The following is the output of the real‑time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. 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.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Just to let everyone know, we're still waiting for a couple of panelists. So just in case you're wondering why we haven't started. We've decided to be a bit Democratic with the seating, so you can sit wherever you want.
Can someone close the door? Because otherwise there is too much noise. Okay? All right. Thank you. Welcome to Workshop 94, Creating, Protecting and Providing Access to Digital Culture. Is the sound okay now? It's okay. Okay. I was expecting we were going to struggle a bit with the sound. My name is Andres Guadamuz. I'm a senior lecturer in intellectual property law at University of Sussex. I would like to thank the organizers for inviting me. We have a great panel. Paolo and Stuart are, I think, the organizers of the event. Also they will be speaking.
We'll conduct this in a very nice and informal manner, seeing that we have a nice cozy room with ‑‑ with a nice number of attendants. I always start panels and presentations and everything with stories, and I'm just going to have a very short to introduce the topic.
When I started teaching Intellectual Property, the Internet was still sort of fresh and new, and my students started writing in their dissertations and essays variations of the theme "The Internet has changed everything." And every single dissertation started, the Internet has changed everything, and it was all ‑‑ I had to tell them at some point, if you write a variation of the Internet has changed everything into an essay or a dissertation, I'm going to fail you. And they stopped doing that. But needless to say, it's actually true. The Internet has changed quite a lot of how we look at the dissemination of culture, dissemination of information.
And this panel is all about that. So it's about creating, protecting, providing access to digital culture and the means in which we have ‑‑ we're conducting this and we're creating culture, but also disseminating it and having access to it has changed quite a lot. And these changes, the developments that we've encountered are creating challenges for industry, for creators, for the memory institutions, for users in general. And policy makers and bodies like the IGF, we have to come up with answers, and the ‑‑ this panel is going to look at challenges, but also maybe solutions, legislative solutions, policy solutions, market solutions, problems that the users have encountered, and hopefully that will create a very nice discussion on some of the challenges that we are encountering.
We have a fantastic panel, so without further ado I'm going to start with Stuart Hamilton, who is Deputy Secretary General of the International Federation of Library Associations and institutions. He's going to be talking to us about, I guess, the library perspective. Thanks.
>> STUART HAMILTON: Thank you, Andres, and good afternoon, everybody. Copyright is a great subject to be discussing at 20 to 5:00 at the end of a long day, but I guess we'll give it a go, although there are actually more issues than just copyright involved in a discussion of access to digital, cultural output.
When we were coming up with the idea for this workshop we were drawing from IFLA's report called the IFLA train report, around and if you haven't read this go to trends.ifla.org, where you can find a document we worked on for a year along with some internationally renowned experts to tell us about the changes that were going to occur in society over the sort of next ten years, not the changes that were going to occur in libraries, but the changes that were going to occur in society, so that librarians could work out how to deal with them.
And one of the things that goes up front in this trend report is a little bit of an explanation of just how much digital information we have out there at the moment. So in 2010 the quantity of information transmitted globally exceeded 1 zeta byte for the first time and that's expected to double every two years. Hands up who can give me the definition of a zettabyte? I can't give you a definition. I have to look it up. But Internet traffic over the last decade has actually risen by 13,000%. There's been more digital information created between 2008 and 2011 than in all of the previous recorded history. And now to put it into some sort of context for those of you who like the NSA, the National Security Agency new center in Utah will be open in September just gone, it's capable of storing up to X exabytes of information, that's 12,000 petabytes, but in perspective only 400 terabytes will be needed to store all the books ever written in any language. So with a thousand terabytes in one petabytes that's less than 1% of the new NSA storage capacity. If that hasn't blinded you with numbers the point is there's a lot of digital information out there.
As librarians we kind of love content. We really love content. Without content we wouldn't be able to stock our libraries, we wouldn't be able to put books on shelves, we wouldn't be able to have information resources in our databases, and of course that means we love creators as well because creators are the people that actually help us make libraries what they are.
With all of this new digital ‑‑ born‑digital information coming out, plus the work that libraries are doing to digitize all materials, you can see that many of our institutions are going to be really snowed under with a lot of work in the future, and because we've always really played society's traditional role in collecting and preserving and making available cultural, scientific and research content, but I guess the question for us now and one of the reasons we're convening this panel is whether or not libraries can keep up. Is it actually possible for us to continue to preserve, store and make available all of this information? And I'm unfortunately tempted to sort of say, it's going to be very difficult for us. I'm going to stop short of saying, no, we can't, but I do think that because of this content explosion we're in danger of having a massive black hole in the middle of our cultural record.
And the reason for this, I think, is ‑‑ the reason for this is to do with copyright. I think if we're going to fix this black hole, we're going to have to fix copyright, and as anyone who's ever been involved in these discussions will tell you, that's a very difficult thing to do. Some of you will have been in the previous workshop looking at copyrights, I won't repeat too much of that but basically if you ever get involved in copyright reform organisations you should expect to be in it for the long run and you should expect to come out of it very bruised.
What you can do, it seems, in copyright at an international and national level is increase enforcement of copyright. This seems to actually be possible. There is a very strong lobby that's ‑‑ that's behind that, and it's understandable. There's a lot of money involved in content. But from libraries' perspective we haven't been able to introduce more flexibility into the international copyright system. We need that flexibility because in some countries we actually don't have the legal frameworks for preservation of information. We don't quite know whether ‑‑ when we preserve a born‑digital work, whether we're actually doing something legal or illegal. And as I said in the previous workshop, what we love most after content is doing things right. We don't really feel comfortable going off grid and basically copying everything because that's not really how we roll.
Now, we do have some capacity to do this in some countries around the world, particularly in the European Union, North America, the countries that within the WIPO system are called the Group B countries, the developed industrial countries. They often have relatively flexible copyright exceptions, which will let you do a lot of this digital preservation work. However, with born‑digital consent comes licenses and contracts, which really shifts things from the days when libraries were able to hand over $10,000 for a number of really nice size collection. It's in print material, first sale, an exhaustion applies, we're able to do with that material whatever we want. Now we're licensing material directly from publishers and, quite frankly, we're not buying that material. It is what it says. We are licensing it and licenses come with terms and conditions, and we did a survey from the British library almost ten years ago, but we've updated it. I think 96% of the contracts of the British library studied in their own environment, 96% overrode the available copyright exceptions and limitations.
So on the one hand we have a problem that we don't have adequate flexible copyright exceptions for this digital preservation. On the other hand, when we do have these good exceptions often they're overridden by contract, and then there's a third element which I think is relevant to this discussion, which is that very few countries around the work have working electronic legal deposit legislation. For those of you who don't know, legal deposit is when a country enacts a law so that at least one copy of everything published in print form can be deposited at a designated national library and that goes into the cultural record.
Now, this is a problem for us when it comes to preservation and I won't go on at length because we have other speakers and we can pick this up in the questions, but I guess the fundamental thing I wanted to say in my opening intervention is that we're feeling a little bit stuck. We're fully aware of all of this huge amount of information. We want to do something about it, but a combination of outdated copyright frameworks, contracts and licenses and now much needed but unfortunately lacking electronic deposit leaves us wondering where our savior will come from. I can talk about later how we might solve that problem.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Thanks, Stuart. I'm going to leak a little bit into the time because I have a pressing question about deposits ‑‑ you didn't spend all of your time I think I can ask you immediately. I am ‑‑ I think the issue of preservation of digital content, legally mandated has been great for traditional books. I used to work in Edinburough, next door practically to the National Library of Scotland, which is the national copyright repository in Scotland, and it was fantastic. As a researcher you could go and spend hours and hours and hours being a book geek, obviously, looking at the books and you always knew that you could find work. And this is something that worries me greatly for researchers, but also for the ‑‑ in the interest of our culture, that we're potentially losing large amounts of digital information because we just haven't even thought about enacting some form of regulation, even some form of mandate that will allow publishers to curate some of this wealth of digital content. And you were saying that there is no easy solution, but if I gave you the power tomorrow to change the world, what would you ‑‑ how would you use it? How would ‑‑ how would you make digital curation and the repositories possible?
>> STUART HAMILTON: First, it's a bit sad you put a caveat on my powers there because I was looking forward to being able to do a bit more than just digital preservation. But I think at the moment we have what we're calling a patchwork of provisions around the world that let you do certain things. So for example, the library of Congress in the United States preserves tweets. That to me seems like a Sisyphusian task or whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure where they're going with it. But nevertheless at times when there are great upheavals, Arab Spring, I'm thinking about things where people take to social media it can be instructive to be able to curate those pieces of born‑digital material. Whether or not that's actually legally possible outside of the United States, I'm not entirely sure, so you'll have one country being able to do something like that. You'll have another country like the United Kingdom who has just passed a new sort of legal deposit act, which I have to say is extremely disappointing, which is a shame because they've ‑‑ they've done quite well in terms of some other copyright reform recently.
But the new electronic legal deposit act in the U.K. ‑‑ I'm glad you said you liked going to the library to look at books because now in the age of the Internet we're going to have an electronic legal deposit act, which if you ever want to see what we're actually collecting you'd better be prepared to get into your car and bring your tablet to the library.
So we have some interesting challenges in front of us where by the people making policies about these things, it's not joined up, throws no mandate that goes across countries, and we're not really seeing any awareness that actually library users won't want to necessarily drive all the way to a physical library when they know they can use the Internet to access these resources. So we have a problem with expectations of our users.
If I was going to use the powers that you've given me, I would make sure that what IFLA is trying to be at WIPO succeeds, and there we are trying to put an international copyright framework for libraries and archives together that's going to set some basic standards for copyright exceptions around the world. Now, that means not that everybody has harmonized exceptions, but that everybody would have to have a basic set of exceptions for libraries and archives. And that's quite important. We don't necessarily want everybody to have the same bit of language in every sort of country, but we want to be able to be sure the information can across borders and that people are actually able to do this digital preservation in such a way that it's not just the U.S. and the EU that's keeping track of their cultural heritage.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Thanks. That's very interesting. I won't comment on the megalomania that is implied in my question that those powers are mine to give. I hope no one will mind that.
Okay. Our next presenter is Paolo Lanteri. He is the legal officer at the world Intellectual Property Organization, and yeah, Paolo. Room is yours.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Is that better?
>> PAOLO LANTERI: Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Andres, and thank you very much, Stuart, for setting the scene in a very nice and broad ‑‑ and Broadway. I may start by perhaps disappointing the audience by saying that WIPO is organizer of this workshop, in fact, is here with more questions than answers. We don't have answers yet. There are several processes ongoing, and we are hosting some of those processes. So if we had an answer we would probably not need to have this kind of forum for discussion with so many stakeholders.
The reason for organising this workshop for the world Intellectual Property Organization is to, in fact, get a better idea from practitioners in the field, from libraries, from users and from, of course, right holders on what are the challenges, with distribution and creation access of born‑digital content. We have heard and being a lawyer surrounded by librarians I'm not here to quote any data, we have already heard some astonishing data on the impact, on the scope of the problem we are talking about and numbers by talk by themselves. Digital is the rule rather than the exception. There are many challenges that have not been addressed, and still ‑‑ has been devised for an environment. These are sort of fact.
One starting point I would like to stress is that really the acknowledgment of the importance of the issue is a well achieved result. We are discussing this here, but in 2014 is the 10th anniversary, the 10th birthday of limitation and exceptions issue in the agenda of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. Nothing more and nothing less than the broadest, the largest norm setting forum where more than 187 Member States, and more than 300 NGOs are contributing to a debate focused to a possible normative solution, focus on exceptions to copyright. Of course, the process is lengthy, but let me ‑‑ let me give you some obvious remark on that.
Technology moves faster than law and there are some good reasons for that, and particularly when we talk about born‑digital material, not all the problems are copyright specifics problems. We also have, and we need to budget in economic and technological problems, consideration, when we need ‑‑ when we want to look at concrete solution. So copyright is part of the puzzle. And the reason there's been ongoing discussion and I think there is also a broad agreement to the need for limitation exception for libraries and archives.
What agreement is missing among the international community is on how to achieve this limitation and exceptions for libraries and archives. So without any purpose of giving a copyright lecture I think it's good always to remind ourselves where we stand on this point, and remind ourselves, lawyers, how the system works. In fact, treaties recognize rights and at the same time they provide for principle that allows countries to provide limitation and exceptions to those rights. The treaty has principle. I think we can enter into that if someone is interested in the details, but what is the result of this?
The result of this is the current copyright framework, fragmented, territorial, where Member States have freedom to decide what are the limitations to copyright. So it can well be that in one country a library is allowed to make a reproduction for preservation purposes, maybe multiple reproduction in form ‑‑ and others, no, there is nothing in the law. But there is no argument about the need for allowing libraries to perform their function.
And here we are talking about ‑‑ this is a system, how it works. The crucial point of the debate, at least as I see it, is not only about libraries and archives. It's about breaking ‑‑ changing the system, reinventing the system. That is not only saying you Member States, you Italy, you England, you need to recognize the right of production, communication with the public and so on, but you must also make sure that your libraries are allowed to make reproduction, multiple reproduction for preservation. So it's ‑‑ I think it's an argument partially justified, the length of the process at least.
And this system I cannot forget to mention that there is a remarkable exception to this system, that is a quite recent exception, is the Marrakesh Treaty that was signed a little bit more than one year ago, that current ‑‑ that actually established an obligation for future member parties to that treaty to have the provisions that will allow access and exchange, broad your exchange, enabling access for the visually impaired to print the content, without entering into detail ‑‑ that it's a remarkable exception, that we can also argue is not really spitting up the debate on the other issues because it's a first ‑‑ so we are at the edge of a potentially huge change in the balance ‑‑ in the balance of the system.
Nevertheless, the international community have invested huge resources, ten years of work of people like you ‑‑ you have many hours in this room, like me that works in the Secretariat and Member States, going to that meeting ‑‑ meeting room, room in Geneva and making the case for this need. What has produced all these efforts, ten years of work, basically concrete terms. Two things. One is a document, which I'd really call the code rather than the full title because it would take 15 minutes to pronounce it, is document 26 ‑‑ 3, it is a working document and a possible instrument for limitation and exception for the benefits of archives. It's not exact quotation but I can provide you with that if you wish. And it includes several topics, many of them have already been mentioned by Stuart, like preservation purposes. Very importantly there are some of the document that discuss the relation between limitation and exceptions in contracts, cross‑border effects and cross‑border users of that content.
They ‑‑ the Member States have also made sure we produce some information material like several studies, very informative studies, nine studies on limitation and exceptions, looking at how countries have actually implemented those treaties, and particularly one published in 2008, the Kenneth crew study on limitations and exceptions by library archives, have been requested by Member States to undertake an update, and for the interest of everyone, the plans are to release the update of this study at the upcoming CCR in December of this year. So let's wait for the numbers. Let's wait for the figures, but already ‑‑ the feeling, the general feeling is from 2008 many things have changed, possibly not enough, and if in 2008 we have a little bit more than 120 countries covered by the study that included the section that were applicable to libraries and archives, we are ‑‑ we hope to have more in 2014, but still if you look at objectively at the limitations and exception system, they are mostly devised and created for the (?) environment and we are total in the beginning that digital is the rule, not the exception. This is a fact I think we can all agree on that.
So this is where we stand in terms of norm‑setting processes. A brief mention to what are the other means that are in the tools that are in the hands of the United Nations like ‑‑ agency like WIPO, to help the Member States to develop their copyright system in a balanced way, we provide legislative assistance to Member States, which is based on a demand process. It's on demand. And it's very ‑‑ it's tailor‑made and focused on specific requests of the Member States. These activities are extremely important, and WIPO provides the service really on ‑‑ with a neutral, bilateral way, and it doesn't have any mandate to follow up on potential new copyright reforms. So we can do only what Member States ask us to do.
Then there is another line of work that is ‑‑ I think in this field is crucial, which is copyright infrastructure, which is technology, data. Wherever we can WIPO supports technologically these countries. We already have some services in the field of copyright. WIPO calls for copyright management, GDA, which is the copyright registration. And there is starting initiative called global data management that will scope all content ‑‑ all market content and look at possible common solution in terms of technological management of rights and also limitation and exceptions.
And then finally we also organise things like this, which we believe are still very important, that raise awareness, capacity building and many other things, in cooperation with many other stakeholders.
So with that I would conclude my intervention, going back to the initial remark that the reason why we are here is that we are really looking for new ideas and inputs on what ‑‑ on what we could improve in our mission and how the international community could actually better engage in this challenge of having an IP system that is really suited for the new challenges. Thanks a lot. So I'm looking for the contribution from all the participants and the speakers.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Thanks, Paolo. I have a couple of questions but we'll ‑‑ there will be getting ‑‑ the other speakers at times so we'll save them for later if possible. But I have a ‑‑ continuing my megalomania theme, I have a couple of ideas of creating an island with a big global repository, so ‑‑ (laughter) let's think about that.
Okay. So next is Cristiana Gonzalez who is from the ‑‑ Brazil ‑‑ my Brazil pronunciation is very bad.
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: Well, I would say that I'm representing actually the universe of Sao Paulo ‑‑
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: I was going to say also the University of Sao Paulo, but Brazil is such a leader in some of these topics and she's going to give us some of the perspectives from develop ‑‑ developing countries. Thanks.
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: (?) leader at WIPO development agenda but I'll give that a shift on the discussion and because people get tired of going to Geneva and be part of WIPO negotiations, they can just change the agenda to the file sharing organisation agenda which was one of the topics that I'm going to try next year in Brazil. And we're ‑‑ reforming the copyright law.
So I would like to present file sharing. That's not a new idea. We have lots of countries that have already tried that. We have like Sweden and Norway, we have Canada, we have Portugal, lots of countries try to approve laws. And this idea is very connected to the copyright fights that oppose creators and users, consumers, on the one side, and publishers, intermediaries and copyright holders.
So those copyrights fights and most of the copyright laws are based on lots of very reliable data that was discovered ‑‑ not discovered, but that we are researching in Brazil. So those ‑‑ those industry reports, they ‑‑ their methodology never is clear, and when it's clear or open or available for researchers or for the public, they are extremely biased. So some university studies shows that there are no economic advantages for developing countries, especially when you think about law enforcement against pirates, or what I prefer to say the sheriff unauthorized copies. For example, when you look at pirates, in countries like Brazil, like Mexico, Bolivia and India, the findings are the main cause is piracy is a combination of high price for cultural goods, low incomes and increasing (?) technologies. So the industry talks about the culture of not respecting Intellectual Property, they do not consider the real reasons, the prices, the incomes and the chip technology that are the main causes of this phenomenon.
So the second thing that must be noticed is that after seeing a lot of initiatives of enforcement through the years, we do not find any data that demonstrates the impact on the general availability of pirated goods, so there is no positive effect on the industry grows when we have a strong enforcement laws or policies.
So there is also a series of studies that shows that on the other side, that, for example, there is a hybrid study that shows that downloading music does not affect record sales. There is an opinion research project called music lessons, which shows music sales are not affected positively by file sharing. There is more recent search from 2013 from school of economics showing that the copyright interceptors should be doing well, that pirate copying doesn't appear to harm the industry and the struggle gets piracy may harm. There is a book "Piracy In Developing Economies," written at Columbia University. It's ‑‑ that stopping piracy seems to have failed. So there is no reason to keep going with law enforcement and the piracy ‑‑ all these piracy fights, especially against developing countries.
There is also ‑‑ and I'm not talking about developing countries. Look at the developed world, like especially U.S. and Germany, there is also some data that shows that copied shared or download for free music on TV shows, you have half of the population doing that. And ‑‑ which is a phenomenon that some call the copy coacher.
So among the solutions that we have been discussing for years, you have like the whole agenda on the exception and limitations, that's very important for us, especially for the developing world. You also have the licensing issues, like the creative coms and other kinds of licensing. But they are not the solutions to the problem. They are just in the middle of the way to finally stop this fight.
And then we came up with this idea of the legalizing file sharing in Brazil, because we are also facing this. And the main idea is that ‑‑ and this is going to sound like a freaky idea when you think about it, because ‑‑ but it's a remarkable initiative in terms of access to knowledge, the ‑‑ although we have lots of political pressure, if we're not ‑‑ I prefer not having it, even among activists there is no consensus but we need to put that in public and discuss that.
So the main idea of file sharing legalization is that the noncommercial file sharing will be authorized, and each broadband user will pay a modest fee. Like in Brazil we got a number of almost $2, and this comes together with the monthly Internet service provider bill. So the ISP will collect the fees and distribute it to the collecting society comprised of associations that will then collect the fees in the proportion of the works that have been downloaded. So who is going to pay? All broadband home users will pay this fee.
And also so some must be asking, is this fee sufficient? If I think that ‑‑ if you think about ‑‑ if you compare the today revenue of the industry, this would represent approximately 115 million per year for the industry. And for sake of comparison, this represents approximately 55% of the fourth largest record ‑‑ four largest record companies' revenues. So it's a lot more that they are having.
And who will receive this fee? Not only the industry, the creators from the collecting societies. So at least 60% of the amount collected will be distributed to a physical person, musicians, composers, writers, so ‑‑ authors will gain much, much more than they are having now. And much will be authorize ‑‑ what will be authorized? Only commercial file sharing including music, films and books affecting every kind of ‑‑ we are trying to have now, like for educational proposals, for our libraries, for visually impaired. And what about the traditional means of commercial cultural goods? So they are not going to be affected because all these studies that you have now are proven that the file sharing is not affecting their revenues. So that is the main that they're going to put on the table for ‑‑ I'm going to put on the table for discussion.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Thank you. That was fascinating. I've been quite ‑‑ this example of legalizing file sharing or creating a legalized system, or are some form of revenue system as well. I've been fascinated as well by the things like ARG.org, which is actually piracy, so I shouldn't mention that. There is academic file sharing in a way, people sharing their own research, putting it anonymously so that all the researchers can have access to that. So we ‑‑ I'm already eating up too much time. So I'll jump right away ‑‑ we'll keep this for the discussion.
Next is Makane Faye. He's the Chief of the Knowledge Management Section and Library Services of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Thanks.
>> MAKANE FAYE: Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues. Thank you, IFLA, for giving us this opportunity to be a panelist here on this important issue of access to information and knowledge and problems which we have in this process. I would like to say that researchers and other users in African countries face problems in facing the world published information. First of our current publications, paper, in digital form, from shelves, databases and repositories is very high. This results in relying on (?) programme of libraries, archives and documentation centers to have access to current knowledge.
To mitigate these problems, some of the libraries facilitate electronic access to digitized collections, both in the Africa and elsewhere. They also benefit from inter‑library loans. However, these are corporate issues. Access to photocopying, sharing, reproduction and distribution of certain types of documents is prohibited. Not only does this create access problem but also issues related to restoration and preservation of documents, which cannot be done with the current copyright regime and leads to a lot of documents being destroyed and a lot of information being lost.
It is an unfortunate state of affairs is created by the absence of appropriate legislation and laws, adapted to the technological revolution and the wide use of the Internet. In fact, the copyright law has been struggling to adapt to the Internet and technologies. We know that the copyright regime was put in place to promote creation by ensuring fair rewards to the creators. Now it has almost become a barrier to the knowledge economy and an impediment to promote access to knowledge and, of course, innovation.
Currently we believe there is a need to review the evolution of the copyright policies, because what we see today is that creators are enjoying bigger protection while the users are being penalized, when we are working in the framework of the information society, which advocates for information in society for all. And I believe that two months ago at the review, the document indicated in Article 16 that we need to ensure the preservation of digital heritage in the information society by putting into place cohesive, concept pure and practical digital strategies supported to the extent practical at informational level for the preservation of and access to recorded information in the digital environment in all its remembers for while it is protecting individual privacies. However, the multitude and diversity of stakeholders invested (?) in policy, with their or perspective, and their own interest ‑‑ in fact, profit to the creators. It is very difficult for our community of knowledge workers to advance our agenda.
To conclude, I propose that we work to redefine the purpose of copyright, to take into account the knowledge economy into a fully recommended framework. I believe that this can be done by adopting and also promoting the draft which was prepared by IFLA, the Treaty Properties on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, published in December 2013, so that this can be honored by Member States and put forward to the standing committee on copyright and legal rights at WIPO. I will conclude by quoting former Kofi Annan, who concluded, "With information on our side, with knowledge a potential for all, the path to poverty can be reversed." Thank you.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Thanks. That's excellent. It's a good call to arms in the subject, I think. What we need is legislative solution mostly or treaty solution, I think. That's an excellent point.
So last but not least is Arletta Becking ‑‑
>> "Baking," but my Dutch colleagues do it wrong all the time.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: One of the advantages of chairing a session is that I get to get to do to other people what they do to me all the time. They're mispronouncing my name. Sorry. She comes representing IEF but also Pictoright, it's an authors' rights organisation for visual creators in the Netherlands.
>> Thank you for the short introduction. I'm very happy to be here today and my name is Arletta baking. I work as a pre‑ac manager for Pictoright and also as legal council. Pictoright is a collective organisation. We represent visual artists, photographers, designers, illustrators, cartoonists and also architects. I'm also on behalf of the International Authors Forum today. This is a forum for authors organisations and they collaborate with other organisations representing authors worldwide.
Today I would like to talk briefly with you about most digitalization by cultural archives. In the recent past a lot of subsidies have been given by the Dutch Ministry of culture, to cultural archives. This comes forth from the digital agenda of Europe. In order to digitize amongst others, books, newspapers, magazines and images. Cultural archives all started to digitize in order to put their collections on‑line, well, in the Netherlands then. These collections are always been inside the archives and archives didn't have so much to do with copyrights until ‑‑ until then. Sorry. I'm not very fast with the clicking.
Well, this led to a problem for them because the current system of copyrights in the Netherlands is that permission is needed from every right holder, and when you look at an archive, which we have in the Netherlands, the Dutch royal library, it has digitized 3 million pages and when you think about that every page has, well, five articles and images, it means that 50 million works have to be ‑‑ well, to get permission from the maker and/or the legal entity behind it. So that ‑‑ well, that led to an enormous obstacle for them. So in 2009 we started talking with them and we have come with a solution. I'm sorry.
We have ‑‑ we took a look at the extended collective licensing system in Scandinavia, and we thought about, well, maybe it is possible to come up with a solution so that the archive can put the whole collection on‑line at once, and the way we do it, we have agreed on several contracts now, is by granting a collective license and also by giving an indemnification with a maximum. And in this way the archive can show all of the articles and images on‑line. We do want a rightholder to have the possibility to opt out if he doesn't ‑‑ or her ‑‑ doesn't agree with it, but by making the collective contracts work, we also can grant a remuneration for the visual artist or ‑‑ all the visual artists, which are in the archives. So not only the artists which are at Pictoright but everybody can get a remuneration.
An example, well, I already mentioned it, is the royal library. Well, it ‑‑ it works, the contracts, but there are a few visual artists who opted out, photographers, and, well, that leaves ‑‑ so another problem arises is the images of those visual artists are now on black, so you cannot see it, so the cultural archive is not complete anymore. So it might not be the best way, but ‑‑ well, with this contract the royal library is ‑‑ it is possible to show the archive.
Another archive we have made an agreement with is the national archive. There are 350,000 images inside this archive. They cannot make reproductions when they want to make a reproduction for other users, and then I mean physical reproductions or giving licenses. That's not possible, but when that situation is ‑‑ when somebody wants a reproduction they have to go back to the rightholder, but ‑‑ well, I think it's a good way to put it all on‑line.
Well, I already mentioned some individual rightholders who don't want their works in an archive, but the ‑‑ another obstacle is also that there is no legal framework to make these contracts. We ‑‑ we're just trying to develop a solution, but, well, we don't know what will happen when it comes before the ‑‑ before the judge. Also, we have experienced a lot of unwillingness at the Dutch archives, not all of them, but, well, most of them, they don't ‑‑ but most of them don't want to pay a remuneration. That's a big problem, and I can understand that from their perspective because of course you'd rather put the money into new digitization projects. I understand that, but the archive is filled with works of rightholders, so, well, you have to do something. I don't think you can get it all for free.
And so with the unwilling archives we have started two lawsuits, and it looks positive, but, well, it's also not the way we would want it to go. So ‑‑ well, we'll see how it develops.
A solution, I think ‑‑ well, I already mentioned it, is ‑‑ might be extended collective licensing. The Dutch Ministry of Culture already commissioned the research on this topic because he often ‑‑ the (?) works has to be implemented really soon, so we're hoping on a good new legal framework, but until that we have to we will continue with this.
And I have a question for the public or the audience, whether it is nonsense to charge cultural archives or it's okay. (laughter) But I don't think you will say yes. (laughter).
>> We can talk about it.
>> Yes, yes.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Thanks. That's fascinating. I have too many questions to everyone. I think we just have a quick ‑‑ quick one minute to ask you, a very quick question arising from what you just said. What was the basis of the two cases?
>> The basis?
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Yes, was there direct infringement?
>> We did a collective action for all the visual artists who are at Pictoright, but we also made ‑‑ we named a couple of visual artists, like Dali and photographers. We claimed rights for them specifically. So ‑‑ and there is ‑‑ and we also claimed an amount of money for them in advance to do ‑‑ how do you say that ‑‑ when we are ‑‑ when we will win, the archive has to say which works they all use and then they have to ‑‑ but ‑‑
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: No, that's very interesting.
>> That was the basis, yes.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: It's quite interesting.
>> But the collective action will probably be okay. Yes.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: I'll have to look into that. Sounds fascinating.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: So that leaves us very nice exactly half an hour for questions and discussions, which is just as I planned it. You know, megalomania again, time falls into place type of thing. So yeah, we've heard some quite interesting things. First we'll hand it to the audience that is here to see if you have questions or comments to presenters, and then for potential for on‑line participation. So I see one hand already here. Okay. If ‑‑ anyone who asks a question, please tell us who you are, where you're from. Thanks.
>> SUSAN ANTHONY: Susan Anthony, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, Virginia, United States. My question is simple. Where do museums fit in all of this?
>> PAOLO LANTERI: Well, thanks a lot. I think it's an extremely important question. I didn't want to put it in my opening remarks because it was already a lot of meat in the material. But first of all, from the ‑‑ generally speaking, in several nations, limited exceptions for libraries and archives could potentially apply and applies in many instances for museums. And this also emerges from ‑‑ from the Canada study in 2008. Specifically to the future, towards the future, I think we have a major change in our discussion in WIPO, because for the first time, or for the first time in this fashion the international council of museums came to our committee and made the case for their need for limitations and exceptions. So basically suddenly everyone started to look at the document, and we actually realized the document was already including the draft treaty ‑‑ it was including several instances, the mention of museums, on the side of library archives and museums.
Of course we all understand there are differences. We all understand there are differences, but in terms of preservations of these ‑‑ for instance, pictures or like access to the repertoire and so on, I think there are good arguments to consider them as possible beneficiaries of these limitations and exceptions. So towards the future we also ‑‑ we are asked to produce a specific global survey, following the same structure of the libraries and archives, for museums. It will be available next year, and the scope of that ‑‑ of that ‑‑ of the study will be WIPO Member States. So we are looking forward to that, to see really also from ‑‑ besides the already I would say ‑‑ like first side authorization, academic research, deliberation of what this the search results ‑‑ the scope of search results will be. I'm sure you are to ‑‑
>> STUART HAMILTON: I'll also say a couple of words, Paolo said, yes, there's likely to be some potential uses of a library in the treaty for the museums community. IFLA has a sort of strategic partnership and relationship with the big equivalents in the museums, the archives, the monuments and sites. So ICANN I think is the organisation that comes to WIPO. Or rather they've come to WIPO sort of like once or twice. So they actually haven't really been involved in this process, but they seem to be quite keen to be involved now. And that's fine, because there's elements of this which really could be picked up. But we would be concerned if the work that we've been pushing for for five or six years was delayed, slowed. We've already noted how snails pace this is. So we would be concerned if we took a detour off and started expanding this, notwithstanding the fact that there are elements of this treaty that could be ‑‑ your treaty proposal that could be useful.
And the museums themselves need to get their house in order with what they want to see happening, because as directly they don't yet know. So that's ‑‑ that's obviously a stumbling block when you ask them directly, what do you want to see in this, what do you think will happen, they haven't formulated a response yet. But that's not to say that there isn't an element in this which could be of benefit to them. But then we're going into the nice discussion of some sort of WIPO‑type politics here, just off on the left‑hand side.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Cristiana was also going to ‑‑ direct follow‑up, yeah, thanks.
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: I guess where I'm having some hesitation is because I is because I do a lot of work with American Indian cultures in the United States, and I am thinking of many artifacts but also many texts that could find themselves properly housed in a museum or an archive or a library, and at the end of the day I would think we would all have a shared concern that similar materials are treated similarly, or maybe not. I don't know, but that's the reason for my question this morning ‑‑ or this afternoon.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Before I talk with ‑‑ to also answer, are you concerned about possible misappropriation of these artifacts or ‑‑ if they get housed in digital formats? Or is that ‑‑ is that your concern or ‑‑ I'm not sure ‑‑
>> STUART HAMILTON: Are you concerned that they won't be preserved?
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Okay. Thanks. I misunderstood. Thank you.
>> SUSAN ANTHONY: Yeah, the Brazilian delegation and Brazil, we talked a little bit with ICANN and representatives in Brazil, and then we raised some common points that you already have in the libraries proposed that could fit the museums' purpose, like preservations, copies for preservations, DRM, contracts is another issue that would be the same for the museums and libraries, the protections of intermediaries, like people who work for museums, their responsibility for intermediaries, and the translation rights. So we came up with these common points, and ‑‑ but as Stuart said, the museums, they are not being very proactive in this, and I think that what would be more productive is to make them join the libraries in this discussion and not just have 20 years of more discussions to get a treaty.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Yes, Arletta? No? You don't have any comments on that or ‑‑ on museums?
>> Well, with the museums it's ‑‑ I think it's more easy to see who the rightholders are or to have ‑‑ they all have a direct relation to the artist, but with the preservation, I think, that's perfectly fine, of course. And we already have it in the Dutch law, it's already in there. So ‑‑ but with Pictoright, we are having ‑‑ we already have a good contract with the museum. We also have a cooperation where all the museums fall under, and they have a Broadway of using ‑‑ if they can use the material in a Broadway, even on the social network. Yes. Also ‑‑ well, always with the name of the artist in there, of course.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Makane?
>> I think nothing to add.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Okay. I have another follow‑up on museums, but I'll leave that in case we have time. Yes?
>> My name is Reala Balooshy, I'm a Ph.D. student. I have a question for Ms. Gonzalez. You mentioned that in this legal file sharing system that the money collected from the ISPs would be distributed depending on how many works would be like shared. How do you see the interface between that and privacy of the users? How would that be addressed?
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: That's one of the problems of this proposal. That's why so many activists are against it, but there is some softwares developed to protect it, your privacy, while you are measuring that. So it would be a software that could protect you.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Okay. Yeah?
>> RICK LANE: I have a follow‑up ‑‑ Rick Lane, 21st Century Fox. The first person spoke about how many terabytes of information are transferred now across the net?
>> A lot.
>> RICK LANE: A lot. So getting back to that other question that the gentleman just asked, and you're talking about, you know, one country, Brazil, you have peer‑to‑peer, you legalize peer‑to‑peer file sharing. Who's going to keep track when other countries are tapping into that and who's paying them? You have the cost of the collection societies. You mentioned ‑‑ how much was the amount of money that you would collect on $2?
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: Almost $2 ‑‑
>> RICK LANE: How much?
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: $2.
>> RICK LANE: What was the total amount of revenue?
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: $150 million.
>> RICK LANE: So the average price of our movies to make is 1 do million, and we spend $2 billion a year on television production, another 3 1/2 billion on movie production. 100 ‑‑ it wouldn't even pay for one movie at one studio, the cost of the potential piracy of around the world. Because if you legalize peer‑to‑peer in one country, what stops everybody from tapping into that .bz Web site and illegally sharing it all over the world and we're only getting $150 million from Brazil?
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: You're going to get $150 million for the whole globe because Brazil does that, other countries must do that because otherwise it's going to ‑‑
>> RICK LANE: But that's not necessarily the case. I mean, countries don't protect Intellectual Property now and why would they incentivize and charge their own people when they can get it for free.
>> CRISTIANA GONZALEZ: It's not for free.
>> RICK LANE: No, but if you legalize it in Brazil, first five years, because laws take a while to pass, and you legalize peer‑to‑peer sharing in Brazil, you'll have people around the world not paying into the system, and when their governments try to go back and say, we are now going to charge you $2, they're going to fight back and say, no way, why are we going to pay? They're not paying the $1.99 for music now. Why would they pay ‑‑ and plus trying to keep track of every copyrighted work going across the net with two gazillion terabytes of information and keeping track all over ‑‑ you basically create a state of privacy concerns that would be second to none and make the NSA look pretty tame by comparison.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: I had a ‑‑ have a question ‑‑ or a follow‑up, I think, to that, right here.
>> AUDIENCE: Yeah, just a remark. I think you're having the underlying assumption that if file sharing is legal, nobody pays for content anymore, but of course filmmakers make revenue from cinema sales, from people paying for streaming services, from merchandise, all of that goes into the financing of movies. So I would say it is already legal in certain legal areas to download films or to watch streams. So this has not led to nobody paying for content.
>> RICK LANE: But you imagine a Netflix would not exist today if you had peer‑to‑peer file sharing. And in legal peer‑to‑peer file sharing in the U.S., if Mastercase had gone the other way or Rockster, you would not have Netflix today. What is the incentive for them to pay us for their content if a competitor would be a free service that's not having to pay for anything? And it's the same content.
>> AUDIENCE: Well, incidentally, we don't have Netflix in Germany, unfortunately, but I pay for Spotify, even though I could download the same music for free, but I use Spotify as a matter of convenience because being offered a service is something people are willing to pay for. It's not necessarily the case that if there is a legal way of downloading something for free, that this is necessarily the ‑‑
>> RICK LANE: Spotify is the rightholder, so they're being put ‑‑ either they would be put at a competitive disadvantage of a site that's not doing the same thing. So if you legalized it, there would be no Spotify, because who would invest in Spotify if you can invest in a ‑‑ that doesn't have to pay for anything.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: This is stimulating, but this is a peer‑to‑peer debate. I think some of the proposals that are being bandied about, Brazil thinks file sharing and things like that are very narrow, specific things that are more akin to, for example, sharing of information. But yeah, you can go for it.
>> STUART HAMILTON: So I think there's some good points here on both sides, and I'm going to have to come back to what it means to be a librarian and a member of a great tribe that's involved in cultural preservation so that people in the future can actually access it, people can write novels, make movies, et cetera, et cetera, because they have access to it. And I think that libraries and then to a similar extent over the last ten years, the visually impaired, are getting caught up in the discussion about how easy it is to copy zeros and ones. And actually all the time that we are discussing ‑‑ all the time that we conflate these two sorts of issues, we don't do anything about the big problem the visually impaired had for such a long time, and as I said in my opening presentation, we run the risk of just letting a significant period of our digital content output just be a kind of black hole, because I think we will solve this eventually, and we'll come to some sort of arrangement.
But if that arrangement is in like ten years' time, 15, 20 years' time, we call it a digital black hole. But there's going to be plenty of stuff now. We already know that material from the late '90s, 2,000s is in this black hole and it's not going to get out because of copyright length of time, et cetera, et cetera. I just can't see why as a society we'd really think that's a really good thing.
So it is good to hear, and I think you're correct that there's not really any fundamental opposition to libraries doing their job, but because what we're talking about here is transfer of digital files, we unfortunately get caught up in these sorts of debates, and we're going to have to start pleading, getting down on our knees and saying, look, Linux, we pay license fees where we need to pay license fees. We have strict adherence to copyright. We teach our users about copyright, and I don't think there's too many other professions or intermediaries that do that with the people that come through the doors. We do literacy in schools and I know there's Intellectual Property in that. So we have to unfortunately move ourselves outside of this a little bit. Even though as a user of ‑‑ as a consumer of music and movies I want to get into this, I find it fascinating but I have to keep my library hat on here and say don't confuse the two issues because we're going to do ourselves a disservice if we don't find a way to preserve all of this stuff.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: I agree. Any questions? Yes.
>> I would like to add something about file sharing, that in Turkey, file sharing and piracy in general also serves as a way of circumventing censorship. In a country where hundreds of thousands of books are banned and hundreds of movies are still banned, we use file sharing to circumvent censorship as well.
>> RICK LANE: And I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate reasons to do certain things in certain countries. That's not what the argument here ‑‑ similar to the library argument. We're not talking about people using, you know, DNS, alternate DNS services to get around different things for political purposes. That's a whole different conversation. I mean, we are very much about free speech and we love our content to get into every country. We are blocked ourselves in a lot of countries. But that's different including just like the library issues, there are exceptions. But even your local station here, Fox ‑‑ your Fox station here there are currently 57 sites that are illegally streaming their content virtually at the same time they're doing it and they're paying the licensing fees and the other sites are getting advertisement revenue and not paying and that hurts the creation of local stations here.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: I wish I had the powers to ‑‑ to do something like I did with my students. If anyone mentions file sharing again I fail you. (laughter) But I can't.
>> I was mentioning the streaming. (laughter)
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: No, no, well played, sir. Well played. Okay. Any other question not related to file sharing?
>> STUART HAMILTON: Can I ask a question? I think there is some interesting things here and it's great to have you in the room, sir, because I think you can give a different perspective and I wanted to pick up the extended collective licensing because actually that is a solution. It will be a solution in regions and in countries, and it works quite well in Scandinavia. And it's certainly been looked at and I think questions on it in the EU copyright sort of review, et cetera, et cetera. So we have libraries working quite happily under extended collective license agreements. It doesn't work for all of them.
There's huge opposition in the U.S., so you're never going to get U.S. librarians in there. They say it's incompatible with fair use. If we get into one of these agreements we can't do what we can already do under fair use. So we can see it as a kind of solution that is going to prolong the patchwork.
So some countries can kind of get ahead, and that's pretty decent. You know, that's going to be great for the Dutch and the Scandinavians, and I'm kinds of all for that in the short‑term, but it will prolong the patchwork. So I guess where I sort of bring in a bigger question here, because IFLA is asking for an international framework, as I said, not to harmonize but to provide basic standards, but is there any possibility ever that we will get to a global license? And this is where I'm sort of looking at our colleague from Fox over there just as you're checking your phone.
But I mean, people now use content globally. If you ‑‑ if I want to download something tonight from eMusic, I'm expecting to be able to do it from my computer in my room and not get the message, "Sorry, this isn't available in the Netherlands at the time," which is where my account is based. That's just mind blowingly shortsighted. But I've spoken to people in the recording industry association of America who say, look, actually we're ready to move with this right away, but the territorial nature of collecting societies means this is practically impossible because you will destroy their business model, and we work close with IFLA and these organisations. That to me is kind of interesting because we're then running up against an entrenched industry that basically generates its money and its profits by dividing the world up into territories at exactly the same time as most of the world's population have stopped bothering about territories on the Internet. And I just wondered from your perspective whether a global license is ever possible.
>> RICK LANE: Here's the problem with the global license, is who is paying for that global license, because what happens is you want to create local distributors within the country, within the region. You want to incentivize a cultural ‑‑ a show that's created in Turkey, right, you can't sell a global license to anybody for a show that may not have a global audience. And so you run into that problem. You also run into the problem of how movies sometimes are funded, which is you sell the rights to a region and they invest in the movie before happened, it's like a kickstarter idea. You know, you invest in us early, you have the exclusivity to do that in your territory. That's very important for independent films. That's how they get funded is they will sell each country and each territory before the film is made and get the dollars, then make the movie, and they have that exclusivity, no one know if it will be good or not. Not every movie is successful, we wish, but it's not the case.
What happens if you talk about a global license, really the only ones who can do it are the big players. You have Google. They could probably afford a global license, but a company in Turkey, they can't afford a global license, you know, potentially. I don't think they have the reserves, the billions of dollars that a Google or a Facebook has. So what ends up happening is you will have a very few local ‑‑ distributors in a globally licensed world.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: I see this a bit like ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE: Sorry ‑‑ (laughter).
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: No, no, it's very interesting. I see global licensing like Netflix, I know it's been talked about before, but I always ‑‑ you know, you're funding lots of things for the same ‑‑ with the same pot of money and for each orange is a new black you get one hemlock groove, nobody watches. Anybody familiar with both shows?
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: You get different funding ‑‑ you fund both the successes and the utterly abject and horrid failures. Anyway, global licensing is a nice place to end. Any questions? Any more interventions? We've meandered away from some of the topics.
I did have a question that I had reserved to ‑‑ for the panel, sort of following up on the museums question. Something that I've seen a concern about with regards to the digitalization of works that are in the public domain and then memory institutions claiming copyright over that. And I was wondering if the panelists have encountered something like this, which is let's say a museum digitizes a picture and it ‑‑ that is in the public domain and then they try to sell something or include a subscription fee for something like that. I was thinking if that's something the panelists encountered at all.
>> STUART HAMILTON: Yeah, I'd say it's bad form, as we might say in the U.K. I mean, it does happen, and I think some of you may be familiar with the European honour project who have been pushing quite strongly on sort of public domain licensing and stuff like that. And yeah, they try to really push people not to do things like that, because that kind of re ‑‑ that really defeats the purpose of sort of the access to knowledge sharing of culture. So no, we're not into that.
>> I have a question. Where do they claim the copyright on? On the picture made of the work which is in public domain?
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Yeah, yeah.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Because it's a threat ‑‑ in the United States it wouldn't fly probably because, again, this is something I've repeated before, but the threshold is different in the United States. Probably it would not meet the threshold of originality, but digitization in Europe probably could meet the requirement, and so the act of putting something and digitizing it, a picture, would create a new copyright. Yeah, I think it's ‑‑
>> I don't think it should work like that. No. 70 years might be enough. (laughter)
>> Not long enough.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Yep.
>> SUSAN ANTHONY: But consider it from this perspective, because I ‑‑ and I ‑‑ in another life I also am an historian of an aspect of American history, and one of the concerns that historians have is in using materials from libraries where there is only one copy of a work that is now in public domain or very, very few copies, very, very hard to find. So libraries often do have terms and conditions, which are not imposed by copyright because the text or illustration is out of copyright. Nonetheless, I bought the car, I wash the car, I maintain the car, I house the car, I feed the car. So shouldn't I get something when you say, I'll borrow the car. And I think that's the thought behind what a number of institutions ‑‑ what number of university libraries are doing.
>> STUART HAMILTON: Yeah, and this is connected to sort of digitization of orphan works that is sometimes ‑‑ these things cost a lot of money to do a mass digitization project for a publicly funded institution, hugely expensive. So often you go into a public/private partnership to do the work, and then off the back of that you say to your private partner, you can exploit this work for N number of years. So whilst we find that's something we have to sort of live with, our concern is making that period of commercial exploitation as short or as appropriate as possible, and I think, you know, we haven't got explicit standards and guidelines on this, but it's difficult for libraries, because if people come to you and say, we'll help you digitize this and then basically we're going to make money off it for 15 years or you're not going to get it digitized at all, and then the library looks and says, well, we can't afford to do it our own on. What do we do, stick to principles or digitize the collection?
So many libraries are ‑‑ I wouldn't call it sort of dancing with the devil, but you want to make sure that that period is quite tight and appropriate, I think. So that sort of thing does happen. I'm not really into the thing where full stop, the thing suddenly then becomes a protected piece of work.
>> But at that point you're leaving out the actual author. You're doing ‑‑ you're making a good deal for you. The company that's privatizing it is making a good deal for them and not paying for the investment into your guys, and who's left out in the cold is the authors, who aren't being paid.
>> STUART HAMILTON: It depends, because this is what copyright exceptions are for.
>> (off mic)
>> STUART HAMILTON: No, for society. So it depends entirely how you ‑‑ sorry?
>> (off mic)
>> STUART HAMILTON: Well, as I say, at the moment it's so difficult to get any digitization projects off the ground. It's literally the only ‑‑ for some people it's the only kind of thing.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: Yes?
>> MAKANE FAYE: Yeah, I just wanted to indicate that the libraries ‑‑ the documents are used by people who are from outside, for their own purpose. So many times private use, sometimes it is ‑‑ in some of the copyright material they ask the person to sign and say what everybody is going to use it for to be allowed to use it, or else the library has to pay for the copyright or whatever. And ‑‑ but some countries like Nigeria, as long as they have the document is not available in the country, you are allowed to make a copy ‑‑ three copies of it, in fact, and make it available for research institutions and so on. So I think this aspect is very important, because the document which you are giving to our users are most of the unavailable wherever they are giving it, because sometimes they are in the U.S., sometimes they are in the U.K. or sometimes they are even in Swaziland where you oh ‑‑ or you are in the U.K. where you want to use it. So it's not available in the country. So those are exceptions I think we should put in.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: I agree. I was going to finish with a question of ‑‑ to everyone. If I give you a wish ‑‑ my megalomania powers of ‑‑ of what would you change, but I think we've overrun. I don't know. Just one or two words. What would you change of the system? Currently if you wanted anything done with the current copyright and international regime? Anyone? If you had one wish what to change. I don't know. What would WIPO do?
>> If I may, I won't express WIPO's wish in this forum, but Paolo's wish. I think it's something that's been mentioned over and over again in this IGF, not only in this panel, that solutions to these kinds of challenges. For instance, preserving the material in a way that is balanced requires not only laws, not only licensing, but it requires, again, standards, technology, on which we need to ‑‑ agree needs to be ‑‑ cannot be left ‑‑ at least in my first sight cannot be completely left to private initiatives that are not linked together. I don't see ‑‑ I think this is a key part of the solution, and to date I don't see any truly promising process to find this common solution. Because there are astonishing technology ‑‑ in Europe. I don't even want to go and mention them. They are all great, but still they won't solve the issue because you have competitors and so on.
So my wish ‑‑ it's not a great wish, but at least it would be very important, I think for international community, to set a framework that could potentially lead to a truly global and accepted solution, and that would include several layers, cannot include only government but it would need to include governments as well, because they are the lawmaker. That's maybe protective of an old ‑‑ an old ‑‑ in civil ‑‑ international civil servant. But I think we need to bring it all together and try to find a common solution. This would be something that at least will let us see the light at the end of the tunnel.
>> ANDRES GUADAMUZ: On that optimistic note I think it's a good note to end this, and I would like everyone to ‑‑ who's left to show your appreciation for the panelists for a very excellent panel. Thanks very much.