§15. If debates over digital technologies brought to light the precarious condition of artists, collectingand redistribution systems are problematic and unfair in most countries to a majority of the artists andcreators regardless of the existence of the information and communications technologies (ICTs). Thus,one of the key action to undertake, and one of the most urgent, is a European reform of the collectingand distribution systems in order to guaranty fair, steady and transparent redistribution of revenuesfrom the exploitation, be it digital or not, of copyrighted artistic work.
§16. Understanding and accompanying the transformations in creation and consumption of culturalproduction impose to embrace it as a whole. The production as well as the consumption of culture (inquantity and money) increased greatly in the past 20 years, allowing huge profits for monopolies likeGoogle and Apple, but not for the artists. Some modes of consumption are less and less popular(physical medium such as tapes, CDs, DVDs, bluerays, etc.), others develop or become increasinglypopular (streaming, downloading, live concerts, watching movies in theatres, on line games, ondemand tv, e-books, etc.).§17. Dematerialisation is leading to changes which are likely to affect many industries, be it theemergence and the disappearance of various industry players, the loss, creation and transfer of valueand industry restructuring, the emergence of new business models. Value chains are transforming,some intermediaries are disappearing, new professions are emerging while others are still necessary.
§18. In a context where human exchanges and communication depend on sophisticated and fastchanging technologies, interoperability between formats and reader hard-ware is essential todemocratic access to cultural production as well as to economic activities. This technical featureshould be endorsed and implemented by European institutions and promoted by European regulations.§19- Non commercial sharing between individuals should be allowed, for instance by widening thescope of the existing private copying exception. If and when it can be proved that the production of cultural goods is compromised by non-commercial sharing, a content flat rate or another mechanismfor broadband users may be envisaged. Such a mechanism must not invade the privacy of internetusers. The distribution of revenues should favour poor and starting creators.§20. We believe it is key to strengthen the public domain so that it is a resource for education (in thebroad sense) of our citizen and for creation.§21. Finally, freedom to operate, to experiment, to challenge existing institutions and businessmodels, and technological constraints and methods, is important, not only in terms of creativeactivity, but in terms of creating value, expanding the possibilities of knowledge and its impact onsociety, and in allowing society to grow and prosper. The Internet itself would not have existedwithout this freedom to operate, and the conditions which permitted this to happen should not beforeclosed. Therefore we need to guaranty net neutrality.
§22. We do support Creative Commons as a good possibility for creatives to share their works whenever wanted.§23. Up until twenty years ago, copyright was hardly anything that concerned ordinary people. Therules about exclusivity on the production of copies where aimed at commercial actors, who had themeans to, for example, print books or press records. Private citizens who wanted to copy a poem andsend to their loved one, or copy a record to cassette and give it to a friend, did not have to worryabout being in breach of copyright. In practice, anything you had the technical means to do as anormal person, you could do without risk of any punishment.But today, copyright has evolved to a position where it imposes serious restrictions on what ordinarycitizens can do in their every-day life. As technological progress has made it easier for ordinary peopleto enjoy and share culture, copyright legislation has moved in the opposite direction.