How do we ensure the future of creative content online?

8 November 2012 - A Workshop on Openness in Baku, Azerbaijan

Also available in:
Full Session Transcript

 

SEVENTH ANNUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM

BAKU, AZERBAIJAN

SUSTAINABLE HUMAN, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

8 NOVEMBER 2012

SESSION WS 137

HOW DO WE ENSURE THE FUTURE OF CREATIVE CONTENT ONLINE?

9:00 LOCAL TIME

 

*   *   *

 

This text is being provided in a rough draft format.  Communication access realtime translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

 

*   *   *

 

 

 

 

(No audio)

>> Thanks.  Thanks.  Thanks for the colleagues inviting me today.  Let me give you a quick bit of what I hope is equally important, to this process of how we might get there.

(No audio).

And the idea with the Internet as a celestial jukebox people called it.  The technology for first time could make potentially all content that was ever interested in it and, of course, the critical and issue that has stopped us getting there so far is how to ensure that ?? (No audio).

So I think technology is like Spotify, exemplify in a practical way what that celestial jukebox can look like and I hope in ten years time we sorted out the tricky issues that mean that so far the Spotifys and many other products like them are still not quite the celestial jukebox.  That would be my vision for a decade's time.

What has been so tricky about the artists and the stakeholders and keeping the content ecosystem happy.  We had a lot of debate about that in the UK where there have been self?independent inquiries, commissioned by the government, one by the former editor of the "Financial Times" Andrew Gowers.  In the middle of the last decade, one more recently by a professor, Ian Hargreaves.  Unfortunately, the political blockage then came in implementing the suggestions.  Let me say a little bit about that and I hope it will open up the debate how it might fix the political problems not the technical problems in getting to the celestial jukebox.

I work with an NGO in the UK quite a lot called The Open Rights Group.  Copyright is one of their big issues.  They have been talking to our article select committee, which is right now doing an inquiry on copy right and future issues and what they suggested which I think are some good points for discussion.  One, reform of copyright license is important, especially in Europe, where we have a fragmented market for creative works, the 27 different states have implemented the European copyright directive in different ways, that the potential number of options in that direction is astronomical, because if you look at the different ways that exceptions, for example, can be implemented in national law, you think there are about 19 million different combinations and all of the Member States have done it differently.

Yes, you want some flexibility from Member States but clearly that's not working.  The Internet is wonderful for providing mass audience for works but you as an artist or intermediary that's trying to sell into the 27 markets, are having to deal with you will after these different combinations of legal framework, that will make it much more difficult for you.  I think that's important.

A second suggestion looking more broadly, of course this is not just all about copy right, there are other government policy areas as well.  Improving access to cultural heritage, libraries and archives, the EU has been funding a project, called Europeana.  It has enormous cultural heritage over the last several thousand years, obviously very little which remains in copyright and that can provide great source material for today's artists to remix and repurpose, as well as more broadly stimulating the creative economy and then finally just for now ?? sorry, two final points.

One, that there is more attention paid to the voices of creators themselves, rather than what often happens to trade associations and intermediaries who have their own perfectly legitimate perspectives are very active in lobbying government about copyright and related policies but the open rights group and I agree with them and thinks that sometimes that moves too far away from the interest of the creators themselves.  Everyone in the debate ?? that's the important point, yes, the intermediaries are big, important, businesses for the US and European and other economies, but it ?? but ultimately, with the technology that's so game changing as the Internet, it may be that those intermediaries will look very different in ten years' time and we need to be careful not to allow preservation of existing business models to become the cold of copy right and related policies.  We need to think about remuneration for creators and make sure that the users get the full benefit from all of this wonderful work that's out there and this is sort of a part of that.

You would hope this would sound controversial, but it is surprisingly controversial, calling for evidence?based policy making.  You would hope that policies were set on the basis of a good understanding of what the challenges are, what the different policy options are, and what their impact might be.  And we very often see in copyright debate that not happening, that you get very partial studies commissioned by specific interests in the debate, that are used then to produce headline figures, you know, like the Internet is destroying the music industry or is causing the loss of X million jobs or Y billion dollars of revenues to the creative industry.  When you try to dig into the studies, you find that the studies just are not available.  The headline figure will come out in a press release, perhaps but then the whole point of doing a study is other people can come along and look at how its conclusions were reached and perhaps some of those conclusions might be arguable.

And when neutral agencies like the ?? there was a by the US government, I forget, I'm sorry, which very specific part of the Department of Commerce did this and similarly, by the ?? as part of the Hargreaves review, they set it on a file sharing, particularly on unauthorized file sharing on the revenues flowing to creators, there's no good quality evidence, full stop.  You cannot say, you know, the Internet is causing X damage or benefit to the creative industries because there is just not good data to show that either way.  So we, I hope, all would agree we need that if we are going to make any sensible steps towards what I hope the positive vision of the celestial jukebox or content anywhere, any time, to who would like to access it with the creators of that work appropriately remunerated.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you very much.  There will be plenty of time for questions and comments in a moment, but first of all, I'm going to throw it over now to Bill from Google to perhaps give us Google's perspective on how this might play out.

>> BILL:  Thank you very much.  You know, I think this is a fascinating question and I think the starting point is, as Ian suggested, that the Internet has fueled an explosion of content.  Not all professional content, but all sorts of content and I think a couple of figures that we could throw in, that we have would illuminate that.  First of all, there are 325 million websites online in May 2011.  325 million websites!

I think that's up, you know, from something like 3 million ten years ago.  We have five exabytes of data, much of it cultural in 2011.  There are 250,000 words written per minute and uploaded on blogger which is a Google product.  That's like, I think, 5,000 books per minute.

And the one that really always strikes me, because we keep raising, it I mean, when I started giving this speech, I think a year ago, it was 36 hours of video per minute being uploaded to YouTube and now we are up to 72 hours worth of video every minute.  So there's an explosion of material and the material has become much more easily accessed.  So culture, I don't know what you call it, the celestial jukebox, there's a celestial library, that we didn't have only a decade ago.

We did digitized, often controversially, but library books from around the world.  The part that isn't controversial are the ones that are out of copy right and out of print.  In Europe that means books I think now before 1872 and I remember going to the library in Ghent which is one of or partners and there were 18th century books on dutch horticulture that were available online in Australia or South Africa and there were fair amount of interest, these books that were in the dusty library halls.  I think they were taken out once a year the librarian was telling me are receiving a thousand visits a day.  Interestingly, the library itself, you can think if you get everything online, no one would want to go there, the physical, the amount of visitors visiting in person had risen dramatically.  We see the same thing in culture all over the world.

Another example is street view, where you take pictures of the streets and the sites with UNESCO we launched something called world wonders which films all of their heritage sites.  One of the interesting ones is Pompeii.  It's a popular tourist visit and so forth, but once we put it online, the number of people visiting Pompeii rose by apparently a quarter than the previous.

So, I mean, I think the Internet offers dramatic possibilities to ?? to expand the access to culture, writ large.

Now the questions that you raised are how do you get the compensation for the creators?  And I think there too, despite all the sound and the fury, we are moving towards new win/win relationships and I think again, YouTube is an interesting example.  For YouTube, the most popular videos are music videos and both YouTube needs that to drive the traffic that it's doing, and music industry needs it as the preferred new destination or distribution vehicle.

So what we are seeing in YouTube is we instituted something called the content ID that if a video was put up, and it's identified or matched to a copyright holders material, the copyright holder is sent a notice which says, what would you like us to do with this material?  Would you like us to write, take it down?  Would you like us to leave it up?  Or would you like us to leave it up and sell advertising next to it?  And more than 95%, to my knowledge, of the requests in this ?? done under this system, the copyright holder comes back and says keep it up and sell advertising next to it.  And the revenues at YouTube are growing dramatically.

Similarly, Google cooperates with newspaper publishers, web publishers.  When you often click on their sites and you see ads from Google, it's ?? the inventory of ads from Google that are displayed there and the revenues are shared, and publishers receive, I think last year it was $6 billion total was handed out around the world.

So I think, you know, we are witnessing win/win models.  I think that the Internet companies like Google are reaching out.  We signed royalty deals around Europe, and yet we will have new conflicts as we move to the new Internet world, traditional print and paper industries, it's a difficult transition for them, and it's only natural that there are conflicts along the lines.

What is important, I think, as we go forward, is that you, Ian, mentioned the Hargreaves report in the UK, we are seeing a growing number of countries adapting copyright to fit the Internet and reaping benefits, good regulation, good copyright regulation that encourage sharing and opening up new possibilities for companies like us and Spotify and others and were seeing a good law that's coming into effect, for example, in Canada, the Irish and the dutch are looking at very, very forward?looking progressive laws.  At the same time, we are seeing, you know, a backlash and some possibilities, some very bad legislation that would move copyright in many ways to the Middle Ages in places like Germany and perhaps even France.

I think overall, the reform is inevitable because the consumers are going, and the users are on the Internet and the culture industry has to reach them that way.  The Internet is a hard place to put in a direct pay model, but advertising models work, and if we are creative with ?? I know it will be a transition, sometimes tough transition, there is a way to move forward and construct these win/win models.  Thank you.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you very much, Bill.  Okay, Mary Aduma.

>> Thank you.  I want to start by saying I'm happy to be here to join others to deliberate on ?? I hope you can hear me.

>> Yes.  Yes.

>> All right.  To deliberate and find a way to not only incentify but to safeguard, and I ?? I want to approach it from the way of from market perspective, for a competitive market, there must be a supply and demand.  As long as there's demand for content online, there will always be the entrepreneurs and the suppliers that will devise or produce these content.  And just like the voice or telephone has taken up and because there's the telephone, there's supply for telephone.  And content in this case is going to grow more and more, because of the new environment we have found ourselves being called the Internet is a new world, is a new environment.

I know the issue will be, yes, there are people would do this supply.  How do they continue to supply without being compensated?  That's another thing.  I want to use my country where what we call the Nollywood industry.  The film industry is growing tremendously, and they are making a lot of money out of the Nollywood but there's still the problem of copyright because the intellectual property right problems, our laws are not very defined because there are certain things we have not considered in the ?? in the online market than in the offline market.  So I'm looking at it, in the near future, in the next ten years there will be demand and the supply will continue to grow.

And I think the most important thing for the creative artists is that the artist is compensated.  Some who have dealt with the telephones or the telcos many my country, sometimes they run back to the regulator say, hey, I produced this music and they are using it, making some money.  They are not compensating me with.  So I think the commercial relationship between the ?? are the producer and the service provider needs to be, like Google needs to come to the real win/win.

When he has ?? he quoted a figure that looks line, looks high, but in the microlevel, what is it?  How much can I make out of my music from Google?  Who takes the greater share of the win/win, of the sharing formula.  What the sharing formula?  That's what the creative artists will be looking at.  As long as there's sharing formula that's acceptable by each party, there will always ?? they will continue to create.

In the next ten years, you know, I consider the children that are born, they won't carry a purse.  They will carry their telephone.  They will have things that will be the digital citizen or the net citizen.  Education today, content in education, devised ?? you know, there are softwares today that teach children from ABC, with the device, you ?? they just press a button and they are learning, role playing and learning.  So it's content development.  But the compensation is the important thing.  For us to safeguard this, we must compensate those that created the content properly.

And they are contents that may not sell in certain environment.  Like, in my own environment, the adult contents are still illegal and they will not sell.  I think the national laws, those that make ?? that are coming up with national laws, should also take into consideration those ?? the value add area of the content creation.

We also ?? the illegal download, and you see that the ?? the wireless ?? or the Internet is so open, people devise a way of getting the paid content without paying.  So those are things that I think discussions like this are multistakeholder model that will bring together those that produce and supply should be able to discuss how do we resolve, how do we protect, how do we compensate and how do we create demand for content producers.

Thank you for now.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you very much, Mary.

Okay.  Finally, we will go to Cedric from UNESCO to hear his point on argument.

>> Thank you, Kate.  Content development is key for fostering pluralistic, equitable and inclusive knowledge societies and that's why we are very pleased to be here and contribute to this discussion.

Hi, my name, I'm Cedric, I worked 15 years for UNESCO and I have a different experience with content development and I also worked in the field with different ministries of education where we have worked on curricular and also content for the educational uses and so on.  I want to come from the subject on three different perspectives one is this hands on experience of creating content and the second is the more normative.  You ask what is the future, but I want to ask, what do we want the future to be?  And also some research we did with OECD, with Internet Society and others that will contribute to that.

What do I think will the model be in ten years' time?  It's not an easy question.  I would like to contribute from four different angles.  One is diversity, second is inclusively and third is quality and relevance and fourth is accessibility.  The first one is, I think, UNESCO and very well known and we have launched different studies and disseminated it here.  We stress the importance of locally relevant content, also in local languages and today English is not the first language on the Internet anymore an there's a high opportunity for that.  I think one perspective and one trend is diversification and including and in terms of languages, we will see more and more languages and content and more and more also local languages and therefore also more locally relevant content.

Second point on inclusiveness, we want content to be accessible and created by all, including, women, the young and the old, those with little skills and resources too.  And we know that actually content creation becomes an increasingly complex area.  You have new technology, and new formats and how to form ?? I mean, how to use content and how to move from pure content to content experiences is a question across different platforms, and how to enable users to distribute the content throughout these different platforms, where it's not only text and PDF format anymore.  It becomes more and more complex.  For us, there's a capacity building dimension to that and the future but also the importance of the ?? the goal of inclusiveness.

So the third point, quality and relevance.  You are right, William, that there are ?? I mean, 325 million websites and so on.  They are incredible numbers but it is also question how content is not only there, but also compelling, easy to access, but ?? and relevant and of high quality.  So you have a lot of content which is not ?? and of high quality content which is not actually accessible.  We have the language dimensions but we have also more and more paid for content.  If you do research, you need to often pay for ?? for our content.  And you have also, of course, to deal ?? if you have this high quantity of content with the questions of quality, and there are different stories that could add to that, and just a personal one.

I was ?? I have a newspaper, which I received and I made this experience of only being based on the ?? on RSS feeds and my news intake and it was quite incredible how to ?? how the ?? how diminished your views get as a personal experience the moment you only base your content intake on RSS feeds which are specialized to your needs.  That is a personal side note, but it is quite relevant, I think.

So the question for UNESCO, how to deal with an information overload and how to pick up relevant content and how to access it is an important point.  So in terms of accessibility, the first point I wanted to make, we, of course, first the disabilities aspect, content needs to be accessible to all.  Secondly, the open access to publicly financed work is very important to us.

William laid out some Google win/win models, the advertisement models.  I think as a description, I can see also another model in terms of content development and it is content treated for privacy.  That's an important development and an all?important trend if you look at it.  It's a reality and we cannot describe the reality with advertisement only.  I think that's something to be discussed, perhaps in terms of accessibility.

Then a third one, which is less popular but very important for us too, all areas of life produced digital contents and they should remain technologically table and accessible in their authentic manifestations by current and future generations.

What I want to say is we have an increasing digital heritage and it's disappearing and Google has contributed to an important conference we held in Vancouver on this point.  It's really a concern for us, not only the future of content but how to have in the future also the digital content, which is 20 or 30 years old, our history of identity and so on.  So that's also remaining the third dimension of accessibility, I wanted to just address and we should be thinking on in the future of content.

Thank you.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Great.  Some diverse ideas and opinions coming out there.

What I would like to add in the mix, I was having a conversation with some of my Twitter followers last week about the discussion.  One of the models I haven't heard mentioned so far is the crowd funding model which is now a really massively growing movement online and we are seeing, you know, perhaps content producers turning the remuneration model on its head and seeking some kind of financial commitment from the content consumers prior to actually making the content and I think this adds an interesting dynamic to the relationship between content makers and content consumers, because in many ways it completely cuts out the distributor, and really truly democratizes the process.

The good thing about this model is you get into a situation where you are not trying then to protect the digital content beyond that.  You know, you set a target.  You say this is how much I feel this work is worth to me, to create.  I'm going to be remunerated to create it and then if I can get further ?? then it goes into the public domain and perhaps then enters the advertising model and becomes, you know, whereas Mary said, the problem with this advertising model is how much am I going to?  Am I going to spend the next six months of my life creating this and only earn pennies because I put it on the wrong platform.

I thank my Twitter followers for their contribution to the discussion.

I will open it up to questions.  Does anyone on the panel want to comment about anything that they have heard the others saying so far?  Any questions from the floor so far?

Yes, sir?  Microphone is coming your way.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello.  My name is ?? can you hear me?  Okay.  My name is Carl and I work for the US State Department in the office of intellectual property enforcement.  I just wanted to actually make a comment that will last a minute.  Ian, on the study that you mentioned, the commerce department study, that was actually not a piracy study.  That was a study on the contribution of the IP intensive industries to the US economy.  And as I mentioned yesterday at another panel, the importance of that study was that it was first time the US government actually did a study on that topic and as I said, you know, people can have discussions about the methodology, et cetera, et cetera, but that's ?? that's what that study was about.

Two other points on sort of the future of creative content online, I think ?? I think from my perspective, experience has shown that you need to have a strong legal environment so that create content online can flourish and you need to have the right culture.  I think creating a culture to do that is really, really essential.  All sorts of voluntary best practices, agreements can help in that regard.  We are very hopeful that something called the copyright alert system that's being implemented in the United States right now will make a contribution to that.  And I will leave at that and happy to talk further if people want.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you very much.  Anybody else on that point?

Anyone from remote participation yet?

Okay.  Well, let's ?? oh, sorry, sorry.  Helen.  Helen Goodman.  She's our shadow culture secretary.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello, is this working?

>> KATE RUSSELL: Yes.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I was ?? one thing that's worth taking into account in this discussion is what's going on in the court.  It's not about the initiatives that governments taking but I think it's worth observing that some of the large film and music industries are now winning cases in the courts and the ISPs are blocking illegal sites.  I think that needs to be factored into the picture of where we are going.  I wonder whether people think that that's sustainable.

In the UK, there's also been a lot of discussion with Google and I would be very interested to hear what Bill has to say about this, about the order in which websites are put, when people search for things.  And the creative industry is saying we would like the legal sites up first, not the illegal sites because if the illegal sites happen to have been popular recently, then we're going to be permanently disadvantaged and I would like to know what Bill thinks about that.

I was very interested in what Cedric said, and also about the RSS feeds, which your experience of narrowing by relying on that is an experience I have had.  I very strongly agree with that and I think that brings us to an important question about the nature of journalism and what quality journalism is and what quality journalism does.  We have got a lot of newspapers folding in Britain at the moment because things are moving online, and in that situation, it's very important that we preserve journalism, because citizen journalism and ?? it just isn't as good because you don't have the skills.  You don't have the investigations.  You don't have the resources and there's the whole serendipity thing, maybe I don't know about something, but maybe I ought to know something, and maybe somebody should tell me about it.  That's an experience that all of us are having here in Baku.

I think crowd sourcing is something but I think we need to be cautious of snake oil merchants.  It's easy for people to say give me $10 and I will make X and they walk away with the $10, which came back from the point that the chap from the US was saying we need a legal framework and a change of culture.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you very much, Helen.

I will throw that over to Bill.  Can your algorithms become the unofficial police of copy right and content distribution?

>> BILL:  You know, I don't work in the UK and I read the article in "The Guardian."  It raises some issues that I can address, without being able to respond directly to the ?? the issue in the UK.  I think people, many websites, newspapers, they look on Google as a place that drives them billions of click, billions of traffic that they wouldn't have.  We let them decide whether they want to stay in Google news or the Google web search and almost invariably they do because it drives them readers.

At the same time, it's far from the only way to survive or create a brand online or attract readers.  If you ?? when I'm looking for a book, I don't go to Google most likely, I go to Amazon, which is the market leader in driving searches for book purchases and so forth, other types of information.  Culturally, it's the same thing, if you are going to book a flight, you often go to Expedia and not Google.

I think one, our role is very important and we have a lot of power but not as important as it's often been shown to be and in allowing people to get information or allowing them to find the culture that we are talking about here.  I get back to the comment I should have perhaps commented, you are right when I say it's 6 billion going to all web publishers around the world and I go to an individual newspaper and it probably pays one journalist.  Sometimes there is what you say, I think it's legitimate that what we are providing doesn't replace what is being lost in the print world.  But unfortunately, the print world doesn't exist anymore and this is a start towards finding those new models.

I think, yes, we admit that there is a transition and a difficult transition for the ?? you know, the traditional journalism, the world of traditional journalism, but it's an inevitable one and we have to find the win/win models that allow, you know, without protectionism to the old models that people don't want to see, perhaps as much anymore allow to culture to thrive and journalism to thrive.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you very much.  Okay, I will throw it to the gentleman there now.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much.  I'm Chris Marcich and I'm the president of the motion pictures association European office.  I would look to, first of all, applaud all of the experiments and new models that are being deployed for remuneration of creators.  And we ourselves are involved in trying to find new ways to exploit works that we create on the Internet and others are doing likewise.

I think it's important to keep in mind that there are differences in investment levels in works that are created and while some of these micropayment models may work for certain types of creation, they will not necessarily remunerate those of us who invest 1 billion pounds in feature fills in the United Kingdom and well paid jobs, well above average that depend on those investments.  And, so one has to draw some distinctions and recognize that there are different types of works and you may prefer the microworks, the works of individuals and want to find a way to remunerate those, good.  The other works also have a purpose and contribute in a way to the economies of countries, including in Nigeria, by the way, we work with the Nigerian film industry on trying to find ways to enable him and the works he creates in into Nigeria to find an audience with remuneration for the investment that he makes which is not an easy job for him in Nigeria and neither is it for us in the UK at the moment.

One has to keep in mind those differences and I think the panelists, I would invite them to comment on that and their views on that.

Now, Google is busy encouraging a lot of reviews of copy right, indeed the Hargreaves review had been called the Google review in the UK by journalists.  I have think you will know as a BBC journalist, that that's what it was called.  Okay.  Fine.  Let's call them what they are and Google is certainly within its rights to promote copyright reviews of this sort, but I think we should be straight about who is doing what to whom and where.

>> (Inaudible).

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm just reporting on what the journalist said in the UK and we know that the journalists are worthy of our trust.

The other thing I would like to say is that, you know, the ?? our colleague from Google referred to initiatives in Germany and France that are steps backwards.  You know, what they are trying to do in the objectives of French government and the German government is make sure that the works that are created there, whether it's in journalism or in film, that they are respected and protected to the extent that the law allows it and I think that the dispute between Google and government of France and the French newspapers is emblematic of a problem that we have.  Google is so strong that it's able to say we will not carry French newspapers.  Basically, if we have to pay them in ?? in terms of the negotiations that they are involved in there.  That is a big position to have, to be able to say to the ?? effectively the newspapers of an entire country, we won't carry you.  That matters.  That makes a big difference because Google is almost 90% of the search market in France.  And so it's simply a market position that has to be, I think, taken into account when we ?? when we look at these sorts of issues.

In terms of the shadow state secretary for culture questions and comments about the role of the courts, I would say that the ?? you know, the courts in the UK have been trying to balance the sorts of difficult public policy issues that come up when one has to look at pirate sites.  They have been doing the job.  They have looked at whether those sites have any function other than substantially infringing content that doesn't belong to them.  And in all of the cases that we have brought to date, the courts have found that the answer is no, those are not purveyors of democracy or freedom of democracy or freedom of speech, they are there to abuse content that does not belong to them.  They make money in the process.  So the courts, in our opinion, rightly ordered ISPs to block those sites and the ISPs have blocked them.

The last time I checked, the Internet still works.  You have an Internet that works, yes.  That's good.

And then beyond, that I think the issue of the responsibility of a big mayer like Google, for example, in dealing with ?? in dealing with pirate sites is important and you raise that question as well.  We have expressed concerns and, again, I would invite Google to comment on this.  They rank sites and they list sites.  They have an algorithm, a mystical algorithm that is claimed to be neutral, but, in fact, it's changed every day and they recently introduced some welcomed adjustments to take into account the extent to which sites are the subject of valid notices for copyright infringement but they continue to list sites that are condemned by the courts as being substantially infringing, which really makes no sense to me.  They are clearly declared illegal.

So, you know, there is ?? there is room for progress in this.  One has to find the right balance.  No one is taking Google and intermediaries need to be the judge and juror, but usually when there are judicial decisions they too ought to be respected.  That is, to me, at least, seems to be a reasonable expectation.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you.  Okay.  Well, we have a few comments that he with want to go over and throw to the panel from that.  I'm going to roll back to the first one, which was the ?? as I gather your point, the dilution of the content industry with these sort of microcontent and perhaps the move you makers, the people making the billion dollars or million dollars productions, there needs to be a model for them in consideration as well.

We spoke, actually, earlier, Cedric mentioned something about content experiences and I think where you are getting at with that is maybe there is a space in this sort of argument for the grander experience of HD, 3D, creating content in a way that it becomes less piratable and copyable.  Is that what you are saying?

(Inaudible).

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: What I'm saying is there are different types of content and certain types of content lends itself to be experienced in an Internet friendly way and maybe remuneration models can be found, if the creators of the content choose to have the works available in that panel.  There are other vehicles for making the works available and not all of it has to be in a manner chosen by Google and YouTube.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Okay.  Now, Bill, you would like to comment on the ?? there was a question about the ranking as well and if Google does become the leading distribution platform but is also the leading mechanism by which people find distribution platforms and then there is the ?? you know, the suspicion, the algorithms are sort of biased in favor of various different elements.  How would you respond to that whole argument, messy as it is?

>> BILL:  Well, in fact, we are not saying that YouTube is the only way or the future.  There's James Bond which goes through the traditional distribution and seems to do quite well.  A lot of the content industry seems to be thriving and so the new Internet world and the new world of YouTube is not exclusive.  I ?? I think I already answered the way in which people find information.  I find the 90% figure misleading because it's not the only thing that we are talking about which is general search.  There's search for specific things that are also search engines and a way of finding information.

And, you know, if we are going to look at newspapers, for example, what was interesting recently was you looked at the "New York Times," which ?? a place where there's a strong brand image, a strong publication, which more and more of its traffic is going directly to "The New York Times" website and less and less is coming through Google.  I think that strong brands will thrive and there are other ways to find information.  And so the presence is a little biased that this is the only way to do things or only way to fine information.

On the courts, I recognize ?? I think we have been working constructively in the UK, from what I know, but, again, I'm not an expert to work on the issue of identifying and bringing down ?? I know when there are complaints that we have been able to get them down to a short turn around time of 48 hours to break the links, but the court cases I'm concerned with are ?? I'm more active in the broader European region and there are a lot of court cases that are placing burdens on intermediaries on the platforms that would call, you know, into question or require us to sensor or filter because we have become libel for the material that's put up on YouTube or so forth and I think that's a danger that's been overlooked here despite what I have heard.

I mean, you know, there's particular cases before the European court of justice, the particular one I know of comes from Spain, and there was an article on El piece, that a surgeon had batched some operations according to El Piece and now the Spanish government, plus the subject of the article are suing Google to break the link between his name and this article, rather than going to the creators of the article, El piece and say you got it wrong or you have committed defamation.  I think the issue before the courts is also to avoid this type of responsibility to the platforms that would make it almost legally threatening or the liability so high that we would be ?? we would have to look material perfect it even gets up.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Okay.  And I know Ian wanted to jump in on this as well.

>> IAN BROWN: Just on the antitrust and the competition issues, I think that's important as a broad issue, and I know the European Commission competition DG is taking action and negotiating with Google, I think is a very broad information society issue.  That's important.

I think from watching quite closely the progress of the Hargreaves report, how it was carried out in the UK and reading evidence that it produced, I think it was thoughtful.  They took a group to the US and traveled around Europe and met people from all the different stakeholders.  I don't think it's helpful in this debate to attack it as the Google report.  It was not funded by Google.  Google was not a member of the commission as far as I can see.  It was not biased in Google's favor.  I'm not sitting here as a Google fan boy.  There were some things that Google does on privacy that I'm not a fan of, but I think it's unfair to try to target it with that brush.  I think it's very unfortunate.  I have heard missions in the UK do this, to personally attack Ian Hargreaves.  That's the surest way to get academics to say screw this.

I think the court record is very important.  It's quite right to say that courts should make the difficult decisions balancing between enforcement of copyright and issues of freedom of expression and so on which sometimes will be implicated and by no means not always, actually the two ?? the two cases that the English high court has considered the pirate bay and the news bin case, I think there was little issue there, the high court was very straightforward in saying these are sites facilitating large scale commission infringement and granting an injunction requiring ISPs to block access.  I have think that's the right way to go about it.

I think the wrong way to go about it, that's not fast enough or it's too expensive or justice is just too much and we have to go on allegations of infringement by rights holders.  We want expedited blocking without acceleration and balancing of the courts on this issue.

And finally linked to that, another study that I commend you to all by a group at Columbia University, which I think is very relevant for the broader IGF community that's here today, their number one finding of a three?year study in Brazil that South Africa, and Bolivia was that the problem ?? the efforts to change copyright law and to strengthen enforcement have largely failed, this is quoting the report and the problem of piracy is better conceived as a failure of affordable access to media and legal markets.

Again, we all want there to be better legal offers that will encourage consumers to pay for this material.  We can see that work.  People sometimes say you can't compete with free.  You can, and companies do it all the time, like in bottled water in countries like the UK where water is drinkable.  iTunes have sold billions and billions.  Apple has made that easy to use compelling product offer that's been very successful and brought a lot of money to Apple but to the artists behind the works.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Before we move open to the next question and I would like to throw something ?? it's not something that anyone can really comment on but I would like to make a note as well, that there needs to be a standardization of the infringement prosecutions, you know, the case of Richard Odwyer, he was providing a place where people can search for links to content, yes, it was people ?? people chose to link content that was pirated content, but he didn't encourage them to and when he knew exactly as Google said, when he knew it was pirated, when somebody complained, he took the links down and yet he as an individual is still facing extradition to the United States of America for that.  So, you know, not really anything that anyone can comment on personally here but for the record there needs to be some kind of standardization, I think.

I know the lady here had a question.  This gentleman has the microphone.  Are you going to be reasonably quick?  And then we'll come over you to straight afterwards.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is David Hughes and I represent the recording industry association by way of history, I spent my whole career in the music industry, about 16 years at Sony Music.

I have taken note on a couple of issues.  I don't want to attack Bill too much but to say the entertainment industry is thriving, to watch the sales drop for the past 11 years, that's hard for me to hear.  Half of my friends who are engineers and songwriters have lost their jobs.  To say my industry is thriving is kind of offensive, I'm sorry to say.

To say it is not affordable is hard, because for the price of my latte this morning, I can buy five songs on iTunes or I can go to Spotify and listen to it for free, legitimately.  So making this argument that our legitimate channels are not affordable, I don't think it's productive.  I honestly don't think it's productive.

I understand in developing nations the economies are different and we have done a lot of things in the physical world.  We used to discount our product as much as 75 to 80% in eastern Europe, for example so we could make music available to those economies.  On the Internet it's a little more complicated.

I wanted to go back to the shadow culture minister's comment and Chris' comment.  I'm not sure everyone understands exactly what we are talking about when we talk about the search returns in Google and elsewhere, but as of last Friday, I typed in Adele MP and the audio population came up Adele MP3 free and they were all infringing websites.

The Internet is our main street.  It's our civil ?? hopefully, civil society.  So if I went into a shopping mall and 80% of the people statistically go to goggle and 80% go to an information booth and say I would like to get movie or music and they are pointed basically by saying, well, you could ?? you know what, the easiest thing is to go into the parking lot and get CDs for free.  I have to scroll to the second page of returns to find something that's not an infringing website, we have a big problem with that too.  We are working closely with Google but the changes they have made have made no impact.  We did another study last week for the music industry at least.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Okay.  Thank you.  I have no move over to the lady over here now.  Thank you.  I think what we are getting from this is that, you know, I mean, one of the things that we want to find at the end of today is some resolutions, some things that we could take forward as very definite causes of action that we need to follow up and I think this is obviously clearly one of them.  Go ahead.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.  I'm Caroline from media set.  We started out as commercial broadcasters in Italy in the early '80s so we contributed to financing European production and cultural diversity.  We also launched self? ?? just to understand ?? for you to understand where I'm coming from, in the past, I would say, seven years, I would say we launched several sites against pirate sites and going back to what was attained so far and it was partially discussed yesterday too, there are some business models that moved away from the concept of the safe harbor that was in the DMCA in 1998 and also moved away from the litigation of responsibilities in the eCommerce directive that are provided for, for pure ?? for the definition of intermediaries as mere hosts.  We are moving towards definition of what is an active host.

So I would say the operators suggest YouTube, maybe they don't have it.  The children, and vis?a?vis right holders in the way that broadcasters do but they are in a way competing with us in the advertising market because of the way they curate, if you don't want to say for lack of a better word, if you don't want to say they organise content, but what they do, they are in the same business.  They sell eyeballs to advertising clients.  Coming from a commercial broadcaster, I know well how that works, and right now, for our advertising clients, the cost of spot advertising on TV is becoming ?? the degree of substitutability of that spot with advertising around video materials and when I say video materials professional video materials on the Internet is coming very, very close.  So advertising around video materials on the Internet is much more expensive than advertising on banners and correct me if I'm wrong.

Not only do you have an issue of IP licensing but we are willing to provide a content that we license, that we create and that we finance anywhere, any time, any device model.

If there's a market, there is a way and we want to be there and we don't want YouTube to be the only purveyor of this kind of content to the ?? especially to European consumers.

There is a problem with IP, but it boils down to competition and fair competition in terms of the way we advertise around content online, because for the time being, broadcasters are ?? at least in Europe and I know in the US, the industry is much more regulated, but advertising is regulated both in quantitative and qualitative roles not only for competition but consumer protection.  Online, the only kind of protection or the only kind of rules that advertising online is submitted to, is maybe the directive around fair and commercial practices, which I don't think is followed.  I don't think users know the difference between editorial content and advertising, which is like the basic rules of advertising on TV.

And so what I'm talking about here is that we need a level maying field, not only for IP licensing but also in times of sector specific rules.  Thank you.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Tank you very much for making that point.

Okay, I hand the microphone now over to another UK M. P who has joined us, Allen Kearns.

>> Thank you very much.  I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made so far and I will go to the points made from the music industry just a few moments ago and the sort of comments I'm hearing are things like defend and protect, and that's natural human instinct to want to defend and protect a sector and industry, but my suggestion is there has to be adaptation.  I was so glad that Ian talked about iTunes.  There needs to be an exchange that will be convenient, simple, low cost and as soon as we've got that exchange because whatever action you take ?? there were things like the changes that were made to Google there was little impact.  Even if Google responded in every way demanded, innovators would find ways around it.

And if we got to such a restrictive practice, then clearly the Internet wouldn't be what it is today and it wouldn't be ?? it ?? we wouldn't be in that free state that we like to enjoy.  So there has to be a way of adapting and there has to be a way of developing new ways of drawing the income and piloting and trying different ways, rather than simply defending and protecting the status quo.  I then look to newspapers and they are trying different things.  You have the mail on line which is exceptionally successful, in terms of how many people read that as a newspaper online, but it losing money.  The news corp are trying a model, and they are trying that model.  Whatever models are tried, some will succeed and some won't succeed and the ?? the crowd funding that was mentioned, that will succeed in some areas and I think that we ?? it ?? the market will find its way, providing industry is prepared to adapt.

The moments we rely on the courts to defend issue after issue, it's long and complicated and expensive and people will find a way around it again.  My request and call is that we adapt.  I was so pleased that Ian defended the Hargreaves review because certainly on all sides of the House of Commons there's sympathy and support behind the Hargreaves review that it's a useful contribution to the debate.  I'm not quite familiar with any politician that has lambasted it that's putting an academic off from contributing in that way again.

>> KATE RUSSELL: I think it's more the journalists to blame in this instance.

>> Thanks.

>> KATE RUSSELL: We will come back around.  Is it going to be fairly quick response to you and then we'll come to the gentleman next to you.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.  I just wanted to be clear about the Hargreaves report, no question of professor Hargreaves integrity.  He did the job he was asked to do.  He did it well.  I think that some of the conclusions were ?? were based on thin, very thin evidence, but he did a good job.  What I was trying to do was a pay a compliment to Google, they are being humble and modest, they are lobbying through the many organisations that they support to have the copyright reviews take mace in order to change copyright, which is their prerogative, I think we just need the transparency in the process to understand what is behind the drive and who is behind the drive.  Thank you.

>> KATE RUSSELL: And the gentleman to his right.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I wanted to comment open what the gentleman said.  The fact that iTunes came to being in the United States, it was the result of the outcome of important outcomes in the US, like the Napster case and others.  I think it does reinforce my point that the ?? you know, an appropriate legal structure allows for, you know, iconic companies in the United States, you know, like in the movie business and the music business and Google and others to thrive.  Thanks.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you very much.  Okay.  So we are approaching the conclusions part but if you would like to make one more last quick comment, sir.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: So, with all due respect to the member of parliament, I can be riding in a car, sample music, download it for 99 cents and listen to it immediately.  I'm not sure what's more convenient than that, other than streaming through pandora for free.  If you have something that's more convenient in your mind, please come to me.  I spent my whole career trying to create better business models for the music industry, but people say you have to compete.  Competition for me would be another label makes better music and I lose in the marketplace or somebody finds a better way to monetize my business.  But when somebody gives it away for free, now I'm creating ?? I'm competing with myself and they have to cost of production or marketing.  It's not competition anymore.  It is not possible to compete with free when you are competing for free.

>> KATE RUSSELL: I think one of the essences of what we are trying to say and what came out of the policy meeting certainly earlier on in the UK is that this ?? we are straying in discussing the current models of distribution and we need, you know, fortunately or unfortunately, the current players need to perhaps consider that they have to have a fundamental shift in the way that they distribute or the way distribution happens.

Helen, go ahead.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, I think ?? I don't know how many people were in the session, I think two days ago, when we were talking about public and private functions, and there was a lot of discussion about when private organisations carry out public functions we should have the same accountabilities that we have on the public services and that was said with ?? with the perspective of cracking down on crime and that's what people had in mind.

I would like to suggest that that notion applies equally in this space.  So when you've got one or two organisations, which are very, very large, they are in effect carrying out the public infrastructure function.  So it is reasonable for them to be expected to abide by the law and be accountable.  I mean as is happening today, engage with other stakeholders who have an interest in the way the private services are being run.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Okay.  Thank you.  Well, we're approaching the end of the session.  So what I would like to do now is come back to our panelists and ask them if they any thoughts from what they heard.  You know, we want ?? it's been a great sparky discussion as these discussions around this topic always are.  But we do want to ?? you know, this is not just a talking shop.  We want to come up with some ideas to take forward to discuss in a more deliberate fashion.  Mary, I will come you to first, if I may, going the other way around the table just for a change.  Your closing thoughts and if anything struck you as being the imperatives that we need to take forward to discuss in more detail.

>> MARY:  What I want to recommend is that there should be distribution of the creative content.  The higher ones should have a higher compensation package and the lower ones lower.  And, again, the truth is that we need to balance openness with privacy and business.  The Internet, as we come ?? for business we try to survive.  I can see somebody spending a billion pounds producing high quality content only for it to be pirated and taken back for peanuts, for nothing and such ones ?? such high quality creative works should be given a different model of compensation from the low ones.

And on one hand, we are talking about openness.  On the other hand, we are talking about control.  I think the thing is that we have several guide lines and standards for practitioners, whether you are in distribution or the search engine, and the producer and everyone is taking the part of the cake where they have the first word win/win.  Thank you.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you, Mary.  Cedric, your closing thoughts.

>> CEDRIC:  Thank you.  Well, this was a really interesting session for me.  It's not always the framework I'm working in and I learned from your crowd sourcing as a new model and I agree with many of the statements made.  I would, in this framework, really acknowledge on the one hand the need for legal frameworks to adapt but most importantly also for the change of culture.  We tonight have a clear way forward but there is a moment of negotiation and repositioning and I think it relates very much with the change of culture.  And as overall policy considerations or principles, I think we ?? I would continue to insist on the openness and the linguistic diversity.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you, Bill.  You have taken quite a bath here.  What are your closing thoughts?

>> BILL:  I don't think it was a battering.  These lines have been drawn before, but I find it disturbing that we are not talking, as you say, more as how we move forward, rather than how to move backwards.  I think everyone should take a look at our transparency report which shows how many requests we are getting from copy right owners and draw their own conclusions and I think there are many ways in which we can find still these win/win models.  The old world won't come back.  It didn't come back when television replaced radio and when the DVD was going to destroy the movie industry and so forth.  I think the Internet offers the possibilities that I outlined and that, you know, we do have to find and adapt iTunes and Google now is offering Google play.  So there's a lot of competition for music, books and so forth and hopefully that will move forward.  It won't always be smooth but I think there's no choice.  It's inevitable.

>> KATE RUSSELL: The most interesting roads are rarely smooth.

>> IAN BROWN: I think we need a more inclusive and per evidenced process, otherwise I fear we will be going around in the same circles in a decade as the technology moves on without the benefits for creators that could be possible.  I strongly think, as a technologist, my background is computer security an I looked at digital rights management tools to try to prevent infringement technologically.  I think the new models having ISPs block access to alleging sites will be yet more whack?a?mole, the infringers will move on.  There are ways they can avoid those controls and I think that's a dead end route for trying to make things work better.

>> KATE RUSSELL: Thank you.  For my own part, I think things that really struck me, is the need to concentrate on moving forwards and not look at how we can monetize these models.  Crowd funding is a very promising way forwards, but also we need to be careful that we don't dilute the content experience and we make sure ?? the content experience and we make sure we keep the value end and on out the bottom end and democratizing the bottom end of experience and most importantly is the point this lady made we need a fair, playing field for competition.

So thank you very much for a very lively discussion.  I will just ?? there is a feedback thing on the IGF website for the session.  So if you have the time, and you want to go and tell them what you thought of the session, we would be very grateful for the feedback.  Likewise, the UK?IGF is interested in hearing from you, especially if you live in the UK.  Thank you very much for joining us.

(End of session)

 

*  *  *  *  *

This is being provided in a rough?draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in Order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

*  *  *  *  *