SPEECH-11-777_EN
|Views: 633
|Likes: 1
Published by TorrentFreak_
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
SPEECH/11/777
Neelie Kroes
Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for theDigital Agenda
Who feeds the artist?
Forum d'Avignon
19 November 2011, Avignon, France
The creative sector is a unique source for growth, both economic and social. Andit's something we do well in Europe. The current winner of the Oscar for BestPicture; the bestselling album in the US this year; 7 out of the last 10 winners of theNobel Prize for Literature: what do they have in common? They all come from theEU.This is essential to our image abroad, and essential to our economic future. And if we want it to stay this way, we must be able to support those who create art. Wemust be concerned about the fate of Europe's struggling artists and creators. Artfeeds the soul. But who feeds the artist?Often, this debate focuses on copyright, especially enforcing copyright. But this isn'tthe whole story.For a moment, let's take a step back from the tools, and remember what we aretrying to achieve. Legally, we want a well-understood and enforceable framework.Morally, we want dignity, recognition and a stimulating environment for creators.Economically, we want financial reward so that artists can benefit from their hardwork and be incentivised to create more.I am an unconditional supporter of these objectives.But let's ask ourselves, is the current copyright system the right and only tool toachieve our objectives? Not really, I'm afraid. We need to keep on fighting againstpiracy, but legal enforceability is becoming increasingly difficult; the millions of dollars invested trying to enforce copyright have not stemmed piracy. Meanwhilecitizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it. Sadly,many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool torecognise and reward.Speaking of economic reward: if that is the aim of our current copyright system,we're failing here too.1000 euros a month is not much to live off. Often less than the minimum wage. Butmost artists, and not only the young ones at the early stages of their career, have todo so. Half the fine artists in the UK, half the "professional" authors in Germany,and, I am told, an incredible 97.5% of one of the biggest collecting society'smembers in Europe, receive less than that paltry payment of 1000 euros a monthfor their copyright works. Of course, the best-paid in this sector earn a lot, and welldone to them. But at the bottom of the pyramid are a whole mass of people whoneed independent means or a second job just to survive.This is a devastatingly hard way to earn a living. The crisis will only make thisworse, as public and private spending on arts, so often seen as discretionary, feelsthe squeeze. This must be a worry to one of the most valuable and unique sectorsin Europe: it is certainly a worry to me.We need to go back to basics and put the artist at the centre, not only of copyrightlaw, but of our whole policy on culture and growth. In times of change, we needcreativity, out-of-the-box thinking: creative art to overcome this difficult period andcreative business models to monetise the art. And for this we need flexibility in thesystem, not the straitjacket of a single model. The platforms, channels and businessmodels by which content is produced, distributed and used can be as varied andinnovative as the content itself.ICT can help here. In all sorts of sectors, ICT can help artists connect with their audience, directly and cheaply. And it can help audiences find and enjoy materialthat suits their specific needs, interests and tastes.2
And ICT can help in other ways too, supporting a system of recognition and reward.A Global Repertoire database to find out what belongs to whom. Trackingtechnologies, to permit a totally transparent process for artists and intermediaries tofind out who is looking at what artwork when and to distribute revenues accordingly.Digitisation, to make artworks available for instant transmission to distant fans.Look at Cloud computing: it presents a totally new way of purchasing, delivering andconsuming cultural works - music, books, films - which will certainly raise newquestions about how licensing should function in an optimal way.It's not just about technology: smart legislation can help, too. We need to find theright rules, the right model to feed art, and feed artists. We need the legalframework to be flexible. This is my recipe, my commandment, my bumper-sticker to nurture creation. The digital world changes quickly, and if allowed to do so canpermit creativity in all stages of the chain. So we shouldn't prescribe a particular model, but set a framework allowing many new models to flourish.In particular, we should make it as easy as possible to license, not obstruct thatprocess while making sure that the system efficiently secures the interests of artiststhemselves. This is what we are doing at the Commission with our future legislativeproposal on collective rights management.But as I said, it's not only about copyright legislation. Take tax, for example. Isn't it just common-sense to think that eBooks should benefit from the same reduced VATrates as physical books? The legal regime – the EU's own, I admit – makes it illegalto do that. Not just discouraged, but illegal. Personally, I find this very difficult toexplain. Thankfully, my colleague Algirdas Semeta is preparing a new strategy onVAT. This subject will certainly be debated.Another example is the audiovisual industry. I know how important "windowing" isfor the industry under current business models and I don't want to take decisions for the business, it's not my job. As new ways of watching films develop in the market,binding legislation dictating the sequence and period of release windows seemsinflexible – and may make it harder, not easier, to provide and purchase contentlegally.A system of rewarding art, in all its dimensions, must be flexible and adaptableenough to cope with these new environments. Or else we will kill innovation anddamage artists' interests.These are just a few examples of rigid legislation from the pre-digital era. There aremany new ideas out there – ideas, for example, like extended collective licensing
aspractised in Scandinavia, or other ideas that seek to both legitimise and monetisecertain uses of works. Are these ideas the right ones to achieve our goals? I don'tknow. But too often we can't even try them out because of some old set of rulesmade for a different age – whether it is the Berne Convention, the legislationexceptions and limitations on the VAT Directive or some other current law. So newideas which could benefit artists are killed before they can show their merit, dead onarrival. This needs to change.I can't set out for you now what the model should be and indeed it's not the kind of model that should be developed from the centre. Rather we need to create aframework in which a model – or indeed several models – can develop organically,flexibly, in ways that support artists.I see how some European stakeholders see with horror the arrival of Netflix, or theexpansion of iTunes. We need to react, not to be paralysed by fear. Let's takechances. As Zygmunt Bauman put it, "the function of culture is not to satisfy existingneeds, but to create new ones".3
