SPEECH/06/757

Charlie McCreevy

European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services




Cultural diversity and creative rights

Cultural Diversity and Creative Rights Conference
Brussels, 29 November 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for inviting me here today to discuss two highly important and interlinked issues – cultural diversity and creative rights. Can I begin by making my own thinking in these matters clear.

There are some who see an inherent conflict or tension between the Commission's commitment to protect and promote cultural diversity and its focus on growth and jobs. Economics and culture, they seem to suggest, cannot co-exist.

I could not disagree more.

Not only is Europe's rich cultural heritage and diversity valuable in itself, it is an increasingly important part of a burgeoning creative sector in Europe – contributing to growth, creating new jobs, making the most of new technologies, and developing innovative and interesting ways to reach new and wider audiences.

Can I also say that, as a Commissioner from a small Member State, one with its own rich and unique cultural heritage, I am very sensitive to the cause of cultural diversity and to the particular needs of small Member States and their creative artists.

I am very pleased and proud, for example, that from January the Irish language – a language spoken by only a small number of people, but absolutely central to Irish cultural identity – will gain new status as an official language of the European Union.

I have always held the view that in life – as in politics or the arts - it is variety and colour that adds flavour. The world would be a very dull place indeed if we were all the same.

Given the very obvious interest in the matter, I would like to take a little time today to set out my thinking on some current issues and on what our response should be.

I doing so, I am conscious that some of you here may not agree with my approach.

I fully accept that policy making in the area of intellectual property rights will always give rise to intense and lively debate. So it should. It is not an area in which things are black and white, in which it is easy to draw a clear line. It is important that the different voices are heard.

In the interests of all concerned, IPR policy, including on copyright, has to strike a delicate balance – offering the protection that is the entitlement of those who invest in creativity, but in a way that does not stifle creativity or hold back the next wave of innovators.

It is almost 350 years since Newton observed that "if I have seen further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants", but the sentiment holds true today. Each generation builds on the achievements of the one before.

This delicate balance can easily be upset by pulling the debate too strongly towards one point of view or position. It is a pitfall that policy-makers are duty-bound to avoid. We have to be able to see and to consider things in the round

Debate in this area has also been pulled into sharper focus by the extraordinary technological developments of recent years.

The rapid pace of change, the very many new and varied means of creating and disseminating creative works, increased levels of consumer expectation and demand, have, if we are honest, presented enormous challenges to us all. How can we position ourselves to make the most of these new opportunities?

Those of us engaged in policy-making and those of us engaged in rights management have sometimes found ourselves working hard to keep up. Those actually engaged in creativity itself, have, unsurprisingly, mostly been quicker to seize the new potential.

For some time, together with my services, I have been examining the EU's regulatory framework on copyright to ensure that it remains suited to our current needs.

This on-going process has resulted in two Commission initiatives – one adopted last year and one to be brought forward in the very near future – in which there has been particularly strong interest.

My approach to both matters – the licensing of music in the online environment and the question of fair compensation for legitimate acts of private copying – has been the same. I have worked hard to find a balanced way forward, one that takes into account the best interests of all stakeholders, rightsholders, industry and consumers, and that can contribute most to ensuring a strong and vibrant future for Europe's creative sector.

The Recommendation on online licensing was adopted in October 2005. Having examined the issue closely, it seemed to the Commission that the roll-out of new digital online services in Europe was being hampered by overly-complex arrangements for cross-border licensing. This represented a lost opportunity for everyone, from the service provider to the creative artist who could look forward to a larger income from a wider distribution of their work.

It came as some surprise to many that licensing arrangements in Europe resulted more from custom and practice than from law, and so we came to the conclusion that the most appropriate means to address the problem was through a Commission Recommendation.

There were a number of possible approaches. We chose to place choice firmly in the hands of the rightsholder. This seemed to us to be the best and most balanced way forward. In empowering rightsholders to choose freely the manager that can best represent their interests online, creative artists are in the strongest possible position to protect and defend the value of their works.

Although it remains early days, and we are monitoring developments carefully, there are signs that the Recommendation has had a positive effect. We are seeing new platforms – in which societies pool their repertoires for the purposes of offering EU-wide licences - emerging. Contrary to some expectations, these have not been limited to Anglo-American works.

We will continue to keep matters under review and, in this, your views and experiences will of course be very welcome.

You will all, no doubt, be aware, of the Commission's intention to bring forward an initiative on the question of copyright levies by the end of this year. It is an issue that has given rise to an intense debate in recent times – not all of it, I am sorry to say, well-informed. I am, therefore, particularly pleased to have this opportunity to explain my thinking.

We have monitored the application of the Copyright Directive carefully since its adoption in 2001. We have had several consultation exercises, including on the specific question of fair compensation and copyright levies. As a result of this work, we have identified a number of problems and we will shortly propose what we hope will be a balanced way forward.

In this, my point of departure is very clear. I am not in any way challenging the fair compensation provisions of the Directive. Where a rightsholder suffers harm as a result of the private copying exception, they should be compensated. This is very clear.

The Barosso Commission has a very strong commitment to creativity and innovation, and it has stressed the need to have systems in place to ensure that it is properly rewarded. This applies every bit as much in those sectors that rely on copyright protection as it does elsewhere.

However, we are concerned that the operation of some current schemes for fair compensation may be disruptive to trade in the internal market, in that they create obstacles and barriers that may not be justified. We also wonder whether consumers are getting as fair a deal as they should, and whether full account is being taken of the increased use of technological means to protected copyrighted works.

We also feel that greater clarity and accountability in how these funds are managed and distributed would be greatly in the interests of all concerned.

As I have said, we are looking for a balanced outcome that protects the interests of all concerned, rightsholders, industry, consumers. We want a system that is predictable, fair and sustainable into the future.

Can I conclude by making a general observation - one that concerns Europeans and change.

Whether it is because we have a great deal to be proud of in Europe, whether it is because we have achieved great things, whether it is because we come from an area of rich and diverse cultural traditions, we are not always as open as we should be to change.

In too many fields, too many of us look on change with profound suspicion. We are sometimes too ready to identify what we stand to lose and too slow to see what we can gain.

And I know as well as the next person that change can be difficult and that continuing as you are can seem to be the more attractive proposition.

But the status quo option supposes that the world around you is unchanging. That if you stand still, everything else will go on as it has. Life isn't like that.

The world in which copyright protected material is made available, enjoyed and shared has changed beyond recognition in the past decade. It is little short of a revolution.

It has resulted in great pressure, not least on the music industry that has struggled hard to turn the tide on piracy. But it has also opened up a wealth of new opportunities.

It has allowed new forms of creativity to emerge – many of them driven by consumers and by small emerging artists.

It has created new ways to enjoy content – although I have personally been driven mad by some of the more irritating ring-tones, I accept that for many young people, for example, the mobile phone is how they will choose to enjoy and to access music and, increasingly, video.

It has offered us new ways of experiencing and contributing to each other's culture.

Whether you are talking about youtube or long-tail selling, I have little doubt that embracing new opportunities and technologies can only strengthen Europe's cultural life. It will help to sustain and to underpin our cultural diversity into the future.

Importantly, it will create new audiences and new revenue streams for artists. Like the rest of us, they need bread as well as roses to survive.

But it means being open to change.

I am concerned that if Europe is not prepared to make the most of new possibilities, others will and the loss will be ours.

As I said at the start, there are some who pit culture against commerce. Who see any change as a zero-sum game.

Such simplistic arguments are as damaging as they are wrong.

Europe is changing. Our societies are becoming more diverse and, in ways, more fragmented. What was once certain, is challenged.

Throughout history, artists, musicians and writers have helped human beings make sense of the world in which they lived. This role is as important and necessary now as it ever was.

So when people call for debate and discussion, I am all for it. But it cannot become an excuse for doing nothing.

As I said earlier, policy-makers have a responsibility to listen to different viewpoints and to consider matters in the round. But eventually, we have to reach a point of decision and to act.

Having listened to me today, I hope that you can accept that I will only do so after weighing the issues carefully, and in the most fair and balanced way I know how.

Thank you.