Intellectual property rights in the digital environment – PL 01 2012
14 June 2012 | 11:00-12:30
Programme overview 2012
- Elfa Ýr Gylfadóttir, Media Commission
- Stuart Hamilton, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
- Ludo Keizer, Bits of Freedom
- Michael Rotert, EuroISPA and eco
- Anna Wesslau, Swedish Radio
- Jérémie Zimmermann, La Quadrature du Net
- Wolf Ludwig, EURALO
- Matthias Traimer, Federal Chancellery Austria
Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-719-481-9835, www.captionfirst.com
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
>> OLA BERGSTROM: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats so we can continue. I would like to start with a small change in the Youth meets CoE SG Jagland programme this afternoon. The time has changed from 3:45 to 3:15. It's still in room 202 for those participating.
It's also possible to sign up for one of 24 speaking slots in the plenary 7, the last plenary tomorrow. All participants are invited. It's just to sign up online under the latest news. So it's a first come, first served basis. Please sign up.
Now let's go to the last session before lunch on Intellectual Property rights, and I leave the floor to the moderators.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Good morning. Now it's the first real working session.
Intellectual Property rights, it's a topic in the digital environment. Most of you will expect or know, we are talking about a continuous burner, something that is a runner as we got the various topics in the events like that. Why is that so? Because we haven't found any solutions so far. It's an ongoing process. It deals with the core issues of the information society. And so if you are informed in copyright, you are right in this session. If you are an opponent, you are right. If you are a defendant of copyright, you are right as well. But tell us not too complicated here.
I have here a panel. Before I come to the panel and introduce you, ladies and gentlemen here, there are even people here in the room who say don't talk about all these copyrights. Let's get rid of it. We should think about alternative models.
If I look around, Yost was just in the room. You are the guy who says copyright is old fashioned. We don't need it. Why?
>> AUDIENCE: It's not only about copyright, it's about the market forces. We live in a world in which there are few companies that control the human communication we have, and they should cut them in many pieces by using competition policies. At the same time, we see that we use copyright as an investment protection. So if you take it away, abolish it, at the same time we have level playing fields, normal market, and many artists will do fairly well.
One more point. Copyright is not Democratic. I may not change the world. I may not speak back. I should behave like a passive consumer. Let us get rid of copyright and restore democracy.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: So this session is not propaganda about copyright.
So we have here on the panel, and I tried to do it in the order as they are sitting here, Stuart Hamilton. Stuart is from IFLA, from the – he is the Director of the Policy and Advocacy of the International Federation of libraries. He is a lot dealing with freedom of speech. Access, you say, it's twins, the right to access.
Michael Rotert, sorry to say as I get older, a dinosaur, meanwhile on panels like this. You were also the President, Vice President of EuroISPA, and we are very interested in what you say from the ISPA.
Ludo Kaizer, I was just asking how I should introduce you. You are an independent, an individual expert, as regards – and also moderating people to think more about it, we will get your personal views.
Anna Wesslau, you are working in the context of public broadcasting, and maybe you are afraid a bit after the words you just heard from Yost that we should eliminate copyright. You would maybe lose your job. Maybe you can react directly to that.
Jeremie Zimmermann, he is from the La Quadrature du Net.
And then Elfa. I've known you more than 20 years. Maybe you can say your last name.
>> ELFA GYLFADOTTIR: Elfa Gylfadottir.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: You have a Government perspective especially from the view of a small country.
Maybe, Anna, what do you think? Do we need a new concept of copyright? Do we maybe do some change, as we just heard, of a new whole system? What is your direct reaction to this?
>> ANNA WESSLAU: I'm not sure we need a whole new concept of copyright. I think it's pretty good as it is. I think it's sometimes a bit misunderstood what copyright is. I mean, it is about the single author from the beginning, the single song of a song writer, creating his own music. How can we protect him or her and his or her works? How – why shouldn't they be able to get something out of what they are doing? And I haven't seen any solution to that, if we should just abandon copyright.
And as working on a – (Technical difficulty)
I deal with it on a daily basis. We use a lot of copyrighted works. We should do that, with a wide range of it that we do.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: What do you say, as far as I understood, you're working especially, for example, on the Swedish reform of copyright as well. What would you say are the biggest challenges to explain it? Because there are not so many real core copyright specialists here in the room, neither am I. If you have to explain it simple, what would you say for somebody who is working in law and trying to reform it? What are the biggest challenges that have to be changed in the digital environment?
>> ANNA WESSLAU: The biggest challenges is probably in people's mind, how to not take anything that is for free. I mean, if it's digital and it's easy to take, then it's very hard to make them not to. So maybe the biggest challenge for law is to make something – to do something to hinder that. But at the same time, to do something to really make easy access for the public to be able to get copyrighted works, like we do, like we try to make everything available. But we broadcast, and a lot of things that we don't broadcast that we want to make available on the net, too, so that is maybe the great challenge to make it easy to do that.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Making everything for free, is this a cliche, especially young people who should or have a voice here, to take everything for free?
>> JEREMIE ZIMMERMANN: There is no such thing as “free.” When you share music or movies on the Internet, you do it with a computer that you paid, mass storage that you paid, some of that money goes back to the authors. You use the Internet, which is expensive, and you use your attention. Value lies in attention. And this is what some people who experiment with business models today understand and foster.
What I think is at issue? We can talk forever about concepts such as protecting the artists and wishful thinking about this. But protect the artists from who? From themselves? From the rest of the world? Or the producers or the intermediaries who make them sign those contracts where they get nothing in the end? I think we can try forever to say we will combat a practice that is widespread and that millions of people do every day. And we should increase the means of combating, you know, and use the law to try to make everybody change their behavior. This is not my vision of a society.
For me, it is not the society that adapts to the law but the law that adapts to society. So we should do it the other way around. We should look at the practice. We should look at culture, practice, and from there imagine what the law should be. And when you look at the practice of file sharing, peer-to-peer file sharing, even the French three strikes authority, in its very own study, demonstrates undeniably that people who do file sharing are people who spend more for culture. And people who run libraries tell you that the people who borrow more books in libraries are also the people who buy more books. The more you have access to culture, the more you love it. The more culture is important, the more you spend for culture.
To me, first of all, sharing of files between individuals, and not for profit, should be made legal. And then we can think on how to fund creation in a digital environment.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: You were speaking about –
– about this question of, let's say, access to information at libraries and so on. It's a good, I think, question for you students. Could you just explain to us from the library's side, and when you say also the libraries, also, they are the, let's say, institutions that should care for direct access to information.
Do they have problems with copyright? Of course they have.
>> STUART HAMILTON: We do have problems with copyright, but libraries and librarians as a profession respect copyright very much and we respect balanced copyright frameworks.
Libraries, of course, are the institutions who collect our cultural output, preserve it and make it available, free to low cost for all of our citizens. So we play an extremely important role in the community to enable people to take existing ideas, build upon them and create new cultural works. So we have at the moment, I think we're looking on every society with horror at drafts of legislation that concentrates on enforcement, SOPA, PIPA, TPPA, HADOPI, it goes on and on. In these pieces of legislation, the public interest is shunted to the side.
And we find in the library community that there is not enough emphasis on the flexibility that needs to be in copyright. The specific problems we're facing is that the exceptions and limitations to copyright, which enable libraries to preserve information, enable to you borrow books, enable us to format shift types of work to make sure that we can back it up. These are not up to date with the digital age. So a major problem is that we are dealing with analog copyright frameworks in a digital age.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: As with the library, with the ISPs, Michael, there seems to be kind of seemingly endless conflict between copyright holders and ISPs. Is this right or could you just briefly explain whether you see the big problem from ISP sides?
>> MICHAEL ROTERT: Well, it's always said from the rights holders industry, so I'll name them this way, that the ISPs are the gatekeepers, because they provide the access. And for the ISPs, it's the easiest way to stop illegal copying and to interfere with the traffic and to prevent unauthorized access to content.
I mean, we had this discussion this morning talking about the online world and the off line world, and I'm just fed up with this distinction. There is only one world, and it's not an online and an off line world.
Someone has something he wants to sell, and then he has to protect his goods he wants to sell, and has to protect and talk to his customers. And not asking someone in between, an intermediary: Can you please take care of my business? No. That is not the right way.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: You say forget the intermediary, that's a part of life.
>> MICHAEL ROTERT: Access ISPs are intermediaries and they shouldn't deal with content. They should transport the bits and bytes and nothing else.
If you make technicians as gatekeepers for content for culture, for everything, then good-bye world.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Okay.
Before I come to others, we want to have maybe a short part from Michael Moore on copyright law, who is an artist.
>> Do you think it's a good thing that your message gets spread or what do you think?
>> MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I don't view the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with other people, as long as they are not doing it to make a profit, as long as they are not, you know, trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that.
But I do quite well, and I don't know, I make these books and movies and TV shows because I want things to change, so I want people to see them and get better. And so I'm happy that that happens.
Should I not be happy? I don't know. It's like if a friend of yours gave you – had the DVD of my movie and gave it to you to watch one night, is that person doing something wrong? I'm not seeking any money from them. But he is just handing the DVD to you so you can watch my movie, the DVD that he bought. But you're not buying it yet you're watching it, without paying me any money.
You know, see, I think that's okay. That's always been okay. Right? You share things with people.
(End of video)
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Okay. So I don't have problems if people download the material, that's what Michael Moore says, but not for profit. Did you ever download something illegal, Ludo? Should we put you in jail?
>> LUDO KAIZER: You know, a lot of times it's easier to steal something online than to buy it online. For many years, yes, it was easier to find something not in the store online.
So, basically, you know, whether it's Torens or whatever, many times you can get your content.
But if I can address this copyright issue from a youth perspective. And I'm sorry, I still have a beard. I tried to shave it but I couldn't find a razor in this break.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: I tried to look as young as you.
>> LUDO KAIZER: I was speaking to hundreds of youngsters about copyright. I have to agree with one of the remarks that I heard from the crowd here is that youngsters are completely different age wise, when it comes to experience, when it comes to how they treat the Internet. But one thing is kind of global, as I can say, you know, it counts for almost all youngsters. They don't understand copyright. It's just too difficult. It's not clear. So, basically, what a lot of youngsters are saying, copyright, I'm not too worried about. What they say is there should be a fair business model for creators. They should be able to make a fair amount of money. At the same time, what youngsters are really worried about is open access. And I don't know if any of the people here in the crowd use draw bucks. Raise your hand. There are a lot of people, right?
(Showing of hands)
All of you know what happened to Mega upload. 66.6 million accounts were seized. The same thing can happen to draw bucks. You'll lose all of your content right there, and that's what youngsters are afraid of, open access, and that's because of companies that basically the youngsters don't have anything to do with. Record companies, the middle man, they are blocking open access for youngsters, and they have taken away their freedom of open Internet. And that is something that they worry about and that is something that we have to address right here.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Thank you.
Elfa, blocking. Sometimes this is for filtering, this is sometimes combined with the Governments, their authorities and so on.
The Icelandic authorities. Do they think sometimes of blocking illegal content, filtering or so? Let's say what is from you, from the side of a regulator, the biggest challenge as regards to finding this balance between access to information on the one hand and on the other hand the human right and property?
>> ELFA GYLFADOTTIR: Thank you. I think in Iceland, as in most countries, there is this huge debate on, you know, what is the right way to go? But I would say that from a policy and from a regulator perspective, there are several reasons why this current IP regime is not working. And especially for a small country.
First I would like to mention that we are seeing all these new business models emerging. And we are trying to fit it into an old fashioned way, where we have traditional media. We have the concept of music being an album and so forth. And just recently there was a new album that was released by Beirsk, who is an Icelandic singer, but that is not really an album. It's an album but it's also an artwork. People are encouraged to use it, to learn from it, to create new music by using that as a base. And so from a policy and a regulator perspective, how do you deal with that? So this is one of the things that I want to mention.
The other one is that we have this concept of territory, that you can't access some content unless you have an IP number in a certain jurisdiction.
And I think that most people who are living in big countries, they are getting a lot of legal alternatives this way. But in small countries, for example, like Iceland, this is posing a big – a huge challenge. Because obviously these big companies, they are going into the big markets, where it is lucrative to have their business. But you are getting into a very small market. This means that with, for example, Icelandic users who are hungry for content, they don't have iTunes, Apple TV and so forth, but you have savvy Internet users who really know how to get a VPN, IP number from the U.S. And so alike, and this is, you know, get posting difficulties. The domestic alternatives very often are quite expensive. They are not that many.
And then of course the third alternative that we are seeing, for example, in Iceland, due to this lack of legal alternatives, is downloading.
>> Thank you very much. Actually, we both had a quite fine round of first interaction. Thank you. Co-moderator, no, I'm your co-moderator. I'll turn it over to the audience.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Thanks a lot for this interesting introductory statements. I think this will prepare the floor for our discussion now.
I would like to ask our remote participation moderator whether you have questions from the remote participants?
>> MODERATOR: Not yet.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: But I'm sure you will do your best to keep them in the loop. And you come back to us whenever there are questions or other comments.
Let's open the floor now. I will make the bridge between our key panelists, and Matthias already introduced you.
In my perception, one of the most controversial subjects, when it's been an IP debate. And there is another aspect normally, or in many cases, Internet Governance is perceived as very abstract. But IP goes down to our daily lives. Even my daughters, I have inter week, internal, almost sometimes daily exchanges, questions, on IP issues, on access issues, and all of them are interrelated.
And they – there is even some debate that is a concept of property in the context of intellectual property is questioned by many people. A lot of people say well, property is something from the material world, where you have real estates of whatever you own, but it doesn't fit into the information averages where information needs to be shared.
Therefore, again, you are working since 20 years on the issue. You have one of the most radical approaches I know, and I would like to give you – you to give us a short summary on what are your conclusions.
>> AUDIENCE: First, there is an interesting text on the screen. Intellectual Property for the 21st century. We don't need oil. The last thing we need to have in this century is oil. The same is right for Intellectual Property. Several people were speaking about other business models, and that is the question we are raising.
And I think the most important question we have is that our cultural fields, our cultural landscape, has been dominated and is dominated by a few companies who really control what our human communication is. They don't censor, but they make decisions, they promote, they have huge marketing budgets, and that's the reason why a film from Germany is not crossing the border. A film from Netherlands or other countries are not crossing the border. So we have a problem. And in the digital fields there are only three or four companies for control, in the field of book distribution, the field of music distribution, et cetera. And so they make the choices. They set the condition, the ambiances. So we have to revitalize competition policies. Until now, it's waiting and seeing if there is an enterprise in the market who is complaining. We should have a more natural role and we have to look around to the market and to see if this company is too big. Are we punishing them, the companies, for doing well? Of course. If we say there is a size to your growth, to your size of your rates, then you know before that you should stay a middle sized company. So those companies will not have huge marketing budgets. At the same time, we should be aware that competition policy is not in favor of artists, as Jeremie and others said. Of course, most of the artists don't make a penny from copyright law. It's an investment protection to produce Blockbuster, to produce bestsellers. If you take away this investment protection, so the field is more open, we have a level playing field and – in economic, we love to have level playing fields, normal markets in which everybody can do well.
In this market, in those markets, it is unlikely that people will steal works, because my analysis says that most artists are doing at the present moment below break even, in my analysis, and that will happen after my proposals will be introduced, most artists will do a little bit above break even. So they don't need to have subsidies. The producers are doing well, but not well enough. They are not famous enough to be stolen. It might happen that it will – that some people will be free writers to well sellers, because bestsellers won't exist anymore, but those well sellers have a lot of income and CFA content.
Of course, the point of democracy, like I said before, the Institute of Copyright is not democratic. And we may not change the world. We should – at the present moment we have passive consumers and really we should reinstate democracy.
>> Thank you very much.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: We had this angle now, I would like to shift to another angle. I would like to give the microphone to Nigel. NigelHickson, he shifted society a little bit. He was a British Government official and now he is working for ICANN. I don't want to judge what is worse.
Nigel, please. You've heard all of these statements which one could say they are quite biased because they are from the critical side. What is your perception? What is your approach from a former governmental point of view?
>> NIGEL HICKSON: Thank you very much. First of all, I'm no expert. But then most people in Governments are no experts, either.
And I would say there are few experts in this field. And I think this is one of the problems. I think this debate has been going on too long, to be quite honest. I mean, I'm not saying we shouldn't have these panels. I'm sure we should have these panels, but the debate at the Council of Europe as well, the debate is the same. We need to move on. We need to evolve a new model. And I think for Governments, Governments are open to suggestions. Governments are open to ideas on how to move this debate forward. But we –
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: What is this model that you are talking about?
>> NIGEL HICKSON: The model is broken. Governments have no new ideas about how to take things forward. The enforcement, as various panel members have said, is never the solution. The Digital Economy Act in the UK, we as civil servants fought against that act, we didn't want a Digital Economy Act. We didn't want to penalize 16- or 18–year-olds that were doing file sharing. These were our daughters and sons that were doing it.
We tried to persuade ministers this wasn't the way forward. But Governments are under pressure. Governments are under pressure from their electorate, from the content owners and from the big corporations, and Governments have to do something. And whether you're in France or the UK or somewhere else, Governments feel compelled to do something.
But that something is enforcement. And enforcement on its own is never going to work clearly, and therefore the new model. But it's no good people just saying, you know, just let it rip. Let's just forget about it. Let's, you know, all share files, let's not worry. We need some sort of solution that is going to work, otherwise you're always going to have this eternal conflict.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Thanks for the complement.
Please introduce yourself, shortly.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm working to promote broadband in the Gothenburg region here in Sweden. You've already touched on my questions about we would like to put this back into focus again. When I was a teenager, 50 years ago, I had a tape recorder. I recorded from the Swedish Radio a lot of music and I don't think, neither Elvis Presley nor the Beetles were hurt by this. So what I would like to focus back on is that regulation should be more about not restricting, but allowing the market forces to work. And I'm pretty sure that this will, if not solve all the problem, it will help quite a lot. So don't forget the historical perspective.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Okay. Now the microphone goes to Bertrand de la Chapelle.
>> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: I direct the Programme on Internet Jurisdiction at the International Diplomatic Academy. I want to follow up on what Michael mentioned, because the copyright issue is one of the domains that illustrate the attention between a horizontal cross-border infrastructure and virtual legal architectural that is based on jurisdictions. And copyright is the most sensitive one, because the whole business model, as Elfa was mentioning, the whole legal architecture is based on thousands of contracts that are all based on geographic territories.
But the point I wanted to raise is a question to the panelists. You all probably are familiar with the HOHA director and BUDA cases that basically establish that any content that is under a dot com, dot net or Org, or any content under a domain name that is bought under a register is under that jurisdiction and can be seized by Homeland Security. So this is contrary, in following what Michael said, this is contrary to the separation of layers. That is one of the basis of the Internet.
Michael talked about the layer that is the transport layer, the ISPs, as neutral transporters. One of my concerns at the moment, and I'm on the board of ICANN, but I speak on a personal basis, is are we potentially transforming the domain name system into a content controlled panel? And if we do so, how far can we tinker with the separation of layers without harming the infrastructure itself and the freedom of circulation of information?
So is there a way to consider the domain name system is not the control panel of the Internet?
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Thank you for directly involving again our panel. Before we come back to our friends here, we have something from the remote participation. Yes, please.
>> MODERATOR: Hello. Good morning. We have a few interventions from Twitter and one from the remote platform.
I'll start with the comment that was tweeted just a few seconds ago from Sophia. She said if I retweet you, am I violating copyrights on the Internet? So maybe it's just some food for thought.
And the actual question comes from Olga. She said Internet is global but the laws are local. How do we bridge this? I don't see a way to make copyright work universally.
>> JEREMIE ZIMMERMANN: Before my buffer explodes because of so many questions and comments, I want to agree with many of them and try to bridge them.
First of all, like the British gentleman said earlier, yes, it's time to move on. It's time to move on, and it is a political issue now. And I have hopes that if we manage to kill ACTA in the Parliament, and there is an upcoming vote and then a plenary vote in early July, maybe we will have a momentum with enough people participating in the debate so we can counter the influence of industries and Government. I want to believe that civil servants view things with a correct mind and don't want to go for full enforcement. But in practice, it's about structures of influence. And it's about how things go on those institutions.
But most important is the question of architecture. Bertrand mentioned it earlier. It's not just the legal architecture but the architecture of society being shaped here. And when I hear that media are concentrated in a very disturbing way, I cannot agree more. But at the same time, there has never been as much creation as today. And I'm not only mentioning all those microlabels, all those independent artists that get funded, that manage to get rid of the intermediaries that get in direct contact with the public, and get funded with what they want to do.
But I'm also talking about once again the new cultural practice that emerged from remix, from mash up. For a whole generation, manipulating images and sound together has become a new grammar. Teenagers today have, with a 300 Euros computer, knowhow to manipulate movies and change the sound and put another message in the end. And they express themselves. And using copyrighted works becomes a way of expressing one's self.
And this is the collision we see between the old fashioned application of copyright, where you want to control the copy of the words because you want to protect the author, and copyrighted works being used as a mean of expression.
But just to quickly conclude on that about the architecture –
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: You will have another chance, okay?
>> JEREMIE ZIMMERMAN: Just to try to answer Bertrand, maybe we will find a decentralized way of addressing that that will make ICANN obsolete some day, and maybe this is what we should aim for.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Before we come to Michael and Stuart, just from the remote participation.
>> MODERATOR: We have three questions from remote and then something else coming from Twitter. So, Rudy from the ISOC chapter in Belgium mentioned that copyrights are a right that have evolved since the growth of the Internet and especially in the last couple of years.
The question he has is: Why the copyright owners are not taking advantage of the technology to better protect their rights and as such are saying that we all Internet users are victims? Specifically, why the industry blames always the users? Why don't they look in the mirror first?
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Michael?
>> MICHAEL ROTERT: Well, I mean, that's what I was saying before. Nigel also mentioned, we are talking about for 15 or more years, 17 years, we're talking about these issues. And if that industry would have spent the money instead of loving politicians and everything to develop the protection of their goods and the business models, we wouldn't have this discussion here today. This is one point.
Another point, to answer Bertrand's question or tried to, whenever regulation was too hard on the Internet, technicians developed something new. There were the peer-to-peer stuff, the file sharing, the peer-to-peer stuff. Everyone is talking about regulations with Internet Protocol version 4. Now Internet Protocol version 6 is coming, although the same applies – could apply to the domain name systems. We had different systems with X dot and X 500 already in place. This doesn't fit to the current model. But anyway, there might be new technologies which make those regulations obsolete and then they start from scratch again and we have the same discussions. And I'm really fed up.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Stuart and Anna and then back to the audience.
>> STUART HAMILTON: I wanted to make things more difficult. Jeremie said we have to move on and I agree, but the question is where do we move to? IFLA is working at the top to see if we can negotiate an International treaty that will mandate Member States of WIPO to place exceptions and limitations in the archives in the International archive laws. That's what we want. But in that arena that moves at a glacial pace, that is so slow. ACTA moves at a quick pace, because that started in 2008 and people were signing in 2010. The blind people at the WIPO were waiting for an International treaty that will make them swap accessible format over borders for 25 years. So this is tied up I think with what Professor Halgreves called in the UK lobby (inaudible) mixes.
We have big money influencing the debates. We heard from Nigel that the Digital Economy Act was not wanted in the UK. There was serious interests that wanted that passed. I think the solution, though I can't tell us where we need to go to, is that we must have the voice of the users in every single copyright consultation being louder and louder.
>> What is the voice of the users? How do you get this?
>> We saw the voice when SOPA and PIPA were kicked out of the U.S. Legal situation.
>> ANNA WESSLAU: We have to go back to what copyright is. We are talking about so many things now.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: That was our intention.
>> ANNA WESSLAU: What Michael Moore said was that he is okay if somebody is sharing his works as long as it's nonprofit. And we're talking about that there is amazing ways to share your stuff in different kinds of – you mentioned different systems and so on. And that is amazing. That is what we should do. But, it's all the choice of the copyright holder. And why should we take that choice from him or her?
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: The exceptions.
>> ANNA WESSLAU: Yes, we have exceptions. And making cassette tapes from Swedish recordings, you use them for your own use. The difference is that everybody's private use is world use when you publish it on the Internet.
>> And they don't allow you to take advantage of your lawful exceptions. So there is a major issue to do with protection measures. In the law you are allowed to do one thing but you are not allowed to circumvent the technical protections.
>> ANNA WESSLAU: Now I sound like the copyright hugger. But what we need is – it is the business models. And like here in Sweden, with the vast piracy with Pirate Bay and so on, and nobody wanting to do anything about it. And we have spotify. That is a great business model. And copyright holders get remuneration from it. I heard it's not much, but they do. Isn't it better steering it to legal models, instead of anything else?
And here we have one. And we also have solutions for clearing rights in the public service world here in the Nordic country, that we need a position from the west of Europe about spreading. So I mean there are solutions. But it's still the exclusive right of the copyright holder to choose if she or he wants to give away their works.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: We have a lot of participants. First as the next one is Sebastian Bachollet, and we have a gentleman here, and then I hand over to the right side I saw at least three hands raised. So, Sebastian first.
>> SEBASTIAN BACHOLLET: Thank you. First, I'm an end-user, and a member of ISOC France. I want to say that if the end-users are not in the loop, the next business model will not work. We need to be involved, whoever is the voice of end-users. You can ask this question and ask it again, but just ask us and you will have some answers.
And I would like to suggest one thing. It's to think out of the box. All the money spent to try to defend this copyright, if all this money is put to pay the author, we will be able to have free culture. Thank you.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm from Bosnia. I agree with the colleagues that say yes, we need to have the approach. But I think it's the IPs best place. I remember the colleague who was representing the youth. I saw him in Serbia and EuroDIG. You said that all of us have experience from that and to learn what Internet can bring you and how to approach to the property, et cetera, et cetera. I will go back when you said that we need to explain to the user, especially the youth, what the copyright means. It seems to me that we need new guidelines for that. The IP much more needs to sharing, sharing things. That could come easier on some dialogue with the – definitely with the youth, using them when you try to establish new legislation for the digital age.
And I'm also afraid of the thinking of the situation in my country, for example, when Mr. Hamilton said that we have analog technique for the digital age. I'm afraid to call the heritage in my country, in which sharing through the libraries, when we have one technology and we are facing totally different digital age. And I'm afraid that we are not ready. Of course can the IPs is a question for a million dollars.
I expect to heard guidelines in at least which direction we should go, but with the multistakeholder approach. Thank you.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Remote participation. A microphone please? Don't break your legs. Please. It's not worth it.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Bridging to Anna, there was a good remark made into my ear. So far it's mostly men speaking on the IP rights. Question mark. Exclamation mark.
>> MODERATOR: I'm speaking on behalf of someone from Serbia. I don't have the exact data. Maybe Vlada can tell us later. He is worried about Intellectual Property and developing countries. What he is asking is how can Intellectual Property be adopted or improved to be in favor of developing countries? Specifically, in the sense that more sharing is allowed in a way that developing countries can benefit from online content and also become better producers, produce more content.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Before we lose this question, anybody of you has an answer on that, on the relation? Is there a special need for developing countries to have a kind of special way of access?
>> I'm not an expert in WIPO. But I heard that for the last ten years, poor countries, led by the coalition of Africa countries and Brazil and India, were trying to push for another way and more protection all the time. And so negotiations got stuck at WIPO, and this is precisely why ACTA was created, so the way things go today is to go contrary to what is probably the interest of those countries, who have already models based on sharing knowledge that is good for their economies.
>> There is an element of truth. In WIPO there is a development agenda where at least developing countries can come in and are attempting to move the WIPO agenda in a direction. There are a couple of treaties proposed from the African Group, so there is some work there. But the thing that Jeremie mentioned about ACTA being a bit of a result of that, I think there is some truth in that.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: We have several from remote. But it's up to you, Wolf. Let's take the remote?
>> MODERATOR: It's a follow-up. Asking also on the developing countries, the copyright is a potential solution to help the countries to have an equal access culture.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: It was difficult. Could you repeat it.
>> MODERATOR: They are wondering why – wondering if a copyright system would be helpful in helping countries to gain equal access to culture.
>> STUART HAMILTON: I can respond quickly on that. If IFLA and the library treaty, which we are promoting at WIPO, became reality, then developing countries would have access to the same quality exceptions and limitations in the areas of libraries and hopefully education and research, the same as developed ones.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm Ramiro from Spain. We think that we have taken the middle away from full enforcement and no enforcement. In the law, the Spanish law against piracy, it's focused on business, on business, on webs who made business with illegal content. But this law is not focused on end-user, on Internet users, like the laws in France or in the UK. So I think it's a middle term, quite – not – issued after a long debate in Spain between the Government, the company, and the users.
But at the same time in Spain we are trying also to encourage not only the negative part, enforcement, but also the debate about the legal offer. So, we think that in certain – in cinema, for example, we try to promote this debate between the industry, between the users, and when I say the industry I say all the actors. The distributors, the exhibitors, the producers, and we think this legal offer must be promoted because we think that end-users sometimes go to illegal content because they cannot find this legal in the Internet. And so from the Government point of view we have to promote this debate because sometimes the industry is not able. They have not enabled to the new era.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Can you find the content, legal or illegal, or don't you care?
>> There are a couple things I would like to address. You mentioned the remix and the mash up culture. You cannot just separate users and producers that easily anymore. So if you're talking about business, and finding the middle way, if you are a fan that becomes a creator, you are almost on the way to becoming a business in a sense. So, I mean, that's a difficult distinction that you're drawing right there. And the other question you mentioned was...
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: It was just this question, if the user has, let's say, enough knowledge, what is legal or illegal.
>> Well, you know, we mentioned that earlier I think, that's really hard sometimes to find out when it's legal. And maybe a very short story that I would like to share with you, it's a Belgium teacher who taught English. And she basically gave the assignment to her class to translate Harry Potter. She gave them PDFs of Harry Potter. The kids liked it so much that they decided to translate the complete book and they finished that in a weekend. On Monday, they said if we do this much translating, well we might as well sell it. So they started selling it for one Euro.
You know, there is a lot of things you need to think about. Because copyright, it's not completely, you know, but from an educational perspective this is awesome. So, you know, these are the things that we need to think about.
And one more thing, I mean, just the things, like you mentioned in your country, you know, if there is no access to iTunes, because you see youngsters are willing to pay for licenses, you know, like iTunes or like spotify, if it's not there, there is no Netflix in Europe, so where do I get my movies from? What do you want me to do? I download them. And ISPs can block the pirate like in Holland. But the new generation don't care about a block because we get around it easily. So come on.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Thanks, Ludo, you can hear applauses.
I go quickly back to Ana for the remote participants. Yes, please.
>> MODERATOR: But I'm speaking on my behalf if that is possible.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: You should line up. Go ahead, quickly.
>> MODERATOR: As you know, I'm representing the Spanish IGF here in EuroDIG. And I welcome the participation of the Spanish Government, but I wanted to add something that was said in the idea of controlled property. And that is industry users and stakeholders, they made a point that legislation must be tackled after business models have been able to be in place. If you – if we legislate beforehand, this implies a risk of getting in the way of innovation. So current efforts, they said in this session, must be addressed not towards enacting new legislation, but rather enforcing what is already in place, and allowing – making a lot of room for businesses and users.
Also, they mentioned that telecom operators, search engines and Web portals are de facto parts of the value chain and they should be the part, and this should be reflected in the way the legislation works. Sorry to fool you with the remote participation.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: No problem. Thanks for the contribution from the national level.
Just a short remark. Besides EuroDIG, there are plenty of national IGF initiatives all over Europe, and now Almos is the coordinator of the Spanish initiative, and some of them had their own debates on the national level, feeding up these messages on the European level as we will do from the European level after that in November to the International level, International IGF. But now I give over the microphone to the ladies now and please a short introduction.
>> I'm speaking not as a lady or a woman. I'm just a professor of copyright. So I'm not very popular in the surrounding.
But there are so many things that have been sort of mixed up in the – in this meeting. Access and youth, for instance. And do they use, and the right to use, and what do we do when we reuse copyrighted material or contents that belongs to someone? As Michael Moore said, for instance, I don't object to people downloading my content. I object to people that are using it for profit or that are reusing it as mixing it and taking my Intellectual Property, my right as a creator, as the guy who had these ideas and mixing it with some other bits and pieces and transforming it without my approval, my approval. And that I think is one of the problems that we have to face and which is not solved. And that's a problem that we need to address and that goes back to 1961, I would say, is when the first and really important copyright philosophy and architecture started, when we granted neighboring rights, Intellectual Property rights, to producers. And this is when all the new business models started.
And we were facing a year ago, well, the last users in Glasos, for the fight for the extension of the copyright duration for music, music producer, and for music performers. And that is because of the lobby. And I agree with everybody who said that business models and the business lobby is powerful. But this is not copyright.
As the principles of copyright are still valid, it's a way that are twisted, that are used and misused that we should fight against.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Should I take the chance of asking if you want to react to the panelists? Do you want an immediate reaction or answer from them?
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Do you expect –
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: No. Are there any other interventions?
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Okay. Here we have a gentleman in the back who is queuing up for a long time, and then afterwards we have a second one, and I'll go back to the left side.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. My name is Jon and I'm a Ph.D. Candidate at Stockholm University. I have a reflection. We had a session before this session discussing the importance of inclusion. Isn't it strange that we have a panel of people here and there are no composers or artists?
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Let me give a quick answer. We asked WIPO to send a representative to our debate; they didn't respond. So they didn't express interest for reasons I cannot figure out at the moment.
We tried to contact associations. As you may be aware in Germany or in Switzerland, where I live, there are also associations, there are societies, and they are not interested to go to debates like this. Because Internet is more or less the evil than a challenge to some. And therefore it's difficult to have them included in such a debate. I see it as a structural problem as well. I agree with you. But it's a situation like we have it.
There was the next one from the gentleman and then Martin and then we go back, please.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm Jonas. I'm the regional coordinator for Creative Commons in Europe and Asia. I'll try to be brief, even if Axel here told me on Twitter to grab the microphone and hold on to it.
What are we talking about? I agree that there is a tweet saying that this discussion is actually quite broad. So, I'll try to get back to the issue of copyright just briefly.
What are we talking about when we are talking about copyright? Well, we're talking about the economic rights, of course. We're also talking about the moral rights. We are talking about broadcast rights. We have publisher rights and database rights and the rights and rights go on and on.
I told the EPP group when I met them in Strasbourg a couple weeks ago, this is way too complicated. If we are wondering why people make mistakes, this is why. We have a system for creative comments that deals with all of these, but for us this is tricky. One of our creative comments licenses has been to be three levels of protection or, you know, making openness happen. Depending on and with jurisdiction and depending on where things work where you happen to be. That's ridiculous.
Now, someone also said on Twitter let's not apply analog copyright on digital works. I agree with that. Creative comments would agree with that. We are not looking to abolish copyright, but we need to rethink how we're actually dealing with copyright in the digital age. So, let's change copyright and make laws that actually make sense and that are actually understandable for people, young and old.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: I have one remote participation.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Can you make Martin before.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Okay. Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm Martin here with the New Media Summer School, one of the side events of EuroDIG.
And my question is what about the gray areas, especially when it comes like stuff that is not copyrighted in Europe yet or the mash ups that we heard about earlier? In a way, I think that the creators are also present on the plenary because we are also creating as young people, but also everybody who is publishing stuff on the Web is also a creator. And that's why what about the gray areas? Is there a way to make use of them? Because right now, it feels like the gray areas are taking advantage of us. And we have these last letters of collection acts, that is really scary for me as a young person. This is what I'm referring to as gray areas. As long as there is no agreement, these gray areas should be at least so far neutral that I'm protected as a user, as a customer, and also as a citizen.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Remote participation question. Please?
>> MODERATOR: We have a question from a hub in Ukraine where there are 14 people joining us today. It's from Edward and he asks can copyright material be downloaded from the Internet at no charge for educational use? And if not, how can we make this happen?
>> JEREMIE ZIMMERMANN: I want to react but not only to this question, but to the way we are defining the problem here.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Please, also answer the question –
>> JEREMIE ZIMMERMANN: Yes, I'm not an expert in the right from that specific geographical zone. But in most zones there is an exception for educational purposes. And if there is not one, there should be one. And, actually, we are taking the problem the other way around, once again, I think, when oh, yes, copyright is so complicated and what should we do? Copyright this and that. It's just like the rest of the law. It's just a tool. We shouldn't think of copyright first and then what do we do with it. Like the previous question, what copyright to better access culture? We don't need copyright to access culture. We need a free open Internet. We need the ability to communicate together. We need the ability to participate. It's written in the declaration of man and the citizen. We have the right to participate in culture and this is what we do with a free, open and decentralized Internet.
And this is just my point here, Internet as it is, open and decentralized and universal, is our common good that we collectively own and collectively share. And this is and what it enables is by all means most precious than the way we can try to enforce any copyright law. So if you need to reuse a work for your classroom, do it. Go ahead. It is legitimate, all cultural practices are legitimate, whatever happens. If something is wrong, then it's copyright law.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Can we hand it over? You can directly respond to this aspect?
>> AUDIENCE: I had another question.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Okay. Go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much, Wolfgang, Benedict University of Grads. I'm also writing articles, books and so on, and I get a nominal fee from these collecting societies for distributing that.
But my real interest is a different one. My real interest is that this book or this article can be read worldwide, can be found by others easily. Can be used. Can inspire others. The ideas can be taken off of this article and further developed and so on. So it's not just that, that authors have a right to collect these little nominal fees. I think authors have other rights or other interests, and when it comes to new business models, we have this practice, also, in law for quite sometime. So if you go in the library, you copy my article, so the copying, you pay a small fee and in this way this is – copyright is covered. So I know that there are also similar models in the discussion for the Internet. And I didn't hear anything about it.
So far today, so I'm wondering can we get a bit more practical and precise and discuss what are these alternative business models which could address the problem? Thank you.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Thanks for this comment, Wolfgang. I agree with you. There are marvelous experts, like F. Kosmok, ++ who is working for 7 or 8 years on flat rate models. He was commissioned by the Council of Europe. He was a consultant to the Brazilian Government. Due to lack of funding, and I couldn't offer him travel or location, he couldn't participate. I would have been pleased having him on the panel for today, but we are still in a difficult situation. Hopefully next year everything will be better. We will have more money and can invite more speakers.
So the compensation models and systems are considered in the debate, we simply couldn't afford to have a specialist like F. Kosmok invited here today for our plenary.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Did you have a question over there as well? Now she is checking this lady.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: We have a long queue over here right now.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Go ahead.
>> ANNA WESSLAU: This is what the Nordic countries called the expended licenses. If you, like us, are a broadcaster, you can enter into an agreement with a rightsholder organisation, and that agreement is valid on all rightsholders of all kinds. So that is why the agreement is extended on all rightsholders. And all rightsholders are treated the same, members and nonmembers. And the nonmembers are able to – you don't get this?
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Well, I'm listening with interest. It's a good model in theory. But it doesn't work for many cases.
>> ANNA WESSLAU: It does. It has – it definitely worked for 50 years in the Nordic countries for music and literature and in the labors for private copy, and it definitely does work.
I don't know why – it's not that popular out in Europe. And what we hear is that it's appropriation of work, it's a socialistic model and so on. But it isn't. This is an agreement between two equal parties, covering real writeovers, as the Professor was talking about, and not going to the neighboring rights.
So, well, some are, but it really – the money reaches the rightsholders, the authors and so on and not the middle man and not the middle hands. And what we need is that these models can be used and the rights can be cleared in one country and have the cross-border effects. For what it is today with the Internet, you can clear the rights in one country, but the rights may not be valid in other countries. So we might be infringing rights when we post something on the Internet, and that is not good.
So what we need from the EU, and that is a suggestion, this is – can really – this could be a solution that we have the cross-border effect on these kinds of agreements.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: You are not supposed to answer now.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: I do not comment at all. I give over the microphone now to our colleague here. Please, short introduction.
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. I am Anna, and I'm a participate of the New Media Summer School and I'm a member of the Georgia Young Clans.
I want to give a general comment about this copyright issues, and the Intellectual Property stuff. Like I think you are really interested in what a 19 years old girl from Georgia really thinks about all of this stuff. So what I think is that Intellectual Property doesn't exist at all. If the Intellectual Property existed, then we shouldn't have made everything void as God made us. But we are all human, so everything – I think that everything what we do is a remix. It's a better remix, I think. We create things, which is not original, but it's new. Like look at the slide of devices. I think years ago even the castles had doors which were sliding. I have them at home. So when we find a piano and like we play suddenly a perfect note, I think it might be also a remembrance from childhood, like a remembrance like, for example, in childhood, we heard the same thing.
So I think that what we should do is to take something, and we are doing it, and giving something. This is how we youths develop and this is how the world develops. By taking something and giving something.
And if people will pay you, that's perfect. But I think that all the artists which do something shouldn't be paid. There are lots of politicians which do their job, but like – like politics, but they are not paid. So they have to work for another job. So I think the main thing is to share, because sharing is caring, at least for me.
So the question is what is copyright then if we – if everything is a remix, then everyone is a thief. Yes, this is what I think. Maybe I was nervous. But ...
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Okay. Can we keep the question for the final round?
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: A final question and then you at the panel, maybe you do not sneak away, especially, I didn't give you the chance to speak. Sorry for that. We will have time when we are in the last round.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: I'm doing as a final round here, with the audience, you only have about ten minutes left. And then we go back to the panelists.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay. Hi. I'm from the European News Press and I can tell you that we as journalists live in the remixing culture that we are speaking about since the beginning. We take quotes from you and your interviews and we remix it into articles, into rapporteur, into radio stories. And if I interview you in a break, and you would ask me, oh, and do I get some commission on this because, you know, I'm – I'm using your quotes, and I would say you're crazy.
And I think we don't have to think new ways. I think we have to trust – take the rights and cultures and like rights of quotations you already have in our culture, and don't be too restrictive on this. Otherwise, journalism wouldn't work without the rights of quotations.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Right. Thanks a lot. We have, please.
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. I'm Jacob Dixon from Union University again. I have a question directed at Ludo and Anna. There is a research project called cyber norms. I think one of the main researchers is here as well. One thing they have found is that youths don't think that Intellectual Property rights is something to be acknowledged. They don't think that you should acknowledge copyrights.
I would like to see your thoughts on the discrepancy between the law and the perception of the law in that case.
>> Ladies first.
>> ANNA WESSLAU: Thank you.
>> Well, this is an extremely unpopular intervention. It's going to be unpopular. I'm Fabrizio Mazza from the Intellectual Property Office of the Italian Government. And my way of reasoning on Internet Governance, it's thousands of miles away, but the common way of reasoning here. So I will have to be very fast and very syntactic. There is a shared illusion that we all own the Internet. Frankly, I don't share this. My opinion is that the Internet is basically completely, in the end, the United States private industries who sets the standards. Today, the Internet service provider search engine and telecom providers lobby is one of the most important business lobbies in the world.
I think that it comes after the military, the financial and energetic. The number four business lobby today is the Internet service provider, search engines and telecom lobby. They set the standards in the Internet.
What I frankly don't like are the self-appointed Internet people is that they criminalize the copyright lobby. The copyright lobby is on the losing side. It has already lost.
There is a far more powerful lobby today, which I do not criminalize, but I identify. It's not for the people, it's against the copyright lobby, you understand me, is not like this. There is a lobby today, which is the Google, the Internet service providers, the telecom lobby, which is ten, fifteen times more powerful than the copyright lobby.
Now, what I personally think is that we need to share with the Democratic rules on the Internet on intellectual property, on jurisdiction, and so on. Apparently any time in the western countries we try to think about some rules, there is an upheaval. The Internet must be free. Well, me, I grew up thinking that local rules means always or almost always be the strongest, and this is the exact situation. Lack of rules means that we don't even have rules on representation of the users.
Let’s make an example. In Italy we have 30 million approximately of Internet users, and around 2 or 3 thousand – 200,000 or 300,000 people approximate in the self-appointed category of the Internet people. Who represents these 30 million users?
Now, I’m taking too much time. If we don’t have rules on the Internet, we don’t even have rules on the representation of the millions of users. So it would be better to think about that in the future.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Thank you. I think what you are pointing at, rules, and setting the rules, and do we need rules and all these questions will be also covered in the further workshops. But I think this was an interesting intervention now, really, to give the floor back to the panel, unless there is a really urgent pressing need that somebody is completely frustrated because he or she could not speak.
But somebody was also writing that note 600 people speak, just speak, but to my mind, it’s exactly the meaning of EuroDIG that we also have wide open debate and that also other people can take the floor.
So if there is not really this urging need, then please let’s go. And, Elfa, I’m so sorry you had to wait for such a long time. But now the floor is yours. But brief as well.
>> ELFA GYLFADOTTIR: Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, we have discussed several topics here, and we have gone quite, you know, over the field. But I – my point is that I think that it’s not a good idea to have no rules at all, just as was pointed out. But we certainly have to change the rules.
And, for example, talking about Intellectual Property, you know, I guess most of us are discussing this in our home territories, in our countries, in our national IGFs, probably. And we are always dealing with this in a domestic kind of way. And the Intellectual Property regime is also made in that way. And not taking into account that it is borderless. So this is – the kind of ground where we have to do that, Internationally. So that will be my maybe final remarks.
>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Okay. Jeremie?
>> JEREMIE ZIMMERMANN: I spoke a lot already so I’ll try to be quick. First of all, sir, I invite you to a guided tour to my Internet and I’ll show you the Wikipedias. I’ll show you the free software. I’ll show you the peer-to-peer and decentralized networks that we are using that are out of the influence of the actors that you describe. I’ll show you the company we initiate, and when we succeed as citizens in getting bad legislations taken out and you will see that the influence of the actors you described is not as big as you think and not as big as what we can achieve, “we” collectively as citizens.
As a conclusion and as shameless advertisement, I recommend you to read P. Egron’s group sharing. You’ll see that it’s not about going without rules in the field of copyright. What we practice every day and we must be proud of this decentralization of cultural practice, of access and sharing of culture. And we must make it legitimate. We must make it obvious that this is the only way to go. We must make it obvious that this is a choice of society. Either we do with the decentralized and universal architecture or we let the actor with missions of private police and private justice take over every aspect of our lives online. This is a choice of society and we all have a role to play and I’m convinced that we can win this battle.
>> ANNA WESSLAU: I’ll try to answer your question and it’s about respecting the single author, by that I mean the one writing songs or playing on an album or playing to the streets, to respect his or her rights. And just seeing the person doing it, by that perhaps you can respect, get respect from the people not respecting it today. Because it’s always easier if you see that it’s your friend that doesn’t get any money. If it’s a big record company, then you don’t see that it’s – what do I care about it? But if it’s your own friend. Maybe I do care about it.
I’ll take a chance also to just round up some, I’ll be short, it’s cross-border. That is really what we need. We need to make agreements cross-border valid, so we don’t have to clear the rights in every single country that somebody reads on the Internet.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Thanks. Next one, Ludo?
>> LUDO KAIZER: Young people don’t recognize copyright, that’s basically the statement. You know what? I think you’re right. The funny thing is, you mentioned it, when there is a writer that publicizes his own book on his website and he says you can download it and pay, you can see that young people pay. So they have respect for the author but they don’t have respect for the middle man.
And that makes sense. If you grow up – Martin mentioned the gray area, and I think if you look at digital natives, they grew up online within gray areas. So if you want to push them back and say well, it’s got to change now, you know that is going to hurt them. Obviously. They feel, you know, emotionally they feel attacked basically in their freedom and they will react to it.
One thing I’d like to add to the story, I’ve done a lot of crowd sourcing towards this. And the funny thing is what I’m seeing is that in many of the young people that slowly become creators, then they start worrying about copyrights. But again most of the young creators are not worried about the revenue, they are worried about the respect. So if somebody uses their picture, like the image they created, they want their name on it.
They don’t need the money for it. And that is the difference between the old school and new school society.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Michael? Last one from the business perspective.
>> MICHAEL ROTERT: Well, no. I make it short and give something different. I read in a magazine in 1973 that the cassette is the death of cultural diversity and Intellectual Property. So why are we talking about something which is dead since decades?
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Thanks. It’s a good point.
In my age I have this kind of souvenirs that show the debates from previous times, when Intellectual Property was not – when Internet was not an issue at the time. But it’s interests or the stakeholders as interested parties are coming back with the same arguments.
Last point, Stuart, to bridge IP and open access. For me as a librarian, open access is one of the keys.
>> STUART HAMILTON: I agree with Michael. Home taping did not kill music.
I think the best quote I read is that copyright is this generations’s prohibition. Social norms have outstripped the legal structure.
To sum up, I think it’s difficult to separate the future of copyright by just examining copyright itself. The interests of the industry have to be brought into this, with due respect to those who just wanted to focus on copyright. We need copyright frameworks that do cross-border, I completely agree. That is – it’s the fundamental problem with all of these frameworks is that we have national jurisdictions and the Internet is global. So more balanced copyright frameworks that respect the rights of the creator, not necessarily the middle man, and give us the material in our public domains that people can take the ideas and build on it and create more works.
>> WOLF LUDWIG: Thanks a lot for these final remarks from the key participants. I think we had an exciting open, vivid debate.
Balancing interests is always one of the most difficult things, but it’s a key requirement for Internet governance.
What is about dialogue? It’s about perspective, balancing interests et cetera.
I think we are all clear about rules, coming back to the title of Stockholm, “who sets the rules for the Internet?”
I think this debate brought us – brought a little bit more clarification in this complex debate on IP rights in the digital environment.
I would like to thank my panelists, my co-moderator, Matthias, and all of you for your active participation. Unfortunately, the time is over now. The lunch break – do you want to make some announcement, housekeeping announcements? Okay.
Thank you very much.
>> OLA BERGSTROM: Thank you. Just a few information. After lunch we will have parallel workshops.
>> AUDIENCE: Microphone.
>> OLA BERGSTROM: Okay. After lunch we will have parallel workshops, meaning that we will divide this room into two. Somewhere.
To the left we will have open access to public sector information. On this side we will have data retention. And in another room we will have the third workshop on child protection and child empowerment. So I’ll see you in the right workshop after lunch. Thank you very much.
And to find the lunch, please follow my colleagues in blue shirts. The lunch is served downstairs.
Thank you very much.