 Good morning, everyone, and a warm welcome to this former chapel, one of the earliest, I think, home of the University of Amsterdam back in 1632. There were no cameras back then, not even bicycles, I suspect, so students had to come by horse, or probably on foot, to hear public debate in the academy. You will have noticed we have cameras here, I've put it on the slides, we've put some signs downstairs. We will be live streaming today, and a recording will be made available via the university channels in the course of next week. And I'm aware that cameras might have a chilling effect on speech, but I do hope today we'll just forget they are there and speak freely. And if you speak, because we intend to have a lot of discussion with the audience, if you speak, please do state your name beforehand, okay? So, we are a very diverse group today, which is great, and I guess in the plurality of opinions, we might agree maybe on our share. Two things, one is that it's better to be inside than outside if it starts raining later on, and the second is that we all share a deep concern for the sustainability of the press, and maybe mostly for quality press, that's because of the important function it plays in our democratic societies. Our Institute of Information, though, we're very grateful to be able to co-host this event. It came about for a number of reasons. I think the primary one is that Professor Lionel Bentley of the University of Cambridge and Professor Ian Hargreaves of Cardiff University had a great idea for a project on copyright and news, which is done in the UK primarily by Mr. Richard Denbury, Dr. Richard Denbury sitting in the middle there, who's also the chief architect of today. Lionel Bentley is staying at the Institute in the month of April, and we have this recent consultation by the European Commission on the question, do we need additional rights for publishers? So this is why we thought, let's have a conference here on this side of the channel, in Europe, as the English would say. So it was with pleasure, Lionel, I give you the floor for maybe a short few words. Thanks. Midraya, thank you all for coming to this, and thank you to the people from Libya for graciously hosting the event. It would have been very awkward to host it in Cambridge with me already being here. The timing meant this is really a key question now of European law, and probably British views about the future of European law. We have to be a little bit skeptical about how important they're going to be for the moment. So a very good idea to host the conference. I don't want to delay the proceedings anymore, so thank you to everybody for coming and to all the speakers for showing up. Okay, thank you very much, Lionel. I'm Ian Hargreaves. When a couple of years ago, Lionel started talking to me about this project and devised the title, Appraising Potential Legal Responses to Threats to the Production of News in a Digital Environment, it was pretty clear that Lionel was not a born sub-editor. But nor could we have imagined that at this stage in the evolution of the European unions and the European Commission's thinking about copyright in general, that this subject would have become so prominent, but it has, and I am certainly looking forward enormously to the unfolding of views that we are going to experience today. We will start with an introduction from Richard Dambry, who Lionel and I hired to do the hard work of the research project in the manner to which professors are accustomed. And Richard, like me, but in a slightly different balance and mix, has got both the background in the news media and a background in academia. Therefore, he began being well-qualified to ask these questions, and now he is, I think, pretty formidable well-informed about them as well. So Richard, take us away, please. Thank you very much. Start with an apology. It's my fault you're here today, so I do apologize that you're here on your Saturday morning rather than elsewhere. I thought it would be useful to speak relatively briefly to try and map out at least where I see the main fault lines in the argument are. It's a tricky task to do, and people will no doubt find fault in what I'm about to say, but it strikes me vaguely useful to at least set out what the main heads of arguments are for and against the introduction of any news-related copyright or related law. As Lionel points out, Lionel and Brad Sherman in their book, identifying the philosophical reasons for bringing in a new law is not entirely satisfactory because laws aren't only brought in for philosophical reasons, there are many other reasons why they're brought in. But it is kind of useful, I think, because it helps work out what evidence is likely to be relevant to what argument, all the arguments, obviously, into play. But to use an example, the evidence which we're going to hear about in the third session, the economic evidence, is highly relevant to a question about whether it's necessary to incentivise the production of commercial news. But it's less relevant to arguments about ownership in news, natural rights theories about property in news. So it's worth setting out at the beginning, I think, what the different arguments are and mapping out some of the fault lines of how they've been fought over in the past couple of years. I've been following this subject. It strikes me there are four. The first is the equality of treatment argument, which we've seen come out recently. The second is the free-riding argument. The third is the natural rights for property in news arguments. And the fourth, which I think is probably the most significant behind them all, the incentive argument, the idea that there's a requirement that copyright contribute to the incentive, contribute as an incentive for the production of news which would be under-produced by the market. No doubt people will find fault in those, but those seem to be a relatively decent way of starting this. So to expand on them a little more detail, the equality of treatment argument is one we've seen arise since it strikes me in November or December last year when the commission put out a communication. The essential argument is that other forms of content producers are rights holders in the European scheme of things, phonogram producers, broadcasters. So it makes sense for other content producers to be treated likewise. It appears persuasive on the grounds of the ideas that laws should treat likes alike. It's slightly less persuasive because it's not sufficient of itself to bring in a new law. You not only need to lead, look at equality of treatment, but you also need to look at the costs. If you treat people equally, what might happen to others? It's also not entirely convincing by itself because if one allows in one set of people, then other people are going to have a similar claim. It may be that they want to be treated equally too. What may happen in this case is if producers, however they're defined, are granted equality of treatment. One wonders what happens, for example, to wire services. Do they have an equal case to be treated equally? And one of the other quirks of the equality argument is strikes me that it may be overbroad. So broadcasters already have a measure of treatment, have a measure of protection under the related rights scheme. One needs to be careful when line drawing so that they don't get over-benefited by being classified as rights holders twice over. None of these are insurmountable. I'm just mapping out some of the problems with it. The second argument is the free-riding argument. This is the idea that online news distributors are taking the valuable content produced by publishers and are illegitimately making money out of this. We'll hear a little bit, I think, from Chris in session two about the hot news talk in America, which seems quite narrowly focused on this mischief and attempt to deal with it. But it's worth pointing out to start with that the free-riding argument has its critics. These are on a number of grounds. And one of the most substantial is the argument that online news aggregators and their like are actually contributing, they're promoting the news of publishers rather than detracting from it. And this is a question which Bertine, who's going to speak in the third session, will be able to help us with economic evidence about whether that is or it isn't the case. There's a second argument that online news aggregation is a creation of a new market. It's something which is valuable in itself. So even if there is a substitution rather than promotion, this is of use and it's a valuable thing to society. So that might be a second argument against free-riding being a rationale for a new law. Again, there are other arguments. I won't go through them all in the brief session to start with. The third question is that there are natural rights. There is property in the news. Raquel in a paper she wrote quoted Rupert Murdoch talking about news aggregators, thieving news. It's an interesting and difficult question. The observation I would make is that copyright has traditionally treated news in a different way to other forms of content, it seems to me. For reasons connected with how important news is in a democracy. So again, Raquel in a paper describes the early versions of the Berne Convention which particularly excluded the news of the day from copyright protection. That's not the case now, but characteristics of copyright laws such as the idea, expression, dichotomy seem to me designed to try and treat news slightly differently from other forms of content. And I think Berne's in section three will be talking about some of the ways in which copyright is designed to deal with news and the reasons for this. Again, I'm emphasizing these aren't conclusive arguments. I'm trying to set some hairs running, but it strikes me that that is one of the arguments against the natural rights case. Finally is the sentive case, that the idea here being that copyright is needed because news is a valuable commodity and the news industry are suffering significantly. There's no doubt at all that the news industry are in Europe and in America suffering significantly. Figures or wherever you look at the figures whether it's amount of journalist employed, whether it's titles, whether it's revenue or whether it's profit, there are significant difficulties. One of the questions which people are interested in copyrights raise when I've made this point to them is they say, okay, there are problems with the news industry, why is copyright part of the solution? There may be other things which will be better dealt better as part of the solutions. Subsidies perhaps, changing charity law, creating trust funds, those sorts of things might be a better way of dealing with news. There are cogent arguments against some of those, but even if one avoids them, there is still the problem for the incentive argument which one needs to address, is why is copyright part of the solution if the problem is an economic problem of greater scope? I hope not to have answered any of those questions, I hope just to have posed them and the idea is that by the end of the day, some of those questions will have been addressed in a bit more detail. So I've spoken for too long already and I shall stop speaking. You've spoken admirably just within the intended limit. So that gets us quickly on to Jan Hegemann from Raua, a German legal firm. And Jan has played a significant role in the German and the European debate and among your clients, people you've acted for I believe is Axel Springer. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Ian. In fact, I was for Axel Springer which is Germany's biggest newspaper publisher. Right from the beginning of the debate on an ancillary right or neighboring right or related right, whatever you call it, for press publishers. That goes back to the year of 2009. We have now seven years since and as you all know, developments in the digital world and that's what we are talking about are so fast that seven years, our whole generation. When we started the debate and my task is difficulties faced by news publishers in this history, it started with news aggregators, especially Google News and the snippets, Google taking the first sentences of articles, grabbing it, collecting it, presenting it to the public and the media maybe experience that the public would be sufficiently serviced with Google News and wouldn't even click on the link that leads them to the website of, let's say, Weltde or Built or whatsoever. And this has an enormous economic impact and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir you all know and Richard mentioned it, what economic difficulties publishers face, the revenues from purchasing their newspapers are falling down as the distribution rate is falling down and the development on the websites which are only based on advertising is by far not coping that the publishers lose on the printing side. Now we have a development to implement payment barriers which partly works, partly doesn't work but it doesn't solve the problem. So the idea in Germany was for all the reasons that you mentioned, equality of treatment, we saw that there are ancillary rights for broadcasters, for theater organizers, for data bank organizers to give the publishers an original right that does not depend on a licensing from the authors and you have to keep in mind that a publisher may have employees and typically the publisher will have a buyout with its employees but he also has about and for Oxford Springer, it's true that's more than 10,000 people writing on a freelance basis and what you get is only a very small right, an exploitation right but not the right to defend the copyright and what the publishers would need was an original right comparable to that to broadcasters and others. I don't want to bore you with all the developments in between but rather bring to developments that are really fresh and new. The first one is a research that was made just recently and published in Germany in only in April 22nd of Next Media in Hamburg and then they found out that about 60% of the users in the internet would search for news through the search engines. In Germany with a 90% market share, it's Google, in fact. 60% of the internet users search for news through the search machine. They do not go to the website of Spiegel or Fatz or whatsoever. And if they find a result, they will click on the deep link and the deep link leads you to the article on the second, third, fourth level of the website. The adverts connected with these levels, deep link levels are of much lesser worth than the ones on the entrance side. So economically, this searching for news through the search engine and then being linked to a deep link side results in much lesser economical impact for the publisher. But Google, I take it Google because it's 95%, it's a little bit unfair because it's search engines that we should have in mind be that Google Bing or whatsoever, but let's take it with Google. Google monetizes the work that the publisher, together with this also, has done. It's collecting the news, finding the news, prioritizing the news, bring it to the public, bring the news into this very first sentence which is the core sentence of every article. This is what we claim, a creative work, especially if it's connected with the brand, the trust that you set in the news being delivered by Der Spiegel, which is a trustworthy source, or by Effort Set or in England by The Times or whatsoever. The second development brings us to the copyright level. It's a ruling issued by the federal civil court the day before yesterday. Right now, we only have a press release. On that, we do not have the full reasoning of the court. It's the ruling, in the case, Fogel against Vigy Ward, you wouldn't understand that. Vigy Ward is the collecting society for authors, and Mr. Fogel is a former patent judge, writing articles as a scientist, and he claimed against Vigy Ward years and years ago and run up the ladder with regards to the participation of the publishers, that's not just the book publishers, in the so-called reproduction fee, those fees that are paid by the producers of copying machines, computers, blank DVDs, which are collected and then spent through the collecting societies to the authors and the publishers. And following a decision of the European Court, the federal court, civil court ruled that the publishers are not any longer more qualified to get money out of this reproduction fees, but rather will have to repay what they got in the last couple of years to the authors, which will sum up to a three digit million and is really a danger of insolvency for small and mid-size book publishers. Why do I tell you that? I do that because the federal court in its press release has with a half sentence that this wouldn't apply for press publishers as in Germany they have an ancillary right since 2013. Why that? It's because the ancillary rights is an original right coming into existence in the person of the publisher in the moment he accepts an article for publication. And this qualifies as a full copyright protection, as related right, the press publish publishes too further being part of the system of the reproduction fees. The idea behind is that the European Court and the federal civil court say full protection is only available if there is a related right an ancillary right you can put it an original right to media publishers and that's the basis to do that what's needed to find a way to monetize your products in the future. Well, I understood I should stop and if once I understood I should stop. It is unfair because of course that in the very English game of cricket means you're out. You know we're on the continent. Cricket is almost unknown here. Thank you very much, Jan. Matt Rogison is head of public policy for The Guardian, a very important British news organization which has had tremendous success in growing its global digital audience but which is still I think it would be fair to say challenged by the business of making that pay or at least cover its costs. Matt, over to you. Thanks very much, Ian. So I thought I'd briefly talk about three things. The first is the strategy that The Guardian's pursued in terms of its open strategy, how that model is under attack and then thirdly how we're looking to diversify that model. So as Ian says, The Guardian has gone from being a regional Manchester newspaper to becoming a seventh or eighth best read national newspaper in the UK to becoming the second most well read English news brand in the world. We've had with The New York Times for that second place and we're just behind the Daily Mail which you may or may not regard as a news brand. We've consciously gone through a strategy which has attempted to grow reach and last month I think we achieved I think around 135 million unique users reading Guardian content around the world. Two thirds of the readers of The Guardian come from outside the UK now. So it's gone from being a UK brand into a global news brand and that has huge benefits for The Guardian in terms of advertising. It means that we've set up an office in the US and we're able to access the US advertising market which is vital for an organisation based on digital advertising. It also means that people like Snowden and whoever it was that leaked the Panama papers want to work with The Guardian. Organisations like the ICIJ want to work with The Guardian because we are a global brand English speaking and we reach millions of millions of people. We've also through the kind of open strategy where there isn't an obligation to register before reading our content and there certainly isn't a subscription. We've grown a new revenue stream in the form of digital revenues which have grown incrementally from 37 million in 2010-11 through to 82 million in the last year that's just gone, 2014-15. And as I say that's been partly because of the expansion into the US and Australia but also because of our relative size we have the ability to reach a lot of people. But that model is under attack. I think everybody knows that the thin, reasonably large model is under attack from people who have a massive deep understanding of their audience. And I think Google and Facebook clearly are hoovering up a lot of the advertising revenue that has previously gone to first party publishers. There was a 30% growth in digital advertising last year. 1.6% of that growth went to everyone but Google and Facebook. So everyone but those two platforms is fighting over 1.6% growth and that I think will only continue. And the key trends for that are the shift to mobile is rapid. I think the majority of Guardian content is now consumed both on mobile and away from the Guardian website. We can obviously generate more value from advertising where advertising is displayed on our own website, or where it's displayed on Facebook or Google. The possibilities are less. And the amount of money you can generate from a mobile impression is still significantly less than a desktop impression because there's just less space to display an advert. Another challenge is ad blocking which I think is significant in terms of companies like Adblock Plus have made it very easy for consumers to use ad blocking features in the UK and in Italy. Free the mobile network which if the merger with O2 goes through will have 40% of the mobile market in the UK. They've talked about implementing ad blocking at a network level which would give them huge power over the revenue streams that are available for companies that base their economic model on digital advertising. And then a third area is the shift not only from, we've kind of had three phases of social media, we have search and social, we have Google which is clearly exceptionally dominant. I saw some figures do the day that suggested that on mobile and tablet search, Google's share globally is 94% of mobile search. And given that mobile is the way that everything's going that's pretty significant. Similarly, Facebook, 75% of their advertising revenues are derived from mobile. But the first phase of social, if you think of it as Google and a kind of open approach searching for news, second phase is Facebook which is semi open where you can see that your news is being shared and you can potentially work with Facebook on programs like Instant Articles. The third phase is probably platforms like Snapchat, WhatsApp and others where actually you can't really see how your news is being shared and the ability to kind of work with those companies is less than somebody like a Facebook. So those are a number of threats. I think the activity that we're seeing in the commission at the moment around competition are clearly driving but new behaviors from the platforms. I think the Google DNI project that we're seeing is welcome and I think we're seeing some really good partnerships coming out of that process. Google AMP is a really good product which is a new standard. Facebook Instant Articles, again I think the pressure from the commission around competition is also driving them to look to partner more with publishers and potentially feed some revenues back but those are all voluntary projects at the moment. They're completely in the hands of the platforms. The news publishers are supplicant to the platforms in terms of how those kind of initiatives work in practice. So the third area that we're looking at is if our advertising model is under threat how do we diversify? And I think there we've talked very recently about membership, which is where we move to a closer relationship with our most loyal readers and we give them access to content that you wouldn't have if you didn't sign up to the Guardian, if you just came to the shop front. Where we work with readers, as we have done over the last few years on, create new content and working with them for them to tell us what sort of content they'd like us to see us create. We're also creating higher value content as well as a big trend in mobile. So the other trend is in video and the Guardian already produces a lot of video. We don't necessarily monetize that video as well as some other publishers do but certainly we'll be creating more of that and obviously if that has more value then there's more incentive for the Guardian to enforce our rights in terms of where we see that content being infringed. So just to go back in terms of the open strategy, I think that was delivered very much on the basis that not that our content was free, there's always been some kind of exchange in terms of people reading a piece of Guardian content, seeing advert or they pay a subscription for the Table of Mobile app. We have rights and we could enforce them if we decided that we wanted to. And it's probable, I think, that in doing what they've done over the past decade or so, the caching of articles and the distribution of articles, Google's, you know, it's infringed rights under UK copyright law. But it's a conscious decision by the Guardian not to pursue against infringement because they have kind of generated this enormous reach. I think what's going on in Europe is publishers wanting to have similar rights, the ability to go after people who infringe copyright in the same way as UK publishers, Irish publishing, Dutch publishers are able to. And there's no doubt that that wouldn't be a silver bullet and stop and the kind of undermining of the economic model of news providers, but it would at least be another arrow in their armory. The bigger questions I have really are, the digital world doesn't favor one publisher doing things alone. If the Guardian or anybody else was to, you know, try to prevent a large search engine from distributing their content, there are 64,999 other publishers in Google News who would backfill and provide their content to consumers. So there is a game of what we British called chicken, where the person who goes first has the potential to be made to look a fool. And all you have to do really is to see the Times has got a subscription model in the UK. It decided that it wanted to be removed from Google's indexes. The Times isn't really a global news brand anymore. It's very much kind of UK focused news brand. It doesn't have the same reach as the Guardian anymore. And that's ultimately because it's decided to kind of prevent its distribution more broadly. There are many other issues that I think we are concerned about. Copyright is a vital part of our defense against the undermining of our content. But yeah, I don't think it's the complete answer. It's important for me to mention that you're speaking today in a personal capacity. Absolutely, thank you for that. Yeah, I kind of see this as a bit of a, you can go top down on this, and I will, and bottom up. It's a bit of a Russian doll problem. And I think it's always helpful to start with the biggest picture, which is about the role of news in a healthy functioning democracy. And there's a great quote, and I think quotation comes up as a specific legal issue later, but a great quote from Benjamin Franklin on that, which is that he'd rather have newspapers and no government than government and no newspapers. And I think, I'm happy to take correction on that from someone with the appropriate accent. Thank you. I think that's kind of underlined really by some of the activity you see newspapers supporting. Not all newspaper activity is good, that's for sure. And we picked up some references to that, but I was in Washington last week and visiting AP and also Washington Post, who are proudly clutching a couple of Pulitzer Prizes. Washington Post for having created a database of the police shootings of civilians, which is having a direct and positive impact on public policy there. An AP for having invested in creating a story about slavery in the fishing trade in the Pacific and tracing how fish caught using slaves, literally a camp on an island of slave labor, is being fed back through into not just American, but other Western restaurants. And that kind of activity, I think, is very easy to see is terribly important. What the Guardian have done with Snowden is a classic and more recent and local example of that. So that's a statement of the bleeding obvious, but it's worth restating, I think, and losing that is what we're talking about. And copyright policy has to fit into that view. I think, secondly, on the internet, I'm not the world's expert, but I think it's worth thinking about how the two titans of Facebook and Google have achieved the positions they've achieved. First of all, they're both delivered things which are fantastic and easy to use and are free. I use them and a lot of other people use them. And a lot of voters of any MEPs who may be in the room use them and they are wonderful services. What they do in Google's case is take everybody else's content and index it and create a utility based on that. In Facebook's case, they encourage everybody, including me, to create a lot of content. And in doing that, they also gather a tremendous amount of very interesting information about the individuals using it and a huge amount of traffic. And that makes them a phenomenally powerful as an advertising resource. Now, I think the bit that I debated with Richard slightly more after the first seminar in London was to bear in mind what the business model of news is. It's about gathering enough readers together and selling them something, which is news, and then selling advertising to those readers. And the issue for newspapers and the issue that any change to copyright law has to be put in the context of is that their ability to sell that advertising is declining and declining very rapidly as the charts behind me should illustrate. So I apologize for using charts but I thought one picture possibly means less words from me and maybe that's easier for everybody. But you'll see, if you look at that, that the amount of money newspapers are getting is coming down very fast. I think there's a second chart as well which gives you advertising against cover price. I think in both of those pictures it's worth looking at the digital lines as well. They are tiny. One of the things that I found frustrating at times is being told by people, oh, we should be allowed to do this because we're sending clicks to your website and these are tremendously valuable and they will change the future of your business. Well, you might believe that and a number of newspapers might have strategies based on that. I personally, as a business person, broadly, don't believe that to be true. And actually the fact that they're now running into this brick wall of ad-blocking which is the big new topic in the industry where they think in some segments particularly younger populations in Europe, up to 50% are using ad-blockers now. The idea that that traffic on free-to-supply content is going to employ the journalists that you need to uncover slavery in the South Pacific or do some of the other great things that news organisations have done is I think slightly specious. I think going on, why am I here? What do I do for a living? Well, the NLA licenses businesses that copy news content. I think we made a bit of an aim for ourselves by taking a web aggregator called Meltwater through the UK courts and winning, losing an issue, unsurprising issue in the ECJ. But I think what we do actually is mostly is still about licensing digitally delivered newspaper print content. Web has been relatively small in fact. For us, web to print ratios are roughly the same as you would see up there. We're very proud of the fact the royalties we send back to publishers generate the equivalent to about 1,500 jobs in journalism. So the Guardian would be receiving something like 5 million euros a year from us and I think that's a good and healthy contribution to what we want to see, which is good journalism and supporting journalism is our strap buying. But journalism is under huge threat. One of the stats from the UK Press Gazette that I dug out recently was that 6,000 jobs lost in journalism last year, about half jobs in journalism have gone since the turn of the century. Last year, 14,000 jobs in PR were created, fabulous, but if you think about where that takes, the debate and the democratic argument is worth thinking about. The database right is a relatively recent development from our viewers, from our perspective as a licensing organisation. It is helpful. I think some of the confusion, I mean the business model for a newspaper is to employ a lot of people, I think with Guardian Employee, it's getting on to thousands, something like that. You employ 1,000 people to make and create news for you and then when you get into the courts in Europe, less so in the UK, you aren't recognised as existing at all in copyright. It's an obvious nonsense that needs to be addressed and it will simplify and streamline licensing. It will put news organisations who are not dissimilar, particularly in the digital age from the other publishing organisations that have that protection, it will just create equivalents and I think the problems it's alleged to create are not serious problems. And I think we've looked at complete noncences across Europe for stemming out of that, particularly the Heal It Packard case against Reprevelle. But I do think, I'd echo the points from the Guardian, the idea that copyright will change the business model. If you go back to that big picture and think about the power that Google and Facebook are creating, and we have to think about what the solutions are and I think you're into the world of the least worst here. You either go for state backing, BBC does a fantastic job, BBC and local newspapers in the UK working together, maybe that's a little sticking plaster in the right direction. Or you look at some sort of subsidy, effectively, which is what I think the publishers have tried to create without silly right in Spain and Germany, rather ineffectively. Or you give up and go away. I don't think giving up and going away because I don't think you can do that for the steel industry, maybe, in the UK. You can't do it with news because news is too important. Thank you. The final speaker will be coming to discussion in his own room, Mark Stigli, who is the head of the chancellor for Elsevier, which is part of an organisation and now is known officially and relatively, relatively, it's a very good line. Thank you, Ian. So it may not be totally obvious why I am here, but I think it's important for all publishing industry and organisations to think about the problems that have been outlined here because they do affect all publishing sectors. It may be that the news sector is particularly impacted because of the nature of the advertising function in terms of revenue, but there's a lot of similarities in terms of the issues that have been identified by the speakers before me. So the problems that we're facing in the STM space and science, technical and medical publishing, I heard a lot of the same echoes. So we are also dealing with questions about brands, about multiple authors, about publishing as a form of communication and networking, about the migration of publishing documents to providing experiences, to integration into different workflows. But I think the more fundamental question that all publishing sectors are facing in the context of the internet is the challenge or the trade-off between visibility and sustainability. So visibility, of course, is very much about publishing. Publishing is about visibility, but our authors on the STM space and journalists who are following an important story want their stories to be told and they want their research to be identified and claimed. So visibility is fundamental, of course, to publishing. But in terms of looking at the balance between visibility and sustainability, there's some obvious things that can be said about the internet. So first of all, the simplest solution with respect to visibility would of course to make all content freely available and accessible on the internet. And you'd work with search engines to optimize content visibility and with other awareness services, such as the traditional abstracting and indexing services in the STM space. So that would be very simple and that's one side of the pole between visibility and sustainability. In the end, as we've heard, making all content available without payment or remuneration of some kind and in some fashion makes publishing untenable. The publishing business model, no matter what the particular construct, so whether you're subscription-based, supply-side-based, advertising-supported, is important to society. Journalism is important from the perspective of an informed and aware society. I would say STM is important from the perspective of research technology and medical developments. All important in maintaining overall quality and innovation in the digital space. Digital content and online digital information is highly innovative in this environment in terms of working on visually impaired accessibility, in terms of working on reference linking in content, linking to data, and content enrichment with taxonomic information. I know that sounds a little bit boring and scientific, but that actually makes the content extremely usable and extremely relevant and very findable. So the question is how to promote and increase the visibility, the awareness of STM content, and I think many publishers struggle with the question of how open we can be. There's a lot of discussion sometimes about a freemium model, so you provide some information freely available as a way of linking, perhaps, to the content, and we've heard some folks talk about that in terms of linking to the fundamental websites and home sites of publishers. So in the STM space, many STM publishers are providing abstracts on a free basis. Search engines are given access to paywall contents in order to drive awareness, visibility, and hopefully usage. A lot of special purpose content, for example, most publishers on the medical space have made openly accessible information about the Zika virus in recent months, and previews of articles, low-cost rental models, delayed open access, preview open access. All of these models, these freemium models, are things that publishers are doing now. However, most of these methods come with some form of restriction, some term and condition, generally having to do with prohibiting further distribution, particularly commercial distribution, for the sustainable reasons noted. In other words, the freemium model idea is to promote linkage back to the publisher platform. While at the same time satisfying some of the obvious needs and desires in terms of visibility and awareness of information that's out there. In terms of accessibility, we also want to facilitate the ability of researchers at institutions that subscribe to our content to be able to easily get access on a 24 by seven basis. Researchers are busy people and they often travel and otherwise collaborate. University Libraries information systems also usually operate on a highly flexible 24 by seven basis for the same reason. We also hear customer concerns about technical protection measures and digital rights management. People prefer to have the content without those types of restrictions. But the question is, outside of perhaps the gold open access author pays model, how open can we be with content and accessibility if there are organizations and entities out there that are using and reusing the content that we make easily accessible for their own commercial or even non-commercial purposes without authorization, license or permission. Now, unlike the Guardian, we do actively digital copyright enforcement. But as is often commented on, that is pretty much like locking the barn after the horse has bolted. Now, we will continue our efforts to identify the high profile sites that are clearly illicitly trading and published content and we'll do our best to disable such sites. And we do work with search engines and other online services that recognize that they have responsibilities in this area as well. Not all search engines and not all online services that support these services are completely responsible, but many of them are. And I think there's more maturity that's happening in this area. But the key issue and the nub of the issue is this. We all share a goal of having a vital online world of content and information. And we also want to make content as easily accessible as we can, but entities that take advantage of that ease of access force us and our colleagues in the news publishing industry to consider how open can we be. Recognize a publisher's related right, similar to the related rights we've heard about in film and music. I certainly, I think certainly must be considered in this context. As some countries in the EU already have, I'm sure there are other solutions as well, but this is one that we should look at very seriously. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much indeed, Mark. Well, I think we've had a decent layout of the first round of issues. Questions, I guess, that arise are the extent to which the situation that news publishers are in can be compared and learned from in terms of the design of copyright law. And I think for people who aren't in the news industry, probably the puzzling sense that you have thinking about The Guardian or The Times or what Andrew said about NLA about the extent to which the newspaper publishes themselves can agree that they want something like this because so far they haven't. But that makes for at least an available and open political question. Is copyright, has copyright been in any sense the cause of the problem that news faces? And if it has, can some redesign of copyright play a useful part in addressing the problems that have been described? And if that is to be designed and achieved, how can it be designed and achieved in a way that has the minimal number of negative side effects if you concede that such side effects are likely to occur depending on what the design is. So perhaps that's where we've come to. Who would like to raise a point from the floor, yes. Please say who you are, wait for the microphone to land because the relay depends upon that. And let's go as briskly as we can. Thank you very much. My name is Dirk Visser. I'm a professor of intellectual property law in Leiden and I'm also a practicing lawyer in Amsterdam. I would like to make three points which might be relevant. First of all, what is the use of those neighboring rights that the phonogram producers and the broadcasters actually have? That is a right that came about in the 1960s because of some strange compromise within the context of the Rome Convention. We have had the neighboring right for phonogram producers and broadcasters in the Netherlands only since 1993. And the only thing it has been good for them is getting a share of the levies. It's very important to realize that those neighboring rights as an exclusive right do not serve any purpose whatsoever in those industries. Fighting piracy can be done on the basis of copyright always could be. And the only thing that the neighboring rights as we have had them under the Rome Convention has led to in the most countries that I know at least in the Netherlands is that they get a share of the photocopying levy. They get a share of the lending levy. They get a share of the home, the private, the home taping levy. And nowadays it's even necessary to get a part of the cable distribution levy because after the Luxand decision, you can no longer claim remuneration, no longer claim levies on the basis of the copyright. So you have to rely on the neighboring rights. So the neighboring rights have been very important for the levy side of the issue. And I think it's very important to separate that particular issue, the new Vauge Award and Rapewell issue. I think everybody agrees that it's very nice what Mr. Martin Vogel initiated and it is very interesting to see that the Rapewell decision was not initiated by the authors but by the people who have to pay the levy. So in fact we all agree for 40 to 50 years that it is actually reasonable to split those levies 50% for the publisher and 50% for the authors. Very few authors actually have disputed that apart from Mr. Vogel. So that is a very interesting issue. We have a new problem, a Rapewell-Vauge Award problem and I think we have to address that. That is one issue. But I think we clearly have to separate that issue from the parasitic behavior by Facebook and Google just to put it very succinctly. That is an issue you're not going to solve by introducing a neighboring right which is comparable to the copyright for the single reason that the copyright cannot solve it either. At this moment in my opinion we have a quite different problem. That's a problem that we allow all kinds of hyperlinking. In the Swenson case it's suggested that even confusing the public while deep linking to other people's content and putting all kinds of advertising around it is actually allowed under copyright. Most academics seem to agree that that's a good idea that all kinds of hyperlinking should be free and you should solve all those issues either through tort law or through secondary liability or whatever. So copyright in itself, copyright does not suffice at this moment. If the ECJ is going to follow Advocate-General Wattele in saying that even intentional hyperlinking to clearly illegal sources as is in the GS Media case if that's not possible to stop that under copyright how will it be possible to stop it under a neighboring right? I think nobody will think that the neighboring right for the publisher should be stronger than the copyright. So if then the copyright doesn't work then the neighboring right won't work either. So I think we have to solve the Levy issue the reprobial faulty award issue in some way maybe through a very small change in saying it is reasonable to give 50% of the levies to the publishers. And then there's the other issue how to deal with parasitic behavior. And I would just end by giving this example that I've given in a blog entry I did yesterday on Brave Software. Brave Software is a company in the US which not only blocks advertising but actually replaces it by its own advertising. It's an internet browser where you go on the internet and you go to a website for instance of a news organization and you no longer see the original advertising they're replaced by the advertising by Brave Software. And they graciously said that they will in future give a percentage of their new advertising income to the right owners behind the websites that are being used by their browsers. So we have a problem there that business models are developing which are highly just put it extreme very parasitical even more parasitical than Google and Facebook and the way that we interpret current copyright law does not help us in any way. So if copyright doesn't help us then the neighboring right will not help us either. So we'll have to come up either with making copyright itself stronger and make soon obviously the last point I want to make of course we have to make the pie bigger and not fight about the sharing of the increase the decreasing pie which is also something that's happening now between those collecting societies who are now claiming on the base of reprobail I want 100 million and then the smaller purpose you will go out of business so that's not good. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. If the panel could save up their responses to some of these points and questions. Yes here and then over here. Thank you. Yes there. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Chris from Helmholtz Association. I have a common then the question first of all for Mr Hegeman. It's concerning the economic situation of the spring of a lot because you referred to the difficulties I'm looking at the news of the spring of a lot on its own website. They increased the turnover in the last year by 8.5 percent and they increased the income the profit by 10 percent. So it's not that bad. That's first of all. Secondly I would be interested. You referred to the situation where a search engine displays a snippet and then either the and then in many cases you claim the snippet is enough for the reader for the consumer and they don't look at the website. Now if that is the case what would be interesting for me is is the important thing for the consumer just the snippet and with other words is the product of the publisher too big or is the important issue that the snippet is related to the publisher and therefore gets credibility. I'd be interested in your views on that and then I also have a question for Mr Sile. Now you said basically the academic publishers may have similar problems as the press publishers claim to have. Now the academic publishers rely heavily on the work of academia. They don't pay. You don't pay academia. So I think it's very interesting that in relation to academia you think it's okay to not pay and in relation to the search engine and you say it's important to get visibility you want to get paid. I don't understand that. My name is Tirk Reutzer. I work with iRide in Berlin and I've done a lot of work on the German Ancillary Copyright in the last years and I've got a question for Jan Hegemann especially. Coming back to the point that Christoph Broch already made you suggest that there's kind of a market failure between the search engines and the press publishers online. So I've talked to a lot of economists and a lot of other people concerning the question whether it is good for news publishers or bad for news publishers that they are indexed by search engines and news aggregators and they all say news, they say search technologies and content providing online is a symbiotic relation, right? And you suggest that you lose a lot of people, you lose a lot of users and therefore advertising income because there are news aggregators and search engines and I would like to ask you whether you could point me to the proof of that suggestion where does that come from and the second question is if that is the case, why don't you simply opt out of the system and tweak your robots text files in order that you won't be found anymore. Thank you. My name is Burton Martens. I work for the Joint Research Center, the European Commission in Seville and I am an economist and I work on digital media. I don't want to give the impression that all questions are addressed to Mr. Hegemann but I also have a question for Mr. Hegemann but a very short and simple one. Can you tell me how many newspapers in the Springer Group or in Germany in general have made use so far of the neighboring right that now exists for German newspaper publishers and how much additional revenue this has generated for them, if any? Well, I'm a little bit challenged. No, no, no, I need to flip from my... Notes, Axel Springer's economic situation, those figures are true but it's also true that those figures of their rising turnover and profits are not stemming from the traditional news business. As you might know, Springer has sold quite a group of its traditional regional newspapers such as Hamburger Abendblatt and Morgenpost and so to the Funke Media Group just one and a half year ago and Springer has decided some years back to completely restructure its activities and to invest almost more than a billion into internet or digital-based companies that have not much or nothing to do with the traditional publishers' business. The publishing side of the business today is developed, built, and so on and the build is profitable, developed is not, as you know, but Springer has understood that they will not be able to keep on their traditional content, journalist-driven content business without backing it with activities that are far away from the classical journalism such as the Germans in this room might know this, search things for housing, Emonet or others. There are more than 300 companies now in the Springer world in the new digital businesses that are not basically bound to journalism. Having said that, Springer sticks to journalism and it's a part of the self-understanding of a newspaper publisher that he will be part of an open society with as many products and as many competing journalist products as possible because this is a fundamental issue for every open society. It would not be a good development if we turn down the number of Kim Krohn competing publications and end up with companies that might have a tradition in journalism but do their business now in many other businesses but not in journalism. When it comes to the Snippers, yes, how does a journalist write his article? He puts the core information, all the core opinion if it comes to a commentary into the first sentence, just to attract the interest of the reader and that's an art in itself as every journalist knows and the Snippers typically are the first sentence. So if you go to Google News, you will have the core news of the day being connected with a trustworthy source, let's say the Guardian or let's say Spiegel or so within this very first sentence and this is very deeply into the German struggles we are going on how many words should it be? The German Ancillary Right we have now implemented in 2013 says that single words are free and we are now struggling in the law courts. Whether single words, a group of single words is six words or 12 words, that's really crazy. I'm not very happy with what was the outcome of the 2013 law because this has caused a lot of struggle and we will end up with decisions of the Federal Civil Court in maybe five years and that leads me, excuse me please, to the third question you asked whether Notch Bringer has already made use of this Ancillary Right. The answer is yes and no. How can you make use of the Ancillary Right? It's a little bit of pity because we will have a presentation as I understand on the German Ancillary Right in the next session. But in fact, some of the German publishers including Springer have collected their rights and put it in a collection, a society by GMedia. And by GMedia has set up a tariff to remunerate the use of the Ancillary Right. This tariff has gone, which is mandatory, through arbitration at the German Patent Office and the arbitrators found that the Ancillary Right is applicable, that a tariff can be set up, but that the tariff that they put set up, the YG Media, was by far too high. And now we are in the course of the Civil Court proceedings, a claim against Google, Mr. Hallaners, that is already pending at the Berlin Country Court and it will for sure go up to the High Court and it will for sure go up to the Civil Federal Court and I will be able to answer your question in the course of, what will we guess, five years? Maybe. Okay, we've only got three or four minutes left. Mark, you were specifically asked... I'm sorry to miss one question, but... You were specifically asked whether it's fair to make a comparison between academic publishing where you get the academics as a so-called free resource and journalism where that's not the case. Well, it's very true, of course, that academics write for a number of reasons and, of course, are usually employed by institutions and universities. So the dynamics are different from freelancers, but I would point out that Elsevier and other STM publishers do contribute quite a bit towards scientific societies on whose behalf we publish. We contribute to editors and, of course, we contribute in the overall systems and investments we make to make that content better, to ensure that peer review is done consistently and the like. So it's again, it's all about quality, but, of course, the economics are a bit different in different sectors. Okay, could I just invite Matt, Richard and Andrew in that order if there's anything that you would like briefly to say around the questions? We haven't, I think, reprobail and all that might come up later, but that's not to discourage you from having a crack at that line of questioning if you feel like it. Thank goodness I can leave reprobail to others. The point about advertising being a symbiotic relationship, it does feel that we're kind of at a tipping point where the amount of data that's been generated and the likes of Google and Facebook have is encouraging advertisers to shift more and more away from first party publishers. And advertisers like The Guardian have benefited from a good relationship with advertisers. And I think the faith in Google and Facebook is becoming all coming now. You get huge brands like Wrecked Benheiser doing $1.8 billion contracts with Google or with Facebook so they're just spending all of their advertising on another platform rather than on the publisher. So it does feel like something's changing there. And then the second area, as I've already mentioned, they kind of open social and search platforms like Google and Facebook. If they're merging, if they're moving towards, consumers are moving more to closed kind of chat platforms like WhatsApp and others. And we know that they are. WhatsApp now has more users than Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg made a very good bet in buying WhatsApp. There's a big question about how news publishers will monetize content at all through those kind of chat apps. The biggest challenge is how do you maintain a connection between a reader of news which has a high value to society with the brand? Because the way that news brands, I think, are gonna diversifies by marketing experiences and products based on the brand and faith in the brand and trust and the connection to the brand. So I think there's a whole bunch of nutty problems which copyright is part of, but there's a bigger issue of play. Okay, Richard. Very briefly, in relation to the American company which is substituting its advertising for somebody else, there was a Danish case about five or six years ago which Soren may speak about after lunch where they did exactly the same thing called aid online and the Danish copyright law to prevent that happening. But it strikes me it's more of a pre-writing sort of situation that someone is taking a product and making a different business off the end of it. Yeah, I'll just two points really. One was about why did the newspapers actually engage with the online if it's not good for them? I think the real issue is the terms of engagement there and the power relationship between the two and I'd refer you back to Richard's, sorry to the earlier comment about the game of chicken. If you don't and your competitors do, your brand is not promoted, but you can't negotiate when your, even a newspaper as big and powerful as The Guardian, the negotiation with Google is not a negotiation between free and equal partners and there is a competition law issue there which the European Commission has begun to address, but fundamentally it's swimming against the tide of the network effect. I think the other one is the suggestion that publishers aren't having hard time and the quotation of one particular publisher's report accounts flies in the face of reason. You know, news publishing never was that profitable and is in serious decline and the employment figures demonstrate that. Thank you. Well, Monk. Well, I just have one final comment to Dirk. So from an American perspective, of course I find the idea of mandatory rights and levies odd. You know, I tend to come from a perspective of everything should be negotiated, everything should be voluntary, everything should take into account differences and value and differences in sector. But on the other hand, you know, I do wonder when there is no appropriate remuneration for a particular use which is either lawful or somehow tolerated than perhaps the levy and collective rights is the main alternative. So don't discount levies entirely, they're important. I'd also say that one of the things, I'm not sure that a neighboring right will help in enforcement, but I suspect it will. And I think that the difference we see in the enforcement environment now, as opposed to the late 1990s when the idea of the treaties and the Infosock Directive was done, is that the scale of infringement and the scale of activity is so huge now that it's not a few takedowns that we're talking about, it's hundreds of thousands and millions. And I would hope that some changes in the law would help in that score as well. It's not only scale, it's pace. When you get news tied up with user-generated stuff that is used as news, it's a very, very complicated ecology and a very, very fast ecology that you're talking about. Anyway, I think that's been a good start. Thank you very much. It's time for a cup of tea now and stretch your legs. And back here in 20 minutes. Thank you.