we are going to start again with Malcolm.
>> MALCOLM: Two fundamental problems basically. One is practical. Controlling, copying as providing the economic remuneration of artists. Copying is hard. Copying is not hard anymore. There's been various sticking points to make it hard again. They are doomed to failure, whatever limited success they may have in the short term. More broadly, there's a moral problem. The word public good is massively over used to mean things -- the goods that the public wants. Actually it means non-rifleless, and digital goods are starting to look like that. I don't believe that means, oh, the government must inbound control of artistic production. Of course not, but it is going -- it does mean that intellectual property is not the same as the regular property.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Paul.
>> PAUL: First, I would like to say that I'm happy we all agree on the opportunities that the internet presents. From this perspective, artists have to be incentivized to create their content and copyright is fundamental to that. The theft of content online is constantly evolving and changing. Yesterday may have been the day of bit torrent and today we are looking at cyber lockers, streaming and direct downloads. It's constantly evolving the way the content can be stolen on the Internet. I think we must work together to stop these free riders from lowering the compensation that go to creators so we can continue to have a vibrant ecosystem on the Internet.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Pedro.
>> PEDRO: I seem to taken up as Internet as human rights. One of the biggest things to corporate protection is get a balance between corporate protection and other rights, such as free expression, access to information, education and also the privacy. I think this is one of the biggest right now issues that we face in terms of corporate protection.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Even under 30 seconds. Okay, I will turn to Shane.
>> SHANE: I think the biggest challenge that we have is getting the filtering and take down mechanisms at the right layer in the architecture. So it's just something that we had a panel discussion on yesterday, and we continue to work. As I look at, it it's the artists versus the technologists versus the lawyers. So the artists want to protect it. And the technologists are trying to figure out how to do it. And the lawyers are telling where they can and can't do it, depending on where their interests lie.
>> MODERATOR: Kurt.
>> I like the photocopier and new technologies present challenges to the business poddies of copyright where traditional interimmediatearies are finding less of a role where you can connect directly with artists and user generates content. So the challenge then is to find a business model that works with the new paradigm instead of against it.
>> MODERATOR: And thank you. Stewart.
>> STEWART: So clearly the ease of digital copying is a main challenge for us here. Actually, I would also say the ease of avoiding detection once copying digital content is also another major challenge. I think we also need it look at the fact that we have a generation of users with a different cultural outlook towards sharing, remixing and distributing content that doesn't fit with our existing business models. The major challenge is the idea that because we can monitor the flow of copyrighted material online, we should S. this an impossible task we are setting for ourselves. Is it a never ending request for IP monitoring. I think that's an impact on the goodwill from big companies.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Now I have a question from Paul. Does the motion picture industry rely solely on copy right to derive value from films. At what point is copy right most important?
>> PAUL: Certainly copy right is critical, especially in the early phases of release, but as well through the entire life cycle of a creative work. The -- the economic incentives for the creators, they are spread over the entire life cycle of that work. So it is -- it is critical, but there's also technological measures that we can put in place that -- so it's not all based on copyright protection, but it is certainly a very critical part.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Paul. Pedro, a question for you. Google provides platforms for distribution of user generated content, YouTube and blogher are two well known examples. How does Google derive value from these services?
>> PEDRO: As many of you know, we have strategies for monetization of online content and, for example, in YouTube, we have more than 15,000 partners, which include major record labels and film producers. That has been more than $3 billion in terms of -- sorry, it's 3 billion monetize YouTube use so far. This has been something that has been helping a lot from the biggest producers to the small producers. It, in fact, the small producers, they have more than 100 -- hundreds of partners are making more than $100,000 per year on this.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Pedro. This next question is for Kurt and Stewart. What new models for access and licensing of contend are emerging? Is there a need for new exceptions and limitations? We'll start with Kurt.
>> KURT: Over the last decade we have seen a multitude of new paradigms like creative common licenses and older paradigms achieving greater success, like free and open source software. We have seen user generated content occur, and taking advantage of the exceptions and the limitations and the copyright to make beneficial uses of preexisting material. So we need to have limitations and exceptions of copyright law that allow libraries, teachers, individual innovators and cover artists and others to provide their contribution to society.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Stewart.
>> STEWART: Well, Kurt said a lot for me there. Librarians have been at creative commons and open access models and we have very much been involved in those. There are a lot of new licensing models and we need to I have a renewed focus to protect public interest. As a global situation where many countries around the world already have good copy right exceptions and limations and many other countries do not see these. And we see a WIPO to let developing countries have the same access. I think there's should be a strong focus to let everybody have access to these things.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. The next question is for Paul, Kurt and Stewart in that order. What innovations or changes might we expect to see in the next ten years concerning the way content is delivered on the Internet? So starting with Paul.
>> PAUL: Ten years is a very long horizon on the Internet. I don't know that I would be so bold to make that prediction. I can tell you what's exciting to me and in the near future, aside from all the services I mentioned earlier is the better incorporation of social networking and personalization, into the -- the consumption of content, those are very exciting developments. And I would also like to point out that copyright is sometimes it is viewed as something that hindered innovation but that's absolutely wrong and the opposite of what is actually the case. The copyright helps us to develop new innovations and it drives innovation.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Paul. I will turn to Kurt now.
>> KURT: We'll have both technological innovation and I think business model innovation over the next ten years. So broadband will become wide spread at home, mobile broadband, Wi-Fi, and it will become ubiquitous in some places and this means that consumers will be interested in being able to get access to all sorts of content, everywhere they go without restrictions on when they can access their material. We will probably see more alternative business models, pay what you want, crowd sourcing, advertising, supported free distributions, and consumers will start to migrate torts options that provide the most flexibilities with less DRM and let restrictions on their rights.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Kurt, Stewart.
>> STEWART: Speaking from the library's perspective, think I in the next decade or so, we will see some sort of system of peer review, moving into the way we produce journals and academic publishing. Speaking as someone who loves music, I think they will see collaborative information, and turntable F.M. We are likely to see more use of what we call the dark net, a two-Tier internet and more criminalized users.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Okay, moving along, the next question is for Paul. What is the greatest challenge for rights holders in identifying the person against whom enforcement action should be taken and how would you solve this?
>>> Paul: I wouldn't say it's the person that needs to be identified against enforcement. It's those who facilitate infringement that are the major issue that we need to address and working together as an Internet community and working with Internet intermediaries we can identify the facilitators that are the real issue here.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Paul. And now a question for Malcolm and Pedro. What are some of the technical issues in trying to identify infringement. I will start with Malcolm.?
>> MALCOLM: The user is not the same as the ISP's customer. The ISP can't tell who is sitting behind the screen. So whatever you might do exactly to figure out what somebody is doing, you don't know who that person is, which creates some problems for the identification there. There's also proxies and almost anything can be a proxy. I don't just mean traditional web proxies but actually any kind of Internet service that gets data from something else, like an aggregator. But if you do an encrypted session, it's not acting within the control of the regulatory regime, then pretty much anything can happen.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Malcolm. Pedro.
>> PEDRO: We identify content and act upon it. So we develop a technology called content ID. They have, for example, YouTube they have three options. You can monetize. You can block the content or you can leave it as it is and see how people responds to it. It's a really good tool for copyright holders and it's a way also -- how to educate the users in a good way of copyright.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Pedro. Now a question for Kurt and Stewart in that order. What are your views on DPI and other means to detect infringement and infringers. So over to you, Kurt.
>> KURT: Mandating copyright filters by ISPs will not be technologically effective because they can be defeated by encryption and network level filtering will likely deep packet inspection, DPI of citizens Internet communications. This raises considerable concerns for citizens civil liberties and privacy rights and the future of the Internet innovation. Even a seemingly reasonable DPI can turn into a tool for wide spread privacy violations.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Stewart.
>> STEWART: Just to begin with, it's got to be stated that libraries do not conform any copyright infringement. We have been looking at photocopying and everything in our libraryies. We always work within the law and librarians are trying to look at copy right very clearly in their jobs. I think in terms of getting libraries at the moment that are caught up in graduated response schemes, we are very much against this sort of issue and if you look at something like the digital economy act which I will talk about in the United Kingdom, it's provided as a public access to the Wi-Fi and the Internet could be held responsible for their users' infringement and have their services cut back is a very worrying prospect.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Stewart. I now have a question for Corine. The OACD has produced two reports on Internet intermediaries can you see why the OACD has undertook this work and what are the next steps.
>> Corinne: Sure. Why did the OACD undertake this work? Because as the Internet permeates the economy and society, there's increasing pressure, both at the national level and at the international level and we deal with the international level to get intermediaries to help, for example, improve security, protect intellectual property rights, but also which is what Paul mentioned but also protect children, help reduce fraud, or help with other objectives depending on the countries involved, such as controlling illegal online gambling or ensuring the free flow of information across borders. So the problem is that in some cases we are seeing ad hoc and inconsistent approaches at national and international levels between countries and within countries and these create uncertainty for the intermediaries and for other stakeholders involved with potential negative impacts on innovation, on competition, on -- or even on the free flow of information across borders. So our first -- we have two reports, as Christine mentioned, first one focuses on the economic and social benefits that intermediaries provide in supporting the Internet economy, the Internet access and use, and innovation processes and the second report focuses more on the roles and the responsibilities that these actors have or -- or might have for the actions of users of their platforms and that includes legal responsibilities, self-regulatory initiatives as well as individual business practices.
I don't know where I'm running in terms of time. I think I'm okay. So in terms of next steps, we're currently working on an OACD recommendation that's one of what we have -- one of our legal instruments that is nonbinding but that nonetheless has -- it is considered to be a legal instrument among our member countries. On the role of intermediaries in advancing public policy objectives, so this is expected to be ready in the coming few months.
It's -- what this recommendation tries to do is to provide some basic criteria and principles to evaluate for -- to help governments evaluate whether and how to involve intermediaries in public policy strategies generally. So in a holistic manner, which respects fundamental rights.
So I think I'm out of time, but -- in any case, if you are interested in hearing more about those principles, I'm happy to speak about them later if we have some time for discussion.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Corinne. Victory the World Intellectual Property Organization has commissioned some studies examining the roles and responsibility of intermediaries in the field of copyright. Can you tell us why you undertook this work and what are the next steps?
>> VICTOR: Yes, thank you, Christine. The Internet intermediaries are the change of content. We are moving from a dual scenario, with two players that the creator and the distributor be the producer or the publisher, to another scenario where the intermediary has a role that is increasingly important. And WIPO has a long story of being a connected to this topic, to beginning -- to begin with, the Internet treaties in 1996 clarify for the first time that the merit provision of physical facilities to enable the communication does not amount to a communication. So we clarified on that occasion that Internet intermediaries are not directly responsible for the content that is transmitted over the Internet, and that opened the way for the discussion and direct responsibility.
And the development of national legislation, like, in the DMCA or the electronic commerce directive. So on that basis, we are ready to organize a big event in 2005, with a term Internet intermediaries and probably we first coined that broad term at the international level, because at the time, ISPs was the term usually employed and we would realize that we were not dealing with only the ISPs. So the two studies that we are now developing, one is already published by professor Lillian edwards that looks at the interface between technology and copyright and analyzing the evolving role of Internet interimmediatears and the comparative legal analysis of 30 countries including civil law and common law with the idea of finding beyond -- beyond a legal jargons that are different, in regard to direct responsibility, some common trends some commonalties in their consideration of the -- of this inherit responsibility. And this is still ongoing and will be published in due time.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Corinne and Victor, what is your experience with efforts to manage this challenge at the international level? What lessons have you learned so far? Corinne?
>> CORINNE: Thank you, Christine. Well, there are a few different things. First of all from our experience, I should point out that out of the many issues that -- that we have been dealing with in the wider work on Internet intermediaries, copyright protection has been the most polarizing compared to the other topics. So that's -- that's just an experience, and -- and I -- we understand why. There are -- secondly, there are very different approaches to intermediary responsibility between countries and also within countries, and countries don't always seem to be able to learn from the experiences of other countries and this brings me to a very important -- to the most important point that I would like to make is that we need significantly more data to be able to -- data on the costs and benefits of various enforcement measures to really be able to -- to come up with informed policy making, and so we have some data, but we need more, much more. #.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Corinne. Victor?
>> VICTOR: So address this issue, we realize that it is very important success has been to associate ourselves with the ISO, with the stakeholders themselves, because we are much more able in doing these activities together with ISOC of taking stock of what is really the state of play. Another important element has been in my experience on this topic, the involvement of developing countries. We have been able in some of the events that we have organized to showcase the experience of countries like India, like Kenya. Kenya was invited today but the head of the copyright office, unfortunately was not available and that -- that experience is very significant because there's developments that are very important, that are taking place in developing countries and sometimes are ignored.
And on the side of the lessons learned, I would say that thanks to ISOC, we have been able to realize that it would not be appropriate to focus in a sequential balance, in the preparation of these events. I will try to explain these.
We first envision that we will prepare a series of meetings, focusing on different types of stakeholders. So we would focus on governments, on civil society and the interaction with ISOC has enabled us to realize that each event, each iteration needs to have a complete balance. So I think that -- that reflects a little bit the way the Internet also works, and it's not so linear and every instance has to be complete and there has to be a complete balance also for each of our activities and not try to achieve a sequential balance. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Victor. Paul, content is shared by the Internet legally and illegally using many different services, applications and protocols. What would you say is the method of online copyright infringement that is of most concern to copyright holders and why?
>> PAUL: Well, any time the content is being stolen online, all of those methods are very concerning. As a technologist and I see things develop and evolve, what worries me right now is there are web sites that look completely legitimate, that a casual Internet user would really not be able to know are involved in criminal activity. So to stop sites like those, you really have to be able to take away all of the intermediary services that they use, like payment processing, add networks, search engines, being able to take them out effectively Internet ecosystem is what we need to do.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Paul. Our next question is -- should Internet interimmediatearies play a role in online copyright protection and enforcement and what are some of the intented and unintended consequences? I will turn first to Shane.
>> SHANE: As a definite intermediary in this process, we are one of the many tools that can be used but we don't think we should be the first or the last. So the challenge is you take the web domain out but it tends to just move to another place, so it jumps around. So we like to be part of the overall solution set that takes the entire system down, but sometimes coming to us first just says -- it's just a warning shot that they are going after you and you just become a little more clever. And so I don't think that resolves the problem, but we are definitely interested and have been a long standing partner in being a part of the solution.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Pedro.
>> PEDRO: I think there are much more opportunities on the proactive side, developing new tools for monetizing and distributing content. So there is where many Internet intermediaries could really help, and it's important also to make a differentiation among the different intermediaries. Some provide connections. We have intermediaries that provide hosting. What's clear to me and this has been something that's been very, very well stated in many legislation, is that there's no responsibility for the intermediaries to police the net. They shouldn't police the net. Even if they can have some technical ability, they don't have the knowledge, and this is something that's reserved to the justice and the law enforcement.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Pedro. Malcolm.
>> MALCOLM: Thank you. Intermediaries are asked to assist in the identity, so they can be brought to justice and sanction infringers so they can't continue infringing by withdrawing service. I believe it's right and proper in appropriate circumstances both of those functions are carried out by intermediaries but the big question is: Is this an infringement and who decides? There are two main models increasingly used for that. One is where the intermediary is asked to decide whether or not the complaint looked justified, now the intermediaries don't have the economic incentives or the characteristics appropriate to what might be an Septemberable administrative justice and cannot really resolve those questions. The alternative model to this increasing being turned to is asking the intermediaries to carry out the request at the case of the complainant. They are an affront to the rule of law in my view. The intermediary should not be asked no act as a judge and should not carry out sanctions without even hearing the other side of the argument. So those -- but once an independent properly constituted independent authority with proper powers and a proper consideration for the rights of all parties has decided that there is infringement going on, then the intermediary can, indeed execute that judgment.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Malcolm. Kurt?
>> KURT: As we consider the role of intermediaries dealing with online copyright issues and other issues. It's important that Internet intermediaries have a vital role in facilitating free expression and they are the avenues by which the people participate in the Internet, participate in aspects of their lives and will become more and more important as we move forward. And so to promote free expression, it's critical to have a policy infrastructure that does not impose liability on the Internet intermediaries for user actions. The platform should not be liable for what the speaker has said. We have some notice and takedown regimes that are out like the digital millennium copy right act have had unintended impact on the Internet, allowing non-infringing material through, and short-term censorship. There's campaign videos being taken down when they were non-infringing and under the DMCA, you can take something down for 10 to 14 days which could be the critical time period in a political campaign. You see, media criticisms being taken down. We have seen personal noncommercial videos being taken down, and these are taking view points out of the market place of ideas.
And so as we think about these roles, remember a few things is that intermediaries cannot take the role of doing an ex-ante judgment on infringement. They don't have the appropriate tools to make legal judgments. And also the economics, they are dependent on scale. So the benefit of a particular post is trivial, but yet the cost to assess the legality is -- could be quite substantial and the risk of getting that wrong could be quite substantial. What this will mean is that intermediaries become overly cautious and will take down too many things. And it also takes time, user generated web site, once they have public participations require speedy action and they cannot function with a delay.
Expost review at least requires due process. The most appropriate role for an intermediary is forwarding notices of alleged infringement and allowing the judicial system to work.
And finally, I want to point out that a regulatory system requiring the intermediaries to take an expansive role will increase the cost of doing business and it makes it difficult for new innovative companies to come in. If it has to immediately start taking on massive regulatory roles, they can't be in business and then we lose out on some of the great innovation that we've had over the last couple of decades.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Kurt. Stewart?
>> STEWART: Libraries are public access intermediaries. We offer Internet access to Wi-Fi and fixed terminals all over the planet. We have been caught up in graduated response legislation, particularly in France, and most particularly in the digital economy act in the United Kingdom. I concentrate on the DEA. There is not clarify of what library and hotels and caravan parks are. We don't know if we are an Internet service provider or a subscriber. For an ISP we would be legally required to monitor our network and spend a fortune to look over the shoulders of our users. If we are a subscriber, we can actually be held liable or what could eventually happen is there could be an infringement and we could have our own internet access cut off. I agree very much with Malcolm about the problem with this sort of legislation who decides what is illegal and who is not. And who is the responsible end user? It's extremely difficult to tell.
There could be the removal of public Wi-Fi access and New Zealand is already looking at this, and then there is the human rights aspect which is mentioned by Frank LaRue, in his report, and librarians as police, looking over the shoulders of people, we really, really discipline this.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you -- dislike this.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Stewart and Paul.
>> PAUL: I believe it's the responsible of all Internet intermediaries to play a role in copy right protection and using other technologies to top other criminal activity online. You know, it -- there are issues that we need to work through, and they have been well articulated here, but if we cannot have the rule of law online, then we are undermining the future of the Internet and we should all keep that as the primary focus of our return. We must use reasonable and rational approaches and each country is looking at this. There's various legislative proposals in the United States. We are looking at the protect IP act. I have been involved in talking about some of the technical issues on DNS filtering there and there are some who believe that breaks the Internet. I completely disagree. I believe it actually makes consumers have greater faith in the DNS system because when they go to those rogue web sites, they will see a message from their government that says you have gone to a site that has been deemed illegal by the United States justice system. These mechanisms build confidence. They do not undermine the Internet.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Paul. Our next question is how effective are technical measures, a good follow on. This will be for Pedro, Malcolm and Shane in that order. I will turn it over to you, Pedro.
>> PEDRO: Well, there's some technical solution, for example, continuity has proven very effective. It is not 100% an effective technique. It needs also for -- of the collaboration of the copyright holders to upload their libraries in order to be able to detect content on our platform, but our -- our concern is also on the abuse of these tools. Sometimes we have been witnesses and abuse on the corporate tools to censor speech. It happened, for example, in Mexico, in political campaigns that certain speech on YouTube has been taken down under the DMCA. We are looking for other methods to balance this technical solution that really our machines making decisions with some judicial guidance in order to also be able to respect all the rights that are involved.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Pedro. Malcolm.
>> MALCOLM: The question is rather open ended what technical measures to do what? If we are talking about the technical measures that, for example, measure content sites like Flickr used to prioritize their complaints management and to identify whether or not a particular item has been seen before, then, yes, they are effective. Are we talking about can we get network carriers to prevent the infringement copyright, I think I can save us time, doomed, I would say.
>> MODERATOR: Very short and succinct. Thank you, Shane? Sure Shane: Yes, they work. They work when they are strategically applied rather than a blunt instrument. We work very closely with law enforcement. We find out that bad guys are bad guys. They don't run boutique operations. Copyright is one of the things they pirate multiple products. What we try to do is get to the root of the source and take down hundreds and tens of thousands of web sites when we can rather than taking one which is the warning shot I mentioned earlier that just tells them to move off country, go to an area where you can't follow up as quickly, as well as working with multiple governments to start to have a better blanket network as to how we utilize this, so they can't hopscotch around the world and hide in their cloak somewhere.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Shane. Well, we now reached the end of our rapid fire Q & A session. We are actually five minutes ahead of our scheduled time. I would like to congratulate and encourage everyone to have a round of applause for our experts for their very concise and excellent points. Thank you.
(Applause)
I would also at this point like to mention that a number of our experts provided background papers which are available on the Internet Society web site on the page about this workshop. So now we are going to open the floor to all the other distinguished experts that are sitting in the audience that would like to ask questions but before I do that, I think it's only appropriate that we turn to our remote moderator and take some questions from our remote participants. Marie?
>> MARIE: Okay. We have a very, very active remote participate session at the moment. Interestingly, not a particular exact question has been posed. A discussion has sprung up amongst the participants themselves. The question that they are discussing and would like posed to the panel is by Jolie McFee from the US and Marcine from Poland. Do artists actually want the copyright on their work that are lobbies for them -- or the protection on their work that are lobbies for them by other people?
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Stewart, do you want to answer that as a part-time podcaster?
>> STEWART: I might answer actually in the context of the recent European Union extension on sound recordings copyright. That, of course, was argued very strongly that the extension of that copyright would benefit the poor penniless bass player that was living in a place without a fire some place in a basement apartment. When the European Commission commissioned studies looking at the effects term, it appears that 75% of the monies will go straight in the coffers of record companies. About 20%, I believe, go to major artists such as cliff Richard who clearly needs the money, and about 5% will go to that bass player. And I believe the bass player may stand a chance of getting up to 15 pounds extra a year. I think that's an interesting context.
I think very often we see legislation lobbies, into existence that does not have the artist's best interest at heart, and it goes into the coffers of pig companies.
>> PAUL: I would point out that there's some active coalitions of artists. There's one in particular I would point out creativeamerica.org, that just these artists are actively discussing the issue of content theft and I encourage you to go to that web site and learn more about it and learn their perspectives.
>> MODERATOR: Very, very quickly rejoiner from Stewart.
>> STEWART: Also check out the featured artist coalition in the United Kingdom that have a slightly different view point on some of this as well.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Just before I go away from the remote participants, is there anything else they wanted to add this point? No. Okay. We will take some questions from in the room. Please remember to state your name clearly and if it's difficult to spell, to briefly spell it, please.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. My name is Patrice Lyons. I'm corporate counsel corporation for national research initiatives and an old copy right hand going back to my days at UNESCO in the copy right office. I found a troubling trend between the interface between copyright and patent law, and I'm working with a research group now where I do code review and I have to look into the patents and things. Here I'm not looking just at the structuring of the data which may be subject to certain method patents where in the former days if you did a book, you had paragraphs and things and there was a public domain version of what a book was, but I'm also looking at the performance of operations on sequence of bits, this symbolic logic, having spent many years implementing a cable licensing system, you had the public performance right, otherwise called the communication to the public.
Well, that could also, if you flip it around, if you are a patent lawyer, you could be looking at a method patent in performing these operations. So this is the tension I see emerging and I wonder if anybody has any reflections on that.
>> MODERATOR: Would any of our experts wish to answer that question? Would anyone else in the room? Oh, I think you asked a very tricky question. We might have to come back to it. I apologize if I'm not taking you in the order it that you put your hand up. It's a bit difficult to tell. I will take this gentleman here.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I won't give my name. I do this Chatham house rules because I fear the lawyers in the house are being criminalized. I'm a researcher from the south and I see the wonderful access that those that expensive American universities, ivy league universities get, I'm not at a university where I have a log-in or access to anything. Everything I do research on is either open content or the sources I use are somehow the copyright -- could you see it's infringed. I would say it's fair use. So, yeah -- and I think without -- it's about access to knowledge for me, and I don't think my research would be possible without a little bit of copyright infringement. I think that goes for many people in this room.
I would also just like to ask if any of the people from WIPO or the pro copyright crew on the panel know of anyone who has made any money from -- or any academic author who has made money by publishing something in an academic journal. I don't really get how that system works but it seems to be just the EPSCOs who get the money.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for that question. I will look to see if anyone would like to respond. Okay -- yes, I will just take Victor first and then we'll go back to Malcolm.
>> VICTOR: Just a clarification. We don't -- or I don't agree with this antagonism between copyright and open access. And copy right and access to open information. I think open license moralities as used in the academic environment are aan alternative way of exercising copy right. They don't counter copyright they reinforce it in some way.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Victor. Malcolm, you wanted to reply to the previous question?
>> MALCOLM: The previous question was deeply technical, but it really does deserve attention. I would say -- I'm going to try -- in order to try and answer -- or to respond to it, and build upon it, I'm going to generalize massively from what you were saying. Patents are not just about the copy of the item. That's copyright. But patents control machines, they are things that you can do, and in the copyright field, we are also seeing other controls of things that you can do with it, through copyright licensing which is being used to control how you use the work. It's used to control whether or not -- through the control of the derivatives work, what you can do with it, and whether you can make derivative works and if so, what kind. And because the content to make any kind of derivative or to do anything from it is entirely in the hands of the rights holder, that's giving them a power to determine whether or not value is added to their own product.
Now, that is not patent law, but it is in an area that patent law seeks to regulate as well, and the interaction of these two, I believe, deserves much greater analysis than is happening at the mome
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. I appreciate that.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Anyone else, before we close that particular topic? I don't think so.
I see a gentleman here.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. I'm Jeremy Zimamin. Eye want to bring an historical perspective to that debate and ask a question to the honorable panelists. Along the history of copyright, whenever some new technology was seen as a threat, whether it was mechanical piano, music on the video, blank capacity building cassette tape, there was an outrange and new technology won. There were new modes of funding creation, sometimes mutualized schemes for funding creation. And if you look at this perspective, you will see the decline of the sales of the CD are perfectly natural as the obsolescence of the medium. It makes a deep impact on society and technology.
Also, if you look at the figures, you see a number of studies showing that the people who share the more files, the people who buy them for cultural goods, and they came to that conclusion in their own studies. So given that and given the fact that of course, you have to take into consideration that video games are part of culture. So when you look at the figures of movie sales and music sales and video game sales, you see there has never been so much spending and it's raising every year.
Therefore I come to my question, what would the panelists think of enhancing the private copy exception that was made in a time when doing copy was for industry electors and it was a major technical difference between distributing the copies to the public and making your own. Now that this difference is gone, what would you think of extending the private copy exception to private sharing exception where individuals copying work that has been digitally released and not for profit would be out of the scope of stupid enforcement.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for that historical introduction and question. Who would like to answer first? Pedro?
>> PEDRO: I would like to make a comment around private copy. I agree that the times changed in terms of what we think about private copy now and it was sort of a private copy before. Now digital medium is the canvas, it's a new canvas. I really can't understand how applying, for example, a levy over a canvas will foster the art. It's not just really copying some that was in our medium now. Now we create on an a digital medium. So I think that we really need to revise this in light of how we use the technology now, and each of us having our funds and our capability to take pictures to -- the records is not just only copy. Now we are creating. It's really interesting to analyze this in light of the new use of the technology.
I also agree that, you know, all this technology was at the beginning, you know, an outcry about the technology, but then one of the best solution for the industry that was crying about it, that this is the end and we saw that with the VCRs that at the beginning, when the first use was -- was created as a doctrine, it was because someone didn't want to produce VCRs. Substantial non-infringement.
>> He's referring to the doctrine that came out of a case about the Sony beta max copier which I believe that then president of the MPAA said was to the copyright to the movie was a serial killer. They came out with a doctrine of non-infringing use. Because it had non-infringing use and it was a lawful product and did not have to pay a royalty for having VCRs and then later it turned out that the sales of the tapes on the VCRs was a profitable business for the motion picture industry.
>> PEDRO: And I think last remark. What we must allow the market to basically give time to the market to respond to the new challenges that the new technology presents. The market will accommodate also to these new technologies and if you go back, we can see how we adapt to the new technology and then become really good ways of income for the corporate holders and the artists.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Pedro. Paul?
>> PAUL: I will just make a comment about the historical perspectives on technology and how that's challenged the business models and how early on, as the comment was pointed out, it was seen as -- technology was seen as a major threat. I think I would like to suggest that has changed, and I think that there -- I see the movie studios, because I deal with the technologists there regularly. I see them actually, as becoming very technologically savvy, not only in the distribution of the movies but in the development of the movies, with the way they are using computer graphics and other technologies, it -- it truly is, I believe, a very evolved industry and they are focused on making the best of digital distribution, and they are looking ahead. They are looking to the future. So I would encourage you all to take another look, and not only look to what might have been said in the past, but look at what we are doing now.
>> Can I make a quick follow-up. First of all nobody answered my question about the private sharing and the technology afraid of is there sharing between individuals? Everybody knows how to use 0s and 1s today, it's the individuals have this -- this capacity that you are afraid of, I think.
>> PAUL: You know, I think as I might have mentioned earlier, what we see as a great opportunity is actually the sharing of the content through social networks and having the -- the ability -- the greater ability for users to share their experience as possibly even while they are watching the movie.
You look at what has come out with NetFlix and Facebook recently and the ability in many countries to be able to see what your friends are watching and join in in that experience at the same time. I think the sharing is going to increase. It's hopefully going to increase in a way where the creators can be compensated at the same time. I think it's looking positive.
>> MODERATOR: There was a gentleman at the back of the room who has a question. Come to a microphone, please, and --
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Bill Smith with Pay Pal. First, I want to comment and say that we support the rights of copyright holders and the rule of law. I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. What I want to pose to the panel, is around and the gentleman spoke about this earlier, what's known as fair dealing in common law count Fridays, fair use in the US, which is legal protection for comment, criticism and a set of other things that are not an infringement of copyright.
And the question is, give than, you how does the Internet enhance or limit this protection, either currently or in the future with some of the mechanisms that are already in effect or being proposed? And a second question, which is what is the role of an intermediary, if any, in these determinations of fair use?
>> MODERATOR: Okay. I will look to my right and to my left to see if anyone is ready to answer that. Oh, we have Pedro.
>> PEDRO: Well, I think that it's necessary to really work on a more set of exceptions and limitations on copyrights, and the new challenges -- the new platforms at least in terms of information and also mix and content, in order to create new and bring on top of others.
I see that from a perspective of an ISP and let's think about not Google, not about social network but a small ISP that is in a remote area and serve a little community that receive a corporate -- a legal of infringement, for example, and how -- and then -- and in a country that does not have a statute on how to proceed. And so he has to go to a lawyer to get advice on how to proceed. So I think that fostering very clear rules for ISPs and how to proceed with due with respect to -- with due process to give the different parties the chance to defend themselves is one of the best tools for the work of the different interment areas.
It's not a cookie cutter solution. It has to do with legal -- the legalist story and the legal in the different region. What works for you doesn't work for Latin America or for Europe. It's important to take that in mind, to try to find out the different -- the difference in legal -- in the legal realities of the different region as well.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Pedro. Anyone else? Yes, Malcolm.
>> MALCOLM: Well, fair dealing is not the same as fair use, of course. It's much narrower. The Internet is creating the opportunities for people to make use of things like fair use exceptions to create benefits, but politically I think the Internet is actually harming fair use in that the wide spread infringement of copyright through people just downloading copies of music and film and TV programs is creating enormous political sympathy amongst policymakers to focus entirely on the enforcement issue, and not to give adequate attention to exceptions, to fair use and to the kind of interactions I mentioned earlier in my reply to the previous lady that spoke earlier about value add and licensing.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Just go now, again to the remote participation. Marie?
>> MARIE: Okay. I have two more questions. One, the first is from again, Joli McFee who asks the question, in David Post's book "Jerryson's noose" they call for a return to a system of mandatory copyright registration, arguing that otherwise it's impossible to legally administrate in the Internet age. Does the panel agree?
>> MODERATOR: Well, that's a tough question. Would anyone like to answer it, yes or no or -- Stewart?
>> STEWART: Well, I -- we were asked -- we may still get the chance to sort of being king for a day in terms of copyright at the end of this session and what we will do to reform the copyright system. One of the things I thought about was the reintroduction of a registration system for the copyright, the kind of use it or lose it aspect could be built into it so that a renewing sort of mechanism was possible and that idea does appeal to me because quite frankly, I think the length of copyright right now is way too long, extremely, extremely long periods of copyright and not doing what was originally defined for.
I think we are all aware that to try to move to a registration system is going to be extreme complex, long battle, massively expensive but with WIPO looking at music registration systems and the Hargraves report looking at the copyright, the exchange model that they are looking at within that, it's obvious that some people are looking at mechanisms around this. So I wouldn't be against it.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Stewart. Victor.
>> Victor: Just very brief, what exists is absence of formalities and so there's no way to establish a mandatory registration. I would like to respond to the gentleman, which is that the copyright revolume ofs with the evolution in technology. If we look at the history of bank convention, it's more or less updated every 20 years and also in regard to registration, they -- the consideration of registration is also the result of an historical process. At the beginning, in the 1896, there was no registration. The first harmonzation was to establish that you needed to comply only with the formalities of the country. So each country kept its own formalities and you only needed to comply with the formalities of country of origin and only in 1908, in the Vern convention the principal and the absence of formalities was established. With the convention, it's subject to examination by Member States.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, victor. Is it a quick question, Marie? Excellent.
>> MARIE: The quick he is from Alfred in Ghana. The question being: How feasible will it be in library -- for libraries if additional responsibility is, in fact, going to be put on them to monitor the actives of the users? This is specifically aimed at regarding developly countries who might not have the capacity or the ability to actually monitor this.
>> MODERATOR: Stewart, would you like to answer that?
>> STEWART: We know it's in France, and New Zealand and in the background is the actor negotiations which stop short of completely recommending graduated response but leaves some room in there for these sorts of activities. We can only estimate from the UK based on the sorts of things that happen in US colleges that put into place monitoring mechanisms to stop their students from infringing copyright. They seem to be talking about millions of dollars per year to actually set up a monitoring regime that allows for appeals and notification of students infringing copyright. You see in the digital economy act the split between ISPs' rights holders paying a certain amount of enforcing this sort of stuff. We believe that if that really does come through to libraries, we could be paying millions of pounds a year to upkeep these schemes. I think that can only spell very bad news for library systems in developing countries.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. So that we can finish on time, I think we only have time for two very short questions. So I see a lady over to my left.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, Susan calmers Internet New Zealand. We just implemented a graduated response procedure and it went into effect on September 1st. This procedure has imposed a lot of costs on the entire Internet community regardless of whether or not you are an infringer. It may have a chilling effect on public Wi-Fi like Stewart just mentioned and it could result in terminate Internet-only accounts. So beyond the cost of the graduated response, we are going to see the US exports DMCA through acta which is opened up for signature on October 1st and the TPP, which is opening up temporary copies to red seeking opportunities, buffering, caching, streaming. Copyright is frequently explained as an incentive for creators but also it brings a benefit to the public good.
And so my question to Paul and to all the panel is how can we ensure that the public, the greater Internet community gets something in return for these constantly increasing costs of the use of the Internet and are subsequently diminished Internet freedoms and how can we recalculate the system to introduce fairness to end users?
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Who would like to take that question? Paul?
>> PAUL: Okay. I will start. I have to first disagree with the thesis that we are out to reduce Internet freedom. I think that's not the goal. The goal is to bring content to people in ways that they want to consume it, bring it to the devices they want, bring it to them where they want and when they want. I think the Internet provides all of those opportunities. So that is the fundamental goal and it really can only happen if we have good copyright protections and if we have mechanic Nims where creators -- mechanisms where creators can be incentivized. That's the challenge we need to address and all of the different mechanisms you mentioned are attempts at doing that and I think that we have stakeholders from countries all over the world who are working in developing these proposals. I think we have a lot of good reasonable thought going into them and I hope we will see some success.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Anyone else? Stewart?
>> STEWART: Very quick I would say if we are looking at treaties and laws to increase enforcement, then I think we should look very closely at treaties and laws that introduce adequate exceptions and limitations into copyright laws so that will public interest and the balance is maintained.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I think as our last question, there's a gentleman here who wishes to say something.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Amagil from Kenya. Recently Google has digitized the parliamentary proceedings and hosted them on their site. My wonder is who is the copyright holder of that material?
>> I would like to have more information. What Google schoolar, Google books or you just find links?
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's posted on Google books.
>> Well, it might be an agreement between the -- it was officially set? You mentioned? I don't have information, possibly it could be an agreement between the publishers. I really don't know. Someone that looks like they have an answer for this.
>> No, as a clarification, the handset and the Kenya gazette is possible and Google made it possible to have it online. It's public.
>> It's public information. It's not subject it corporate.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for that clarification Grace. I will give my distinguished experts an opportunity to close with a question. So if you could decide these issues single handedly, what would be your solution. I will start with you Malcolm.
>> Malcolm: We call it the if I was the king of world. I would try to give something to even side of the debate and be benevolent. The various procedures for intermediaries and graduated response schemes are predicated on the notion, that there's wide spread problems going on. The first duty of government is to provide adequate justice, so I would be looking to institute some effective, efficient small claims procedure. Not dissimilar for someone shoplifting in a real shop. I would also, once we are looking at the exclusivity principle. I don't think have a direct answer to this, but fundamentally, cultural and information goods must be available as the source of new artistic endeavor and new consumer and business services. If you have a situation where the rights holders for a collection, for example, of musical works, their permission is needed in order to provide a new service around those -- those works, such as pandora's and Spotify need to negotiate contracts with the right holders in order to offer those services at a price that's acceptable to those rights holders in their arbitrary discretion and only in the territories which they are willing to do it in and in a manner that's in their own strategic preference.
This is not the way the ordinary market economy works in physical goods. It is harmful to innovation and this is -- it is -- it is deeply problematic. I don't know what the solution is, but we definitely need to look further into this.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Malcolm. Paul?
>> PAUL: Well, if I were king of the day, then all of the content you want to access would be available to you on all the devices you want whenever you want it. That's -- I think that's the goal of the content community and as long as they can be compensated and incentivized for doing that, we have a system that can be vibrant and sustainable.
You know, I would say that, again, the critical issue here is all agreeing that the rule of law must be -- must be implemented online. We must have law online and we must all -- all of us, including intermediaries work together to accomplish that. So that's my vision of success going forward.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Paul. Kurt.
>> KURT: So there's a lot of things that -- and, again, if I were king the world, I would wouldn't want to have graduated response and DRM. I wanted to come forward with more of a positive thing and this was harkening back to something that EFF has been proposing since 2003, voluntary collective licensing, which is an alternative post to get artists paid and making sharing of files lawful and this concept is the simple. They would form collecting societies which then offer the user the opportunity to legitimately transfer and have files in exchange for a reasonable, regular payment and then the money collected would be distributed to the artist based on the popularity of their content, as determined by anonymous surveys. And then this would achieve, I think a dream of having the content available on all devices at all times. I guess we are in agreement there.
>> MODERATOR: Stewart.
>> STEWART: I also share Paul's dream. All information available at all times all devices. I will go completely blue sky because if I was king of the world, I would reduce the copyright substantially. I would probably make it renewable once, if not as many times as needed to be done for big companies like Disney who keep exploiting their copyright, as a use it or lose it in there.
On the supply side, I would set up a system that would enable the business models to give us exactly what we want when we want it. And so the people in Kenya can watch the same television programs on Hulu and NetFlix that you can watch in the US which you can't do. And I would make sure it was completely respected throughout this and balance this out so we are not criminalizing people for routine behaviors on then we should MacArthur that we have rule of law and that infringers gone after in court.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Pedro.
>> PEDRO: Well, if I would be king of the world for one day, simply we would be an a safari today.
(Laughter).
But I see that, you know, we need to focus on improving offer, access and good pricing structures to the content so we can give more options to the users and get more affordable prices and so the user can get the content and for developing countries, for example. I think that also developing better licensing monetization systems in order to help small producer of content to get their content around and also monetize -- allow people that want to use their content in different mediums to get in contact with the content creator. We have been working together with WIPO many African countries in order to improve the system of licensing and help local producers to be able to have access through the database of content in a streamlined way in order to be able to monetize the content worldwide.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Shane.
>> SHANE: Taking a slightly different tack on this. I don't want our best Internets days to be behind us. I would say IPv6 allows us to avoid the multi tenant concerns and you can be more control over who you are concerned about. And then the authoritative location could be noted by part of the URL. So dot mpa could be the download of your members and people would eventually know that's the authoritative place to go. So those are two things that I think can enable more positive behavior coming in the future.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Shane. I will turn briefly to victor.
>> Victor: If I was to decide this single handedly, surely, I will get it wrong. So I would organize another event and discuss whatever -- whatever ideas I have.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Victor. That's lovely. We have reached the end of our workshop today. Before we all go, there's a couple of important things. First of all, I want to congratulate everyone in the room for participating in this workshop and I would like to especially thank our discussants would gave truly insightful and innovative ideas to this discussion in a very, very short time frame. So, again, please, a round of applause.
[ Applause ]
Oh, even a standing applause. Thank you very much.
Okay. So the last thing is there are some copies of the Internet Society background paper and the papers from the OECD at the back of the room if you are interested. Again, thank you very much. I look forward to seeing you in the IGF elsewhere. Thank you. 
Event is not active
Copyright © 2011 Show/Hide Header