Digital Rights Network

The recommendations of the Creative Economy were made public back in mid-December (readers may wish to check out previous posts on the subject of the conference). The purpose of producing the recommendations was summarized in the email sent to interested observers:

'The purpose of the Conference, to deliver policy recommendations to the European Commission on behalf of all stakeholders in the creative economy, was successfully achieved through the five Working Groups which met to discuss a range of issues and draw conclusions. The recommendations from each Working Group, along with related papers and photos from the event can be found at the website: www.creativeeconomyconference.org'

As expected the recommendations (where accessible -- most of the stuff is in word .doc files) are suitably slanted towards the IP fundamentalists. To single out just one subtle example: the constant elision of the innovation with IP in the Value for All recommendations (panel chaired by Adam Singer) as in 'We need our governments to demonstrate a visceral understanding that IP creation is as important in generating wealth and competitiveness as traditional manufacturing.' (What really matters if creating innovations and services that generate value for society -- irrespective of whether they are protected by an IP monopoly).

Futhermore it is quite clear that the conclusions have absolutely no legitimacy and certainly cannot stand as recommendations to the Commission on behalf of all stakeholders. This is starkly apparent from the fact that wherever representatives of constitutencies other than rightsholders were present on working groups there was no consensus even after the efforts of the reports authors to paper over cracks and slant the recommendations.

To see for yourself take a look through the following which have been copied from the site:

== The Global Challenge ==

[Ed: you can tell from the way this is slanted which side got to write it up ....]

* The Draft WIPO Broadcasting Treaty

Apart from consumer representatives, the Group recommends that the EU & Member States should pursue negotiations to lead to the agreement by all WIPO members to a Broadcasters Treaty that protects signals from piracy and unauthorised use.

The consumer representatives do not want an extension to all WIPO members of the protection already accorded to broadcasters in Europe.

The issue of whether webcasting should or should not be covered was also discussed but there was no recommendation. No one representing webcasters was present.

There were differing views on the specific protection that should be accorded to broadcasters.

* The WIPO Development Agenda

Although there was considerable discussion, sometimes heated, on this topic, the Group did not make a recommendation.

[Ed: they fought to a standstill]

There are 60 negotiating proposals before the copyright committee/WIPO relating to the Development agenda but given the time available these could not be considered individually by the Group.

It was accepted that special arrangements in international copyright treaties to deal with the special problems of developing countries have been recognised by WIPO for many years. This is now becoming a bigger issue. The copyright issues are intertwined with issues relating to technology transfer, access to patented drugs and other non-copyright issues.

The Group recommends that appropriate steps are taken to educate creators in developing countries as to their rights. Developed nations should take steps to help those in developing nations to ‘feel’ copyright by ensuring proper accounting to creators for the use of their works.

* WTO and Trade Related Issues

There is consensus on the fact that there are Internal Market problems due to differing terms of protection for joint musical works in the EU. The European Commission will analyze this issue and consult stakeholders with a view to possible harmonisation of the terms for joint musical compositions at EU level – lack of harmonisation for joint works also creates difficulties with third countries such as the US.

As for sound recordings, there are perceived obstacles to trade due to different terms of protection in the EU and US which a longer term of protection for sound recordings in the EU might address, and questions of equality among types of work. Broadcasters expressed reservations on this issue. Consumer representatives asked for an assessment of the economic and cultural effects of the extension of terms of protection. The Group agrees that TRIPS implementation should be taken seriously and pursued everywhere. According to the 2000 WTO decision the US is in breach of the TRIPS agreement in so far as the US copyright law does not protect the public performance of musical compositions in the overall majority of bars, restaurants and other commercial outlets in the US. The Group supports continued Commission action seeking a long-overdue solution to this situation vis-à-vis their US counterparts. Aside from WTO violations, it was also noted that the scope of public performance rights for sound recordings in the US is unsatisfactory.

* Database Directive

There was widespread concern by the rights holders representatives in the Group at the suggestion that the Database Directive and/or database right may be withdrawn from the EU Copyright acquis.

However, consumer representatives questioned whether there is a wide economic benefit from the Database Directive and recommended a full economic impact assessment.

Broad consensus was reached that the Database Directive should not be withdrawn without exhaustive analysis of the possible detrimental economic impact to the database industry.

[Ed: this is outrageous. From previous reports we know that there was no agreement on this (see other drns postings on the conference).]

* DRMs

The Group limited its discussion of DRMs to the question of interoperability.

The Group recommends that this should not be the subject of EU legislation at this stage but that the EC should continue to take steps short of legislation to encourage compatibility via market driven solutions.

* Piracy

Traditional and internet piracy, EU civil and criminal anti-piracy legislation and proposals were mentioned. Anti-piracy investigations, the need for cooperation by ISPs and the issue of data retention were also discussed.

Copyright owners strongly require additional voluntary and regulatory tools to fight piracy in a speedy, flexible and cost-effective way both off- and online.

It was noted by the group that the value of copyright must be respected and understood for its cultural and economic benefits and that it would be in the interest of all countries for communication programs to facilitate greater appreciation of IP norms.

Consumer representatives fear that new anti-piracy legislation may be disproportionate, have anti-competitive effects and that it should be kept in line with fundamental rights such as privacy.

== From Creativity to Commerce ==

* Bringing creative and business skills together
* Improving understanding of IP
* IP as a bankable asset
* Assessing the value of IP
* Access: from principles to practice
* Getting EU regulation right

== Value for All and More of It ==

* The group observed that platforms are ephemeral while content is permanent. In other words, distribution systems change but the need for content persists. That said, there is clearly a mutual dependency between content and the prevailing platforms, and the technology shapes the nature and form of the content that may be produced. That said, there is a substantial shift in the business models for IP products as they move from ownership to leasing. No medium ever dies, it just loses its primacy!

* Copyright is crucial. In this new era, everything becomes a subset of IP. We believe that copyright has been a highly effective mechanism to generate creative wealth in the industrial mechanical age, and that the concepts of copyright will continue to do this as they adapt to the new online era.

* If there is to be widespread respect for copyright by everyone, it should be built into the educational curriculum, as it is a fundamental part of modern network literacy. Alongside this, we would encourage the development of an appropriate cultural climate which would help (as well as enforcement regimes) to significantly reduce the probability of piracy.

* There is a continuing role for enriching the citizen through public service content which is free at the point of use.

* We need our governments to demonstrate a visceral understanding that IP creation is as important in generating wealth and competitiveness as traditional manufacturing.

* We would urge the Commission to collect and publish accurate and comprehensive data on the creative industries, which fully recognise their value to the European economy and society. This would inform a more evidence-based framework for policymaking.

* The group agreed that copyright term should be equalised on international competitiveness grounds. But no consensus was reached on whether this equalisation should be up, down or longer.

* Corporate responsibility. In the compact between consumer and corporation, if corporations want consumers to respect copyright, they must live by equally fair values, and the application of copyright must be clear and transparent (e.g. better labelling and a reduction in arcane terms and concepts, like the word “mechanical”, so that the consumer can better understand the issues).

* It was agreed that there may be competitive issues regarding the role of SMEs in terms of access to new markets. It was suggested that governments could help in their public procurement policies by devoting greater effort to commissioning more IP products from SMEs.

* There are interoperability issues around DRM that are hindering the market. We believe that the Commission should be working harder to create intergovernmental and trade working groups (a la MPEG) to encourage greater consensus on standards. Overall, however, the development of DRM should be market driven but subject to the existing European regulatory framework.

== Licensing Fit and Fair ==

* DRMs are essential to facilitate all forms of online licensing
* Collective management of rights can evolve to meet the challenges of online licensing
* Alternative forms of licensing have a role to play in the new online environment.

[Ed: noteworthy that in full set there is no explicit mention of creative commons]

== Film Online ==

[Ed: omitted for time being but lots of anti-piracy ....]