Hello all,
As a former Anthropologist it is always intriguing to me to learn about the myriad ways people interpret the same event.
The Creative Economy Conference organisers were very brave in adopting a new format for this event, and this was the only reason that working groups were held at all during the conference. Earlier EU-wide copyright conferences I have attended and been very rigidly choreographed with little time for debate, and carefully scripted presentations. It's my understanding that the format change this year - somewhat against the will of some EU officials, and leading to a much more lively exchange of ideas than in the past - was an innovation requested by rights owners in the publishing, music, and film industries.
The number of representatives from different sectors wasn't balanced, but the numbers were a distinct increase in involvement from the consumer lobby and from libraries. This was very welcome, and enriched the debates considerably.
Not all the working groups worked equally well, and it sounds as if Ms Childs was in a particularly polarised group. I took part in the "Licensing: Fit and Fair?" working group, and learned considerable amounts about an array of consumer positions, and also about the differing perspectives across the creative industries. We had a really good exchange of information about CreativeCommons licensing - and other 'alternative' licensing approaches - and the working group reached consensus on these:
I'm looking forward to future debates with an even better balance of viewpoints, and feel we should thank the organisers of the Creative Economy Conference for being brave -- and innovative -- in the format of their conference.
With best wishes,
Alicia Wise
-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
[mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of James Love
Sent: 12 October 2005 20:45
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Michelle Childs on UK Creative Economy conference
The following is a report from Michelle Childs on the UK conference on the "creative economy." Jamie
From: "Michelle Childs" <michelle.childs[_at_]cptech.org>
Date: October 10, 2005 8:47:43 AM EDT
To: a2k[_at_]lists.essential.org
Cc: ip[_at_]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 'to deliver policy recommendations to the European Commission on behalf of all stakeholders in the creative economy'
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's are central to the creative economy. 'Piracy' 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 'equalised' ( 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 'believe' 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't 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't 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't 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 'consumer centric'. However depended on DRM systems to give consumers more 'choice'. Admitted that EU Consumers had had a bad experience with DRMs ( on cd's- 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 'piracy'
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 'myths' 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 'piracy' but fundamental 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");
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 'equalisation of copyright terms globally and for all rights holders' 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 'ignorant even if they are law professors' ( 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't clear' what the DA' was and that most developing countries supported copyright. People who supported the DA were 'enemies of IP' .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't 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's 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 'If 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.'
The event ended with a speech from another Uk Minister: Lord Sainsbury - Parliamentary Under - Secretary of State - For Science and Innovation,DTI.
Which is anything was even worse that Jowell's . Despite hearing the conclusions of the working groups and the split between rightholders and consumer groups and the limitations on representation' he said that 'the breadth of participation gives the conclusions their credibility'. 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'll 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 'Presentations'
A number of documents were' presented' 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 - 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 'shared understanding of IP' 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
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to
<CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>. Received on Sat Oct 15 2005 - 17:00:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT