=20
Commission's proposals on collective administration") I was bri=
efly=20
in the From Creativity to Commerce group ,but spent most of my time in=
 the=20
Global challenge group. It was exhausting, as I was heavily out number=
ed=20
by rights holders. There was no real attempt to reach consensus or have a=
=20
dialogue instead it consisted of right holders repeating their usual mant=
ras=20
i.e we need =E2=80=98equalisation of copyright terms globally and for=20=
all rights=20
holders=E2=80=99 There was no economic rationale to back this up. Piracy=20=
is the main=20
problem and education and criminal sanctions the solution. &nbsp;=20=
It=20
was a bizarre experience. My fellow consumer reps in other groups reporte=
d=20
similar experiences where discussion was curtailed if it went against the=
=20
rightholders views. In short if the right holders wanted legislationnther=
e=20
was a consensus. If&nbsp; creators or consumer groups wanted legislati=
on=20
for example to deal with unfair contract terms or exceptions to allow acc=
ess=20
for libraries these were opposed and merely put forward` as=20
concerns. On occasion this obvious bias backfired. A number of Offici=
als=20
expressed concern to me that there was no real dialogue and that the=20
rights holders position was not evidenced based. If you raised=20=
any=20
alternative views you were attacked. For example in my group the discussi=
on=20
on the Development Agenda at` WIPO started with an attack on the drafters=
 of=20
the Geneva Declaration on the future of WIPO ( see www.cptech.org) as=20
=E2=80=98ignorant even if they are law professors=E2=80=99 ( and Nobel pr=
ize winners but he=20
left that out). No attempt was made to really justify this belief. There=20=
then=20
followed rights holders claims that it wasn=E2=80=99t clear` what the DA`=
 was and=20
that most developing countries supported copyright.&nbsp; People who=20
supported the DA were =E2=80=98enemies of IP=E2=80=99 .The WIPO official=20=
pointed out that it=20
would been good to have a developing country there. When I suggested if t=
hey=20
really wanted to discuss it they should look at the proposals made by the=
=20
Developing Countries at WIPO , the discussion was terminated as they didn=
=E2=80=99t=20
have time to look at the facts!. They did have time though to=20
make unsubstantiated claims. There were extreme reactions to a=
ny=20
attempt to review existing rules. For example in my groups DG Int Mrkt=
=20
officials outlined the policy options in their paper on the Database=20
Directive ( to be issues at the end of this year) These ranged from doing=
=20
nothing to repeal. The publishers reacted extremely emotionally to this (=
 see=20
Johanna Gibson=E2=80=99s post on the a2k list) . The Publishers=
 Assoc also=20
predicted the end of private publishing, with only state publishing left,=
 if=20
the Commission even considered changing and of the copyright terms to=20
assist its digital libraries plan.Commission consultation (runs until 20=20
January 2006)http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/ =
digital_libraries/consultation/index_en.htm &nbsp;=20
Some right holders also showed contempt for data protection. Which in the=
ir=20
view apparently should be overridden to pursue copyright infringement. We=
=20
were told in our group that if data was being kept for one purpose it mig=
ht=20
as well be used for everything else.&nbsp; Consumer reps pointed out that=
=20
this was against EU Data Protection&nbsp; laws. Final Plenary=20
Session However consumer reps&nbsp; did&nbsp; still manage to get&nbs=
p;=20
some of our concerns noted in the recommendations. We also slightly spoil=
t=20
their public PR.&nbsp; In the public discussions, on the workgroups, a=
t=20
the final plenary session, the differences between consumer groups and ri=
ghts=20
holders and developing and developed countries on copyright&nbsp; also=
 had=20
to be acknowledged . So at best we stopped&nbsp; it from being a=20
completely one sided event. The recommendations from all of the working=20
groups can be found=20
at http://www.creativeeconomyconference.org/Documents/ FinalConference=
Papers.pdf. There=20
was also an interesting discussion on orphan works in the Film Online gro=
up-=20
where it was recognised by industry reps that this business could be=20
undermined if the orphans works issue was not resolved. There was a gr=
eat=20
point from the Rapporteur for the group Phillipe Kern who said =E2=80=98I=
f I was=20
at a conference of social care and said I wanted to take care of orphans=20
everyone would be happy. But in a creative economy conference if I say=
 I=20
want to take care of orphan works people are suspicious.=E2=80=99 The=
 event ended=20
with a speech from another Uk Minister: Lord Sainsbury =E2=80=93 Parliame=
ntary Under=20
=E2=80=93 Secretary of State - For Science and Innovation,DTI. Whi=
ch is=20
anything was even worse that Jowell=E2=80=99s . Despite hearing the concl=
usions of=20
the&nbsp; working groups and the split between rightholders and consum=
er=20
groups and the limitations on representation` he said that =E2=80=98the b=
readth of=20
participation gives the conclusions&nbsp; their credibility=E2=80=99. He =
said that=20
DRM was an exciting technology that promised consumers more choice and=20
praised the music industry for their innovative business models. His spee=
ch=20
is not yet up on the site. I=E2=80=99ll post it when it is. To date&n=
bsp; UK=20
Ministers have not agreed to meet consumer groups to discuss their=20
concerns. Charlie McCreevy ( EU Commissioner for Internal Market) was=
=20
supposed to be there but was fog bound in France. His speech was read=20=
by=20
an official and was a justification for the Commissions Recommendation=
 on=20
On line music rights clearance that had been announced that day. O=
ther=20
=E2=80=98Presentations=E2=80=99 A number of documents were=E2=80=99 prese=
nted=E2=80=99 at the conference.=20
This is misleading. They were never discussed just left at the back of a=20
working group meeting. The purpose of&nbsp; saying they were presented, s=
eems=20
to be to give them the imprimatur of the conference and the appearance=
=20
that they were somehow endorsed by it. Many of these documents can be fou=
nd=20
on the website and include e.g a&nbsp; report prepared for and endorsed b=
y=20
the British Screen Advisory Council promotes widespread=20
digital-rights-management programs to manage content, while advising=20
shrinking the "window" between theatrical and DVD releases. &nbsp;=20=
"As=20
a final observation, it is worth noting that the increased range=20
of content available, and of new services offering this content,=20
should lead to an increase in total consumer expenditure on audiovisua=
l=20
services, even if demand for traditional services falls to some extent,"=20
the report concludes. "However, significant new infrastructure costs w=
ill=20
need to be recouped by the telecoms and cable companies that are enabl=
ing=20
new services such as VOD to be launched, and these costs are likely to=20
be recovered in part within the pricing structures of new=20
audiovisual services. Therefore, it is too early too [sic] assess whether=
=20
the overall impact of the technological developments discussed in this=
=20
paper will be a net increase in margins for content creators." Read th=
e=20
rest of this story at ExtremeDRM.com: "UK Film Group, Government Pushe=
s=20
'Widespread' DRM" Also launched was a DVD of the CREATE principles=20=
=E2=80=93=20
drawn up by the Education and communication working group&nbsp; of the=20
Creative Industries IP forum ( A UK Govt sponsored group). These principl=
es=20
are to help build a =E2=80=98shared understanding&nbsp; of IP=E2=80=99 an=
d stand for=20
Creativity ,Respect ,Education, Access, Trust Economics. The UK Govt will=
 be=20
pushing these as apart of its Presidency While it was mostl=
y=20
depressing to watch, it was useful to be there to hear`the argeuments and=
 to=20
talk to officials. Michelle -- Michelle Childs -Head of=
=20
European Affairs Consumer Project on Technology in London 24, Highbury=
=20
Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)=
790=20
386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 http://www.cptech.org Consumer=20
Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 2003=
6,=20
USA Tel.:&nbsp; 1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176 Consumer Proje=
ct=20
on Technology in Geneva 1 Route des&nbsp; Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva=
 2,=20
Switzerland Tel: +41 22 791 6727 ##################################</D=
IV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

-------------------------------1129064041--