Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Hello? So, good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to one of IGF's sessions.
What I will try, I will try to speak up so that you can hear me, not the lady speaking in another room. Of course, all of us will try so that our session will be much more interesting than the session which is in another room.
Maybe, first of all, before we start, let's introduce ourselves. I'm Jaunius Gumbis, a partner with the law firm of Lawin. At the same time I'm associate professor at Vilnius University.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: My name is Gediminas Ramanauskas. I'm from the same law firm. I'm head of the media and privacy department. I'm a attorney, too.
>> EGLE GUDELYTE-HARVEY: Hello. I'm Egle Gudelyte-Harvey. I work for the main or biggest Internet Service Provider. I'm head of Legal and Corporative Affairs.
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: Hello everybody. I'm Rita Vaitkeviciene. I'm working for the LSA and DPA, data protection inspectorate. And I'm Deputy director. Thank you.
>> VIIVE NASLUND: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Viive Naslund and I'm an attorney at the Lawin law office in Estonia.
>> My name is (Inaudible) and I'm better known as Robinhood.
>> IVO MASKALANS: My name Ivo Maskalans. I'm an attorney at law in the Lawin office.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So thank you, dear speakers. Today's discussion, we could say there is only one word, it's openness. Openness of the Internet. As you see that all speakers are coming from this region, it means from small countries, but what we will try to do, we will try to speak and think globally.
Our understanding is that it doesn't matter where you live. Internet is open for everyone. And the problems we are having and the questions we are raising, I think they are all the same in all the countries around the world.
What we would like to speak of today, first of all, is about the responsibilities for our online privacy. Maybe it is discussed a lot. Who is responsible for the data we put or we have in Internet? Who takes primary responsibility?
Do we distinguish between situations where we put the data into Internet by ourselves, as, for example, the Facebook, or we provide data to the, for example, tax inspectorate. So the question, who is responsible? Who should take primary responsibility?
So first of all, I would like maybe to ask a the representative from the state institution, what do you think? What is the state's responsibility to protect data, private data we provide as our obligation to the state's institutions?
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: Okay. State institution is -- shouldn't be mixed with supervisory authorities. Actually, there are two main bodies who are concerned on data protection. It's the regulator, it's government entity, supervisor board is like data protection inspectorate.
Whoever, nobody protects better than people by themselves. And a target of supervisory board or governmental institutions is to inform people properly and to educate people, to inform people what the risks are of using the Internet. And the supervisory board and academic society has very good forum. It is Berlin international working group on data protection in telecommunications and media where these questions are constantly studied and some working papers are issued. And as regards Internet, it's said that because no data which might be forgotten on the Internet, people should carefully put on the Web their personal information. Because if they will do -- they will not use this data by themselves, Secondary usage might happen because somebody will copy, somebody will put directives. So it could be always found on the Net.
Another thing is that in the Internet, especially when social networks are so popular, the community who is using data is very wild. Actually, a lot of friends, people having social networks, but they do not know these friends.
And they should be careful to present themselves by their exact names. Maybe it's better to use pseudonyms or some other names.
And also, one more thing is that traffic data in European Union is government -- the government is obligated to -- obligated to service providers to collect and to keep, to retain them for two years period. So it's also some risks for data subject for people.
So, the main thing is that governmental institutions should inform -- should raise public awareness, should educate, but -- and to create regulated environment, but people should protect themselves also.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So thank you. Could you be more specific how you provide education to the society? What institution in particular has done in this respect?
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: Actually, education should be everywhere, not only made by specific one institution or regulatory body. People should be educated in schools, at home, through the projects, various projects. It depends who is taking initiative.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. Thank you. We are providing a lot of personal data to businesses as well. I would like to ask Egle Gudelyte-Harvey about our privacy protection in business.
>> EGLE GUDELYTE-HARVEY: When the question arises how much we should protect ourselves and how much the state has to do or business, a story comes to my head. The story is that the poorly man kept complaining about how bad life was and he kept praying can I win the lottery please? Can I win the lottery please? At some point God said: I'll help you, but why don't you get the lottery ticket first.
So the idea here is that if we won't put our own initiative first and protect ourselves, no one will protect us. So therefore I think the primary responsibility lies within us, each and every private person.
But then when it goes to business, I think businesses for sure must create tools for people who disclose personal data, to store it safely and securely. Secondly, we shouldn't spare the resources into investing in keeping that data safe.
And, third, I think that, you know, if we don't do that, then we do jeopardize our core business, which means we are undermining the idea of Internet as such. So we will be out of business. So, it goes without saying then for operators, for Internet Service Providers, particularly, this is very important and we put a lot of effort into that. So I think businesses, we have the money, they have the economical power to create those tools for people. And then the people must use it. So... that would be my short interruption.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So thank you. We have plenty of lawyers here. So maybe let's ask what lawyers think. Maybe first question is how lawyers treat the privacy or what is the private data. So, Gediminas please.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: I would like to start with the Internet itself. And then I was told to learn the rules and the codes and follow them. Of course as a lawyer I was supposed to specify the rules. But I could say that I could cite Victor Hugo, who said that an invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. So I could say that the Internet is the fifth freedom in the European community. And people are discussing about the right to the Internet as a constitutional right. So I think lawyers should not be too late, because information technology is developing very, very fast and it's impossible to regulate the Internet. It's impossible to regulate neutrality and openness.
I would say that self consciousness is the most important issue.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: You mentioned and we heard during those days a lot about rights, constitutional rights to Internet. What do you think, what does it mean, constitutional right to Internet? Of course, we can understand it's a one sentence, as all other sentences in the constitution, every person has the right to Internet. But what does it mean in reality?
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: Well, I could say that we can feel it physically. Let's try one day to be without the Internet. I think you will be missing something the next day or the same day. It's like food or water. Every day you need the Internet. And I think it's already the reality. So maybe it's still too simplified, the constitutional right.
But I think the most important is just to get access to the Internet.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: What do other lawyers think?
>> VIIVE NASLUND: If we start to use the constitutional right to the Internet, sooner or later we will have a conflict of other constitutional rights. We have the freedom of speech on one side and then we have the right of privacy on the other side. But always we must find balance.
The other constitutional rights that quite often conflict are the individual's right to privacy at workplaces and the employer's right to entrepreneurship. And within my practice, it's constantly trying to analyze where is the right balance of these rights.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Estonians are one step ahead in our region in the sense of the Internet. Could you tell, are you ready to introduce constitutional right to Internet? Right now?
>> VIIVE NASLUND: No, not yet. But we exercise our constitutional right to democracy through the Internet by our electronic voting system.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Maybe we should think it's a good opportunity to be first country who has constitutional right to Internet. What about that?
>> First of all, I would like to answer the first question, about privacy on the Internet.
I would like to compare the Internet with the public environment. People have been in the public environment for a long time, and they know how to behave. But the Internet is something like public environment only squared. So, if you go naked on the street, and start complaining that nobody is protecting my right not to show anything to others, then it's just stupidity of people. Or they just don't know and they should be educated. That is the part for privacy on the Internet.
About right to Internet, I think that it is a very important thing, because the Internet erases borders between all countries and you are living in one world where you can exercise many things which weren't available just ten or twenty years ago. So, I would agree that the right to the Internet is close to constitutional right.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. What do the Latvian lawyers think?
>> The drive to the Internet is close to human rights. Because now a days, the Internet is the main source of information, and the right to be connected to the Internet is the right to receive the information you want from the Internet and the right to post information to the Internet. And I think it surely will become one of the fundamental rights.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you.
But we can spend hours and hours discussing that Internet is a very good thing in our life. But maybe let's talk a little bit for the risks we are having when we go into the Internet. So I would like to ask, first of all, the representative of the state, what kind of risks do you see for the people when they use the Internet?
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: Thank you, Chairman. Actually, the main risks are that it could be misusing of these data. When data goes to the Internet, every data subject should be cautious when presenting themselves in the -- well, not a well-known environment. So if people are going to the Internet, if they are going to some close users' groups, they should be sure that these data they put will be used only for these purposes on which they are required. And they should be sure that security of these data are properly made.
Another thing -- another risk is that these data would not be deleted when the person wants to have this data deleted.
Also, the risk in the Internet is that it's very very hard to revoke your consent if you gave your consent to use your data. Because nobody knows where these data already went and who is using them.
So, everything -- every time you should be careful and should be very -- should be good informed for which purposes these data would be used, how long they will be retained, and when they will be deleted.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: I have another question about the privacy protection obligations. What is the position of the state on this issue? Does state feel responsible or state thinks that it's not their business?
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: Actually, even the state has two different, very different opinions. One, on one side, privacy is respected. But on another hand, especially when this is about the state logistics, government thinks that the private sector should pay for information which is in public registers. In this case, all data should be public.
Is it good or no? I can't say directly. But some risk for data protection exists when you will do all information systems, data kept in information systems, the logistics is very hope and transparent.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So thank you. Maybe I should ask our business representative, shall we shift privacy protection obligations and economic expenses to business?
>> EGLE GUDELYTE-HARVEY: Absolutely not. I like to be very specific here. For instance, in Lithuania, the data retention directive is also implemented. And our state chose to put the obligation of storage and provision of that information on business expense. That means that the things which we would not normally need in our ordinary course of business would have to be now stored and provided to the state. So, we don't support the initiatives which shift the burden of -- the financial burden on us, which we would rather has to go back on the shoulders of the state.
But the law is the law. we respect it and of course we follow it. So therefore I think we shouldn't shift the obligation in terms of expenses on the businesses.
I think we should share their obligation of sharing responsibility on ensuring that data protection is stored -- that data protection is adequately protected with the means of software, education, or any other tools. So that is where business comes into play.
And the businesses shouldn't spare money and resources to do that, as long as it's, you know, necessary and as much as it's necessary for the businesses, and education of our customers.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Maybe let's ask lawyers. What do you think? Is it a question to legal regulation who is responsible or we should think about other alternatives?
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: I think it's a question of distinction between the compulsory selection of data, personal data, and voluntarily. I would say if persons are uploading data on Facebook or different social networks, it's their responsibility to protect it. They understand that there is no obligation to put this data.
On the other side, if the data, for example, health data or tax declarations are put compulsory on the state data register, I think both state and businesses, they should share the responsibility.
I would make a distinction in the middle and I would say if people are putting the data willingly, it's their responsibility to understand what they are doing on the Internet. And I think legal rules wouldn't help.
But of course technical and organizational measures should be implemented for state registers.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: What do you think?
>> VIIVE NASLUND: I have a bit more lawyery approach. I feel that also Facebook and other networks shouldn't become the wild west. And the responsibility lays with each individual and anything could be done with the information that is put there. So I feel that legal framework is needed also for social networks, where people voluntarily put their information on.
And I feel also that the businesses have some responsibility there, because I have once reviewed the user, end-users terms for one social network, and I had to tell to my client that yes, you have the rules, but even I as a lawyer have really a hard time to understand them. And in Estonia, we have the system of standard terms, that if a contract is entered into standard terms, it's the obligation of the user of these terms to make sure that the other party actually understands them. So it's not possible to have a five page user terms in legal mumbo jumbo and then later tell to the client: But you had to understand. So in my view, it's the obligation of the business side to write the user, end-user terms, that are understandable to the users of these systems.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Ivo?
>> IVO: I think the businesses are paying for the storage of information already. For example, in Latvia, we had a system that if you set up the company or you change the member of the board of the company, you should pay a state fee for publication in official newspaper. And the state fee is quite substantial.
And the reason for it, it is because the government should bring the hard paper version of this newspaper. There is discussion going on that we can turn to only electronic version of this official newspaper, and therefore cutting the costs for the businesses. So, yes, I think it happens already.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. Now, may I call you this name? Nero?
>> NERO: Yes. Thank you. I think that Gediminas told a very good point of view, that if I am not forced to disclose data about myself, and I know that voluntarily then I should think whether I should do it or not. Because, for example, weapon manufacturers don't take responsibilities of users who misuse those weapons.
As I said previousbly, I guess the biggest point is education of end-users. Think, and think, and think before I do anything.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. We have a new person at our panel. So maybe firstly we would like to ask you to introduce yourself.
>> RYTIS KALINAUSKSAS: First of you'll, I would like to say sorry, because I was late. I am Rytis Kalinausksas from the Ministry of Transport and Communication. I'm a lawyer also.
What I didn't say, there was a discussion about getting personal information from public -- from state registers and who has to pay the costs for getting such information. So I think we have a directive for reuse of public sector information. It states quite clearly that the costs of getting such information for using it in the private sector should rely only on real costs that, let's say, that has an institution for providing such information for keeping such data. And they cannot get profit, let's say, from this information.
So, to me -- and I think that it is quite clear that the information is -- it's -- it has its value. And there is some kind of price to pay for that information.
Also, about the users, I also agree with Nero that the end-user should be very careful. Nowadays, there are a lot of forms or other documents where you provide your personal data, and everyone should look very carefully what fields of information are necessary to fill in. And I -- my position is if you, let's say, don't need to provide some of the information in that form, I'm sure that you don't have to fill that information in.
And at the end, I can let's say start some kind of discussion from the example about the -- because as I understand, we have to speak today about private data and about copyright. So there is a competition of two quite important rights here.
Also, a right of expression, a right of work, and all those rights should be respected.
But, for example, if you steal something in the real world, the police or other institution has legal instruments to find you, to trace the crime, and to find out who is responsible for that crime. So, I think that quite similar mechanisms should be implemented in the Internet, also. Because of course the right to use the Internet should be respected in most cases.
But sometimes, when you break the rights of other persons, for example, you distribute illegal content on the Internet or pornographic content, there should be ways how to stop you doing that. And of course the ways how institutions who are responsible for those things would have ways to find that criminal or offender.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. Viive, you mentioned that the Internet should not be like the wild west. But the Internet is World Wide Web. And you mentioned about there should be some legal framework. How we can, being so different around the globe, make common legal framework? Do you think it's doable? Do you think it's feasible? Where we should start? And I think this forum is the right place to write that kind of questions.
>> VIIVE NASLUND: What I feel is that the Internet, it's a new phenomenon, but it's still part of our everyday lives. And the same principles that apply in the real world should also apply on the Internet. If we don't have the right to insult people in real life, we shouldn't have the right on the Internet, either. And the right to freedom of speech, we have had for sanctuaries already. And in the real life we always have had the limitation that this freedom of speech, that you can't insult anyone, you can't -- defamation is not allowed. And the same principle should be applied on the Internet as well. The tricky part is how to enforce these rules on the Internet. And there I feel that the court practice needs to be developed, to say who has the authority to step in if some rules are breeched.
In consumer protection area, it has been that the standard practice that if some activities are made towards consumers in one country, then that one country's consumer protection authorities have the right to step in and protect those consumers. The question is in our fields, who should be the right authority to take action?
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: But maybe my question was much global. By talking about problems of Internet, it's the World Wide Web. We are talking about the whole globe. So, all we know, the recent case when Saudi Arabia wants to shut down all of those Blackberry issues. So, we see how many differences we have around the globe. How can we make or is it possible to think about common legal frameworks for the Internet where we agree what is private data? What is privacy?
>> AUDIENCE: Stalkings, other things. Okay.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: There is an opinion that --
>> AUDIENCE: I think we just need a global initiative. That's it.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: And the United Nations is the right institution to initiate that? I don't know
>> AUDIENCE: I don't know which institution should initiate that. But if we create the United Nations, we can create a global ID system. Because the Internet is spreading every hour.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: But do you think we can agree on around the globe what Internet --
>> AUDIENCE: Yes, I can repeat that for the third time. If we can create the United Nations, I think we can agree on a global ID system, which would prevent cybercrime, which would prevent crime. Because the Internet and reality will diffuse sometimes.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. Thank you. The gentleman there.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Dr. Deallo from Tanzania. I think we should be open here that the legal authority has a lot of shortfalls which I think need to be addressed.
Because there are two issues. Publishing to the Internet, which I think that could be a product of the Internet domain, the World Wide Web. But sometimes you use it, sending mail. You are touching a document. People like Google, their system of crawling, they crawl even private letters which are not intended to be published. And there is no way in the Internet or in the systems which we're using which will tell you to select -- do you allow to publish or do you -- are you transmitting this document as private?
And this happens so often that I remember once my letter, which had been addressed to a private person from myself, was published in Google. One could just search for the document and get it. That is one problem.
But another problem which I think we need to address in a globalized arrangement is the issue of, I think one of the panelists said, the intellectual property provisions, which guide our educational, you know, systems.
You find that very few universities, if not -- I don't know outside the United States, but very few universities have formed a consortium of a system where all student documents go through, like Tiny Tim and other systems. But this again, without use of systems like Tiny Tim, is the -- I mean, it's lowering the education quality around the world.
Like 36 percent of all submitted papers in the universities in Europe are plagiarized. So, there are so many issues which are centered around the legal system. How do we legalize that there is a right to information, a right to human right, all those rights, which we normally hear them through the legal jargons around the world?
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So you think that there is just legal possibilities to protect privacy. There is no alternative to that.
>> AUDIENCE: I think a perfect legal system is the one which protects both sides. So there is a need -- and I see that there is that need that the Internet has to be managed. That's why you see people like -- I'll just give you an example of Saudi Arabia, barring the Blackberry, because the Blackberry goes through the World Wide Web. So, if these -- if these issues are left to individual governments, we are going to be drawn back to where we belonged before.
So, a unified or a system has to be developed like the suggestion of the last speaker, that maybe the United Nations or other world bodies should come up with a system which will give protection, equal protection, to both those who need that information and those who are using the Internet for other communication purposes.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Yes? Please? If you can introduce yourself. And your occupation, maybe, it's very interesting.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'll just make a brief comment. I'm Teresa Hackers. We are an NGO that work in developing in transition countries. We work with libraries. I want to make a brief intervention at this stage. I think it's important to separate the two aspects of the topic that we're discussing in this workshop. So we're talking about personal data, which is then related to privacy issues, data protection, which is protected in Europe by the European data protection legislation. And then we are also talking about works of the mind, which is also known as intellectual property. Copyright specifically.
That of course is -- copyright issues are governed already in the print world and in the electronic world by international treaties and standards. So we have the Berne Convention from 1886, which also governs everything that we're producing today, whether printed or electronic. And then we have the WIPO treaties from 1996. So maybe it would be helpful if we distinguish between those areas, because I think they are separate and they are governed by different treaties.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: I fully agree. The question from the back.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. My name is Grace Matulla. I'm an ISOC Ambassador, but I'll express views that are my own.
I want to ask a question from a developing country perspective. What is the panelists, what do the panelists really think of copyrights and access to knowledge? Whether it's still working or whether it's really time for a change. Then I'll hand it over to my colleague here who has questions from remote participants.
>> So, we have a few questions from the Internet users as well, which are participating in our discussion.
One of the questions was who has the education obligation with respect to privacy? Is it the state who should oblige end-users on the Internet on the privacy issues? And like remote participants would like to hear something about that.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So please.
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: Let's start from the last question. Who should educate? Of course, government has an obligation not only to create a proper legal environment, but also educate people. And we should separate two questions. It's regulation of Internet and regulation of under individuals' right to have privacy and to have data protection laws in place.
The Lisbon treaty already indicated very clearly that every citizen has a right to the data protection. Because privacy and data protection, they are not equal. But, they should be protected, both. And people should be educated that data protection is a valuable right as well as privacy. And government should take care on these matters.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So thank you. You know, I don't like to put all the obligations on the state or government when we talk about Internet. I think that is the area where we should not say that the state should educate. Maybe we should put the question that we should think how we can educate ourselves, what is our initial responsibility.
How much we should take on ourselves as persons. How much private business should take on themselves. And then we -- what is left we leave to the government.
Maybe the business people can comment.
>> EGLE GUDELYTE-HARVEY: Yes. I would like to comment on the educational point. Because let's think this way. Who educates our children? Do we educate them or does the school do it? So let's say parents think okay, I'll send the kid to school and he will learn everything. But actually, it's the wrong approach. Because the education starts from day one.
So I think first we should educate our own children ourselves. We shall do that among our family members and friends. Then we spread this initiative outside the private circle to the state, because the state has a lot of, you know, means and possibilities to educate socially.
And then the third one is business, who actually provides all these opportunities and can -- you can, you know, learn what is privacy and how it could hurt, hopefully without much of a failure. But the educational part comes from each and every one. It's easy to put it on someone's shoulder and say now you educate the whole of the state, which is hopeless.
And then the other thing, I think, when we talk about the Internet and is it a possibility that something could be regulated globally, I think today already the Internet is without borders and the Internet is not that new thing and the data is circulating as we speak around the globe currently.
So, I think the idea of harmonizing the data protection legislation around the globe is very good. And we have to find the tools to do it. There should be appropriate international organisations or international treaties that can do it. But simply we must say that the national legislations on the global level has failed to address these issues, because where we sit today, we sit and debate this. That means there is no solution. There are no clear answers.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Yes. A comment from the audience.
>> AUDIENCE: Can you hear? I'm Shila Raumistry. I own a small technology company in Southern California.
And I've been listening to the very interesting conversation. First, I'm very concerned when we say small businesses or businesses need to be responsible for taking on this privacy protection and so on. And I'm very concerned. I attended all the Cloud workshops this morning. I'm very concerned about the protection of employee data as well as intellectual property. And now we have a new discussion here on who is going to regulate this.
And there was a suggestion that it should be the government, or it should be the United Nations and so on. And many of us have been active in the United Nations and we know how long it takes to get anything done.
So a thought that I have, and many of us have, is perhaps it should be something that is more agile. All the changes that are coming on the Internet are very fast. So we need to be responsive. It cannot be a knee jerk reaction, but we need to be responsive. And that means that private sector, government, and bodies like the United Nations and Civil Society need to come together specifically to get something done in this area. Because change is coming on fast and we cannot be so slow in our responses.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So do you think that the -- this very difficult approach where different groups, like government, business, people come together, start to create the rules, it's really feasible? You believe in that -- I mean, of course, it sounds very good. It sounds very --
>> AUDIENCE: Well, since I'm amongst very close friends here, my honest response is no. I don't think that is possible. As I said, what is happening is very fast. We have this technology. We are surrounded with all kinds of ethical issues, philosophical issues, and practical issues. That is what is happening. So a response also needs to be in that same manner.
I would say it should be more to do with the same businesses that are actually bringing this technology, that there is some kind of onerous responsibility to review the human rights aspect, to be in dialog. I think they should take more of a lead and be in dialog with everybody else.
Like this morning, I tried to ask a very simple question: How much do large businesses, governments, and so on ask small businesses who are half the economy, small businesses are very under-represented and forgotten? When I started my business, I had one child on my hip, one that I was dragging, and I grew my business that way. So many small businesses are half of economy. So we have to have a dialog and responsiveness. So I think there should be some leadership there.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: I have a very open question. You know, I'm getting a feeling that we still think that we control the Internet. Maybe already the Internet controls us. And we, you know, we are dreaming that we can sit together, we can make a perfect legal framework and we can, you know, how to say, put into the corner. Is it not too late?
>> AUDIENCE: I think it's kind of like a parent and child thing. Who is the parent? Who is the child? Many parents say they cannot control the child. And we have an answer for that.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. So may I ask lawyers what they think? Who is controlling what?
>> AUDIENCE: Can I comment on this? I think we're missanalogizing the Internet too much. It's just a tool. It's just a net of computers. It doesn't work on itself. It doesn't have artificial intelligence. The watch you're wearing doesn't control you.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So I am not, you know, a gadget on the Internet. But tell me, could you shut down the Internet right now? It is possible.
>> AUDIENCE: But you can not use it. You can sit in the room, if you want, for three years and not use the Internet.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: I cannot. I have to submit my, you know, my documents to the tax inspectorate. And they are pushing me to do that via the Internet.
Okay, let's ask lawyers what they think?
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: Well, the discussions about the copyright, I think it's interesting and it's another part of our discussion. I think we can learn from copyright law. I'm personally a copyright lawyer as well. And I could say that today still there is no consensus on the liability of users or Internet Service Providers or intermediaries. Right now, only case law develops separately in the United States, in the European Union and Member States. And still today we are discussing who is supposed to be responsible for online content.
And also, there was a point raised, maybe we could set the system. But I think there is always going to be the question who could filter all this content, whether it's still possible to do that. And I think it's very important -- it's a very important question.
And first of all, the economic expense is supposed to be assessed. And there are a lot of discussions on the harmonization also, and the trade agreement in the intellectual property field. And still there are discussions about indirect liability of Internet Service Providers.
But there is no international treaty which harmonizes those issues. So I think the copyright law, of course, it went a very, very long way until now. As I mentioned, there were a lot of international treaties in this field, but still discussions are ongoing.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Let me move to another very important topic of our discussion. We discussed about the role of the government. And we discussed that we distinguish the data we provide by ourselves, and we distinguish with data we provide as obligatory under the law. And the question is, do we trust the state? Is the state properly keeping the data we provide to them?
And here I would like to ask to tell the story, the person who can be called as Robinhood. Are you a hero? Some people in Latvia call him a criminal. So tell us, what is the truth?
>> NERO: Okay. I'll start with a bit of history. Last year, in the summer, I was filing my tax documents over the Internet, and due to unlogical work of the state revenue system, the system, something was -- I couldn't do things as the owner of a company that my accountant could do.
So I accidentally discovered that there is a huge hole in the system that anybody, any unauthorized person from the Internet, could download all documents ever submitted to that system.
So, that is a way how sometimes the state, and not only the state, actually any business, could deal with your data.
And the interesting part is that it can happen anywhere, because a state run service ordered a system from a high ranking developer with like a good reputation, and they made a mistake. The system was audited by I think KPMG, also a good auditor, and they didn't notice a thing. The state revenue service employees didn't notice that hole. And it happened that I just noticed the thing.
And at the very end, some anonymous character started to publish state institution and state owned company salary data in details, which showed that the state officials stated before that all are treated equally, there are salary cuts across all state institutions and state companies, but in reality ordinary people -- the salaries of ordinary people was cut, but the (inaudible) usually didn't suffer.
And now I'm facing charges from the government. So that is my story. And actually, I would like to add also my opinion about anonymity on the Internet and how many governments and officials want to put the mark of the beast on everybody, on all the Internet users, and remove anonymity.
Who of you thinks that there are freedom of speech in real life without consequences if you touch the wrong subject? Can you raise your hands? Who thinks there is freedom of speech in the real world?
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: It's a very dangerous question.
>> And anonymity on the Internet is, I think, one of the ways how you can provide that freedom of speech about what everybody talks.
And there is like -- of course there are dilemmas, there are cybercriminals, but there are also legitimate users of anonymity.
And I would like to warn you, if you go too far with fighting cybercrime and require bigger and more thorough cybersurveillance on public communication, you'll be stripping privacy and anonymity of Internet users, and then there won't be a safe enough place for whistleblowers to expose real crooks and criminals, which sometimes happen to be sitting in government and big corporations.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. Mrs. Rita Vaitkeviciene, may I ask you the question? What do you think, Mr. Nero, is he a criminal or Robinhood?
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: I expected this question. I think that Duralex, Setlex, so Nero infringed. And he obtained illegally databases. It's a crime.
Another thing is that these people on which data were published, whether salary or something else, I don't know exactly.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Just salary.
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: These people have rights to data protection and these rights were violated. So, it's really not so good thing. And it is not sharing or some goods or some values with the user society. Nothing to tell that freedom of expression. It was just a violation on data protection law.
>> NERO: I would like to add that this year, I think it was in May, the Parliament of Latvia passed a law that requires that state institutions to do exactly the same, that they need to publish those salaries each month.
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: Yes. And it's the same. All public sector actually is going to be obligated to publish their salaries. It's going all public sector. Now, only governmental institutions are obligated to publish their salaries on the Web. And we do this. But it's under the law. And there are the requirements of the law, its data protection criteria are kept.
So nobody can find, for example, how much earns Rita Vaitkeviciene, but everybody who can see how much earns Deputy Director of The institution.
So, it depends from point of view.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: We have another representative of the state. I should say that. Could you share your views? Do you agree with Mrs. Rita Vaitkeviciene?
>> RYTIS KALINAUSKAS: I also -- I would agree that if you look at the law, there might be a violation. But I think that we are not court here and it's not our prerogative let's say to decide who is Nero. Is he an infringer or is he a Robinhood? But I think there is one really good thing that such things happened. All state institutions understands that the system security audit is some kind of obligatory thing and they have to let's say care about those things very much and to do them. So... I want to look at the positive side of this case.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Ivo, you are a Latvian lawyer. What do you think?
>> IVO MASKALANS: Basically, I think there is a lot of aspects of this case, because by the very subject the information Nero received by its very nature it should be available for the public. And therefore he just did -- showed the public the information the public has a right to receive.
But on the other hand, probably, as I understand it, he has downloaded not only information about the public official, but also some information about private businesses. Others, he of course just downloaded this data and didn't do anything other with those data.
And in this case, we are probably just lucky that he published the data which are -- which should be published. But the other -- on the other hand he also took some data which should be protected better. And it's not one way to look at it.
>> Suddenly, the state revenue system didn't provide any look-up function for anonymous users, so you can look up document IDs by some company names. So sorry for that.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Don't you think that this sample shows a huge obligation to keep privacy on the government? If the government is showing us how they really keep prisoners at the prisons, so I think government should tell us how much they care about our data we provide them as according to the law.
Why? Why the state is not providing such information. How much do they care about our data?
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: It's very difficult to talk from the government, because I'm not a representative of the government. I'm a representative of the supervisory board.
However, government should take care on data, on citizens' data. But you see that there are a lot of problems in this field. One thing is very low understanding of this -- that the -- the data protection is a human right. It's a very low understanding that just -- this right is valuable.
Another thing, to protect our data properly, it's a very costly procedure. Everything costs not only money, but also human resources who should be well educated. So it depends on the possibilities of government, not always the government has, I'd say, to have possibilities to protect our data properly.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Maybe you can learn something -- okay. Some questions from the audience. Sorry.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm from the localized civil industry. I'm talking about the responsibility that government should be responsible for that. So, there are a lot of very complex issues. Because who developed the system to keep this data? In fact, it comes from the IT industry, in most cases.
So the solutions which are in place and the maintenance by the government institutions, so they are developed by IT companies. So, the question is: Why such cases, like in Latvia has happened? Either it was a mistake from the developers' side or either it was the mistake from the government institution who was maintaining it and technically taking care of that.
So, actually, it is the complex issue which involves legal, technical, and administrative measures. So we heard a lot of hate cases that the private data and some information, some crucial information, was taken by former employees or current employees.
Actually administrative measures should be in place about the security policies. Who can access this data? How can it be accessed and how it can be used for internal purposes?
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. Could you pass the microphone to the person behind you?
>> AUDIENCE: Yes. Do you hear me?
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Yes.
>> AUDIENCE: Actually, I had a question more regarding intellectual property rights. So if the panel would like to answer this first, that's fine for me.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Could you introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: Sure. I'm Henry. I just wanted to bring up the question from the back here, from the beginning, about copyright, from a development perspective. And it's an interesting complex issue. And it's also been brought up that the -- that the idea that everybody on the Internet should be -- that everything on the Internet should be Internet property or something similar to that idea.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay.
>> AUDIENCE: And if the audience would like to elaborate on that issue, it would be interesting. Thank you.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: Give me this. Maybe you can start. Maybe as regards to copyright, I don't know, I have a funny citation of Mark Twain.
It's 1903. He told only one thing is impossible for God to understand any sense in any copyright law in the planet. Whenever a copyright law is to be made or altered, then the idiots assemble. So I'm a copyright lawyer so you wonder what the hell I'm talking about.
There is supposed to be a distinction between the personal data and the copyright. Personal data is like for marketing and data bank. The copyrighted works are material for incorporate. The Internet is the place to create, to share, to get knowledge. So I could say that the -- every art is because of the prior art. So everyone has the right to access it. So I could say that there is supposed to be a distinction in the regulation itself.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Could you comment?
>> VIIVE NASLUND: So far the idea of copyright protection to creations has been to provide incentives for the creators to create these works of art. The question is now that -- if now, on the Internet phase, we are ready to give up this idea that the authors need incentives to create or if we have already authors who are actually willing to give up this, maybe it should be debated if we should go back to that marking requirement that was capable in the states sometime ago. That if you wanted your work to be protected by copyright, you marked it with a letter C. And maybe this would be the solution for Internet here as well, to go back to the marking regime.
>> AUDIENCE: Could I comment?
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Yes.
>> AUDIENCE: I think Mr. Gediminas Ramanauskas should know that not the material from which the works are protected, but the works which are already created, right?
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Yes.
>> AUDIENCE: What I personally think is that the end -- we all perceive Internet, all perceive Internet as something that we can freely change anything and anywhere. But I think the -- the -- in some time, 100 years or 200 years, it would -- it will act just like in the real life. We won't be able to make countless copies of things, because every copy will have a digital code, just like -- well, it's not a new idea. Apple's DRM was introduced what time ago? Ten years ago? But it was not in time, because only they did that thing. Microsoft I think is well-known. I hope I'll be corrected if I make a mistake.
But, if there are millions of people around them who don't want -- don't want to keep that, they just -- that DRM holder only provides the material for the thieves. Maybe it's a bad analogy, but it's just like cannabis in the Netherlands. If it's legal in the Netherlands, the Netherlands becomes a store for whole Europe. It becomes the height of the criminals there.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. Thank you. I would like to hear the Latvian lawyers' opinion.
>> IVO MASKALANS: I think in the ideal world it would be the best solution if all the Internet would be regulated, at least the basic principles, including the copyrights. But as long as in the world would be a single country in which it is possible to legally do things which in the other countries are not legal, it will not work.
For example, we can, for example, I can show it by spam e-mails, which are the most countries they have the protection systems and the laws which protects persons from receiving spams. There is opt in systems and opt out systems. But as far as there will be at least one country in which it is legal to send these e-mails without any requirements, all the persons who does it can move to this country and do these things legally from there. And the -- for example, from the authority in Latvia cannot do anything about the e-mail received from the others, some distant country.
>> I want to express my opinion on copyright. Let's go back in the past, again, in those days there weren't copyright laws. And then arise the question of how to balance the interests of the whole society to consume any intellectual creation for free and the rights for the creators of the property to get some revenues. And as I understand, in the beginning, there were 14 years protection since creation of copyright. It was statutes or something like that. And then that term was extended and extended, and then in the United States now it's like this copyright law and something like that. At the beginning there was a goal to achieve balance. And balance is that the creator receives something and society can use it. Because basically I think most of the intellectual works are based on the works of previous people.
And, currently, I think it's total nonsense that copyright extends the length of all -- 70 years after this author. I think it's totally stupid. And I think it should be simplified each year, after the creation of work, and it would make possible to make things simpler and fire very many intellectual property lawyers who would have a chance, finally, to have a new job which creates added value.
>> I can comment also. It's not a new idea to confront copyright law. It was confronted already in the beginning of the 19th, 20th century, because the copyright law is a monopoly law. For the rest of society it's tricky, because they want to use the invention or the copyrighted work.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS:) I'm not against a classical copyright law, but I could say that society didn't find the solution how to deal without it. There is no solution how to incentivize the creators to incentivize the inventors into the new creations. So I think copyright is still alive. It's from 1886, from the Berne Convention, and still society didn't find an alternative solution.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: But the question is that the copyright law, which is all we agree outdated and doesn't fit to the needs of today's Internet. Today's Internet is very fast and very creative. So the problem is not in the Internet, the problem is into the copyright law, which needs to be somehow upgraded.
And this is -- it's my understanding it's not a question of how to upgrade the law, but how to make this law open. Because if we upgrade today, tomorrow this law will be outdated already. So we need to think about mechanisms where copyright law and Internet fits to each other, every day. That it's like two legs and one body, working, you know, together.
So we have a question from our remote moderator. Ulis please?
>> Yes. We have one more question from our remote participants. And they would like to know what is your opinion on the ACTA and the copyright laws being pushed by the US media firms onto the rest of the world? So this was the question which came from remote participants.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. Who wants to take the lead?
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: I can take the lead and say it's the most mysterious treaty which I investigated. There are a lot of speculations on the content and there is a digital idea to -- first I think the most important issue is the liability of the Internet Service Provider in this document. But still a lot of speculations. And there was no research done on the document. So of course the general idea was to harmonize, to set the limits of digital copyright. But I think it's too early to discuss the content of the treaty.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. We have a comment from the audience.
>> AUDIENCE: I agree that the Internet Service Provider liability is a bad idea, because you cannot punish knife makers for making knifes with which someone stabs someone. And I think the main problem on intellectual property protection -- I'm sorry. I didn't introduce myself. My name is Carlos Machinus and I'm a journalist for the ALTA. And the main problem is that we call different kinds of thefts different names. We should -- all the thefts should be called in one name: Thefts. Because piracy as we know is a robbery. It's not a theft. And this kind of robbery, piracy, needs water boats. I don't see why the theft of intellectual property is called piracy and it's separated from the thefts of material things. And I'm not the only one on this forum who thinks this way. I've met some people who have this idea in different countries.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: Can I answer this question?
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Yes. It was not a question. It was a point for discussion. Don't fight. Don't fight.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: I think there should be a distinguishment between copyright infringement and theft. Because when you steal something in the physical world, the owner of the thing doesn't have the thing anymore. In the digital world, when you copy something, the owner has the same thing. He may lose some potential profit, maybe.
>> AUDIENCE: Yes, they both have financial losses. If someone steals a computer from me, I have a financial loss. And if somebody starts copying my works, I have a financial loss as well.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Yes. There is a question, the lady from behind.
It's very good that we have a very active audience. You may introduce yourself. Could you turn it on?
>> AUDIENCE: Hello. Oh. Hi. My name is Arina I work in the European Parliament on behalf of Perpidia so I'm an elected official there. Now, I heard one of the lawyers on the panel say that we have found no other way of incentivizing creativity or innovation other than copyrights and patents. And this is not entirely true. If you look at the German example from the early 19th century research, and the amount of published academic essays from that time was considerably higher than it was after they introduced successful enforcement methods at late 19th century. So their cultural life, their creative life and their academic life was considerably better without copyright. When you do research on common space innovation models or the way entrepreneurship and new business models grow in third world nations with enforcement problems, they are considered more enormative and generate money in local communities more successfully than countries where you have patent systems that are very enforced, where we instead see extreme ownership concentration.
Now, I think when it comes to the Internet policy and copyright and innovation, we can't really limit that discussion when we do the Internet. We're talking about the economic model for society. Are we comfortable with having a global market that is dominated by giant monopolies holding thousands and thousands of IP property rights that limit people in free speech, limit them in freedom of movement or the Democratic processes? Or do we want locally based regimes where people interact with each other, people share experiences, culture, and activities, and in the process their freedom and free time, without being hindered by incumbents. This is the choice that I see and I would go for the latter any day.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. Maybe who takes -- okay. So... could you bring the microphone? It was a very difficult question. So our moderators are not ready yet to answer.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay. Thank you. This is Teresa from electronic information for libraries. I would like to echo the comments that were just made and I would like to add to them. The problem for users of copyrighted content in many cases is that the balance that was mentioned earlier in the world's first copyright act has largely gone. And so over the last 20 years, in particular, there have been more and more rights or controls placed over information, new rights have been created, like the database rights, for example. More controls and restrictions on access and use, particularly for digital content.
The public domain is shrinking. The term of protection is being extended. And the -- the inherent problem that we have as users and consumers of copyrighted content is that the rights of the rights holders are international and guaranteed, enshrined In the international copyright treaties. But the rights of the users of the copyrighted content are national. They are left for national Parliaments to decide, and they are optional. So we have this patch work of exceptions and limitations around the world which makes it very hard for users to operate effectively in this global information environment.
And there are two particular problems with regard to digital content. One is that copyright law itself is being overridden by contracts and by technological protection measures. So it's being undermined, if you like, because for most digital content the consumers and also libraries who purchase millions and millions of dollars of commercial proprietary content are governed by contractual law and not copyright law. So the users are forced to take the terms that are dictated by the monopoly holders of the rights.
And then in terms of the technological protection measure, which got legal protection in the WIPO copyright treaties in 1996, again the rights of the user, even though you may have an exception in your copyright law, it can be overridden by technological protection measures. These are particular problems for users. And I'd be interested to hear the comments of the panel.
And there is interesting discussions going on at the WIPO right now. There is a treaty proposal in favor of blind and visually impaired people, and there are a lot of discussions going on for the first time on exceptions and limitations. So I encourage you all to follow what is going on there. Thank you.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. Thank you. Let's move forward. I think when we speak about the Internet, we speak about a lot of new business ideas. And the Internet is a really perfect place for business. It's effective, it's cost efficient, it's very fast, and it's very close to the customer.
But at the same time, business is coming very close to our privacy. So we are having a challenge or we have a question. Where is this balance? Maybe I would like to ask business representatives to talk how they see their perspective, how much they invest in new business ideas on the Internet. How those ideas are important to them. And, of course, do they care about privacy and how much they invest into that?
>> EGLE GUDELYTE-HARVEY: I think in terms of business we can split two mainstream areas. One is the business of the Internet, of the services as such. And then the content business which is there on the Internet. And sometimes the interests of these two businesses clash and we have the Net neutrality discussion and things like that.
So, from the perspective of Internet Service Providers, I should say that we believe -- we don't believe in prohibitions. We rather believe in, you know, balance of course. It's this very sort of nice word, but not very precise. So what does it mean, balance, and how do we achieve it, especially in the area of the Internet? So when we look at copyright, again there should be a balance found between the consumer and the copyright holder. And the balance is in where? The consumer doesn't want to pay anything. The copyright holder wants to get some money out of it. And so we end up in prohibiting to multiply that copy, and we end up people are stealing or taking that protected work unpaid. And the result is that there is a lot of copyright infringements.
But are they punished? Are they pursued? Do the countries or businesses want to pursue them and punish? I doubt so.
So, my idea is -- and I firmly believe that the new business model should be a solution for finding this balance. And what could be those new business models? It's simply an approximate -- if you have access to that content, if you pay a small amount, some small unpainful amount, then I think it benefits all.
I like iTunes' approach. You pay $.99 for a great song or a nice video, a few cents. I feel good. I don't infringe anything. I know that I have the new, the very fresh song. And everything is fair and nice. But not everybody is prepared to pay and I think that's also the issue.
But for business as Internet Service Providers, another point of view which I want to touch upon is what is worrying us that is that some obligations of the state has been transferred on to the Internet Service Providers. Because the situation is probably quite difficult or hopeless in terms of controlling the access to, I don't know, gambling sites, pedophilia sites and things like that.
So, the government tends to impose on the ISP the function of a police. And we kept telling our customers in the society that we are not the police. We are service providers. So we will do anything what the state tells us when it regulates how we shall act and what shall we deliver them. But we will not act ourselves as policemen and go and trace this content. And if it's legal or if it's illegal, we are not the court as well to decide.
So this is a worry on the business side, that actually the shifting of the responsibility and more and more of the responsibility towards businesses is worrying us.
And in terms of creativity, I think as businesses we are interested in creating a new possibility to exchange information and to make this place safe, attractive and wanting to be in it.
So the regulated regime does not always help us to impose or introduce these new business models. So we call for -- we can state that the regulation is like, you know, the horse and the carriage. Business being the horse and the regulation is the carriage. But probably that is how it is.
So we don't over-demand for clear regulation, because we understand usually it lags behind. But still, the legal setting is the thing which could prove necessary for everybody: For businesses, for consumers and then the state. If you know what is demanded, if you know what is right or wrong, it's easy to act. But with the Internet it's probably wishful thinking.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. Please.
>> RYTIS KALINAUSKAS: I would like to add comments about the liability of Internet Service Providers. For example, if you use a network -- the Internet for Web browser, do you feel the difference if you have ten megabits in line or you have 100 megabits in line? I think you don't feel the difference for browsing. But if you intend to download something via the Internet, of course you wish to have -- you wish to have an Internet line with 100 megabit speed.
So my point here is that the Internet Service Providers in some way are interested in having more content which can be downloadable via the Internet.
I wouldn't name the company, but we have such an advertisement a few years ago saying that you should have a higher Internet speed or the Internet, I don't remember it exactly, and you will be able to download and watch the newest films, listen to songs, and et cetera. So, my point is that the Internet Service Providers, let's say they receive some kind of revenue from the content in the Internet. And the more interesting content is in the Internet, there is let's say also some profit from that to the Internet Service Provider.
The same, let's say, like Internet portal. If you have -- about the comments, for example, if you have many interesting comments to the Article, of course you get, let's say, better advertising rates because there are much more -- you see that you are popular, to say.
But that is the same model. They are also intermediaries. And to the last -- I totally agree with the colleague from TEO that there should be legal certainty and that the rules which impose some obligations to the intermediaries should be very clear, and they should respect the rights of speech. And thank you very much.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. There is a question from the audience. Yours.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay. Talking about business models and online markets, so, actually, that was a very good case about iTunes.
I as a Lithuanian would be very happy to download a legal song, paying one Litas, but probably I'm not going to pay four or five Litas for it. As you know, in the United States this cost is about one dollar, right?
But the thing is that we are in a close circle because there are several parameters. There is a price for the service, for the download. There is a price for the artist, which comes to collecting society, and there is maybe a price for the major who has rights to administer the rights. So the collecting rights have the monopoly and they are not intending to give away some kind of their business. So that is the problem. There are no agreements. And when I was asking why you are not here in Lithuania, so that was the answer. So it's too much of the blood to -- in the fight, so that they are not very happy to, you know, to spend their time. Because Lithuania is too small of a market.
And the other side is that, talking about the proper compensation for copyright holders. So as we know, the debate on the proper remuneration for the artists, those in all the Europe and there is copyright letters which are put on the blank media and digital equipment which varies from country to country. For example, for the iPod, the collecting societies ask in Spain 55 Euros. So it's different from country to country. Here in Lithuania, we are also carrying this debate for years and years. Actually, the thing is that the world should -- the digital market should change and the new business model should be in place, like proper compensation for the exact usage. If I downloaded a song, I'm paying for it. So there is no legal -- no legal obligation to pay for the business users, for the government, which is currently on the attack to pay for this, some extra money.
And on the other hand, the consumer rights, those who will be buying, they have no idea that they are paying and how far. So actually, that is very a very hot question. And of course the European Commission in its digital agenda issued a target on the -- digital online internal entire market. So we hope that the process is moving forward.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. A very short comment from the back. Because we have 12 minutes to go, and I wanted to make it very productive.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay. so Amelia, again. So the problem here is that the current legal regime stuff we have limits innovation. So we shouldn't talk about how to move on from here. We should be talking about how we can get back to a system where we can actually have innovation, like something reborn. And the Berne Convention needs to go. It's not updated for a very long-time. It simply doesn't hold anymore. Get rid of it. So I made a reference earlier to regimes that don't really enforce IP rights and therefore they succeed with grass-roots innovation. Well, this is true in Europe and the US as well. In areas where we don't have legislation, we see a lot of innovation in business models for creating revenues for artists or innovators. So one system that is popular with my friend now is micropayments.
That's essentially a collaboration between users and artists and users and innovators. You don't need a copyright for the system to work. You don't need a patent law for the system to work. It's simply a relation between individuals that produce something or give something to the world, and other people that want to give something back for that service.
And the problem now is that when you look at kind of like the IPR industry, I was at a meeting at the Commission once or seen it maybe online. And this Guy says, you know, yes, I'm from the music industry. And about 16 years ago we kind of fucked up because we didn't create business models. Now we are 40 years behind. How is the Commission planning to solve this?
Well, they're not. And frankly, well, the thing is that we're sitting here now trying to figure out how we should be solving their 40 year lag in Internet time for making business models. It's quite bizarre. Just let micropayment systems through, get rid of copyright. Encourage innovation.
When it comes to ISP liability, I have a comment. Do I notice whether or not we have ten megabits up or down or not? Of course I do.
During the FIFA world cup, during the final, two hours, I watched on Belgium TV. I live in Brussels, the football game. But because I don't speak French or Dutch, I listened to the Swedish radio commentary online. And I followed the steps on the page. I was having several chats about the event and I had other Windows open. I have 2.5 megabits in my house, but there was a considerable lag. That was agonizing. I would have liked to have 24 megabits down to handle that. And that is regular use that we could have in Europe if we don't have a lot of people making lots of stupid things about ISP liability. That makes them uncertain about should they invest in the capacity or not. Let this thing free. We had huge development in the '90s. Now it's almost coming to a stop.
I don't understand what the big issue is there.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. Thank you. I have one question to lawyers. Is legal regulation flexible enough to develop business ideas on the Internet? What is your general opinion? Ivo?
>> IVO MASKALANS: I think we cannot completely leave out the copyright regulation. Because there is a positive thing in protecting someone's copyright. It's just to encourage people to invest in the research and developments and we should remember about this aspect also.
>> VIIVE NASLUND: The laws are general. So I haven't come up with a situation where the client would have an innovation idea or e-business idea where I would say that the current legal system doesn't allow it. And I think the question is more how we interpret the old draws and the new environment than amending these rules. And the idea of just leaving copyrights aside is definitely a very brave idea.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: I would agree with my colleagues that we don't need a revolution. I would say the copyright law itself could survive and the business models could live altogether. We saw different views on the floor. One is that there is a different bargaining power in the middle of users and the publishing societies and the other one was like the businesses should decide by themselves. So I could say that we could leave the copyright law itself and also the businesses could decide. It's a question of finding the licensing systems, licensing mechanisms.
So I could say that copyright law has a lot of exceptions as well. And we use those exceptions. And maybe the law is outdated, but it could go with the technologies.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: So. Thank you. Okay. The last question from the audience. Could someone pass the microphone?
>> AUDIENCE: Hello. My name is Thomas. I'm from (inaudible) sorry. So, just a small comment that a lot of copyright and some of them are not even useful for people. You are paying something, you are watching a movie with no audio, and you are just saying that I paid money. I wasted my time and nothing for me.
So, maybe if -- you are missing sound for the movie. So maybe for good content, people will donate after we receive the product, after we watch the movie, after we listen to the song. We can donate as we -- as much as we want. The better movie we like, we pay better. Maybe from the developing countries, we have no money, they will not pay at all. They will pay a little bit. But the balance of, let's say, good content will go up and all the crap will just be bar lowered, and nobody will try to produce crap.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you.
So, thank you. We are ending our discussion. I would like to ask every person sitting near this table to say their final remarks. A few words. What they should conclude after two hours of our I think fruitful discussion. Please.
>> RYTIS KALINAUSKAS: I think that copyright, if we -- if you speak about copyright, the laws, I think that they are not flexible enough, that they should be reviewed according to the nowadays situation.
And about the privacy on the Internet, I think there are new concerns. And also, some kind of new rules should be applied according to the situation. Because usually rules that we apply in regular life doesn't always work in the Internet.
So the regulation about personal information, about copyright, should allow to use new models of, let's say, acting.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. Ivo.
>> IVO MASKALANS: Regarding privacy, the conclusion is that we should be collectively responsible for the privacy on the Internet. Because everyone must be responsible. The end-users, which -- which made the content of the Internet should be responsible. The providers of the Internet services or the hosters of the Web sites should somehow be responsible for it. And also the government of course could make some laws which could be helpful for responsibilities.
For example, I think it's quite good, the example, the new draft law in Germany which prohibits employers to use data received from social networking sites regarding their employees to make decisions about them. For example, delay of some employee because he is -- because during working time he is on the Facebook and things like that. And I think it's the right way that governments could react to this situation.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you. Nero, if after this discussion, will you do the same?
>> NERO: I can't answer this question before trial.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Okay. Okay.
So, what do you conclude?
>> NERO: I think it's the 21st century, and the old copyright model doesn't work. And it's not our problem to create or think about new business models for big content monopolies, it's their problem. And we have a saying in Latin that only those who change, only those survive. If those musical associations, if the movie association won't change, then they will just die out sooner or later.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: A few words, because we have one minute. So few words.
>> VIIVE NASLUND: Just a few words. I would say that also in the 21st century, we still have the same basic rules. Don't steal, don't hurt others. And I think in the Internet or in real life, we should still follow those main principles.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you.
>> RITA VAITKEVICIENE: I would like to stress your attention on two points. One point as regards copyrights, that it is not anything free of charge. We are paying by collection and secondary usage of our data for targeted markets.
Another thing is that the law is really flexible, because the Google street view case, it shows that we are -- we have a possibility to protect our rights and jurisdictions is valued in Germany like the United States.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Thank you.
>> EGLE GUDELYTE-HARVEY: I believe prohibition does not work. Three things, education, flexible business models and regulation. Those are the solutions.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: Few words.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: For the copyright revolution I could say that people usually fight for copyright revolution until they create it by themselves. And it's first time stolen. Then they remember copyright. So copyright could stay.
>> That's not true.
>> GEDIMINAS RAMANAUSKAS: If you have problems in Latvia, you can always stay in Lithuania.
>> JAUNIUS GUMBIS: And a few words from me. I think that I'm more critical. I think that we are too naive when we talk about the Internet. We think that we can create something perfect, and we are too slow.
I think in those two hours, when we talk in general terms about Internet and piracy, thousands of billions of people in Los Angeles did so many new business ideas. So we're too slow and too naive. We have to change our attitude.
Thank you all of you. And I think that this discussion was just the beginning. And the time you spent here is -- it was not useless. Thank you. And good luck. Bye.
(End of session)