 So, this morning we reviewed the situation in the newspaper industry and the difficulties the industry seems to be facing and looked at some thoughts on what might be a possible solutions to those difficulties. The second session we reviewed a couple of attempts that have been made in Spain and Germany to provide some kind of copyright based solution to those problems, and analysed the difficulties and the problems that those particular attempts had encountered. Rydyn ni'n gofio gyrfa cefnodd a ddaf sydd yn gankfeydd y dyfodol o'r Llyfrgell. Rydym yn oes bryddiol ran y Llyfrgell. Rydyn ni'n gwypario dipyn yr ysgol gyda'r gweithgell li o gysti wydd i gynhyrch nesfern y berydd, And in that communication it hinted at the possibility of some work that would be done, perhaps some initiative taken in relation to news aggregators. So the commission noted that member states had attempted to find solutions and that these solutions that member states were proposing neu ddweud y risg o mawr ffragmentau dysgu sy'n mynd i athafolid sicrhau cyflawn sy'n gweithredu gyda'r busch ac mae'r flwrn yn fjoyt eu gynhyrchu, y tu hynny yn ddeall y cyflawn? Mae'r busch, mae'r busch, hanfodd y gweithredu yn gweithredu, was targeted specifically at news aggregators and was intended to benefit newspaper press publishers. In March rather out of the blue I thought on the 23rd of March the commission issued an additional consultation on neighbouring rights that was examining the role of publishers in the value chain and defined publishers as the publishers of press and other print products. The consultation proposed the possibility of a new neighbouring right for these publishers. It gave us no detail at all as to what that neighbouring rights would look like and no detail really on quite what it was hoped that it would achieve. The consultation comprises a series of questions about how the absence of such a right affects licensing and enforcement by press and other publishers and the potential impact of a new neighbouring right, the nature of which we know nothing on authors, press publishers, intermediaries and so forth. It asked these questions and we were supposed to tell what the impact would be without knowing what on earth the right might itself be. And it asks finally whether there's been any impact from solutions in member states producing new so-called ancillary rights. So that's where we are. We're in a space where we're being asked to respond about a proposal that we can't really know about. The publishers themselves have issued some documentation that helps fill out I think some of the things that they want but without giving much clarity to what it is that's in the commission's mind. So faced with this really unknowable, unknown proposition we decided to ask a number of speakers to speculate about the benefits and problems that might arise from introducing such a neighbouring right. And the first session this afternoon relates to the possible economic effects to the question of the relationship between the new neighbouring right and other intellectual property rights regimes that we already have and to the place of this right in the political process. In the final session we'll look at how this impacts on consumers, on new entrants to the market, particularly new news aggregators and new businesses of that sort, free speech and also the relationship with broader themes of technology and democracy. So for the first session we have three speakers. Firstly to your left, Burton Martins, who is an economist. He did a PhD in economics at the Free University of Brussels and he now works for the European Commission's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville in Spain, but having said that that's where he works he will be speaking on this topic in a personal capacity. He's not representing in any way the commission. After Burton we will hear from Bernd Hugenholz. You've already seen him as a chair asking difficult and probing questions of various speakers. He is a professor of information law at the University of Amsterdam and needs really no further introduction to this audience. And then finally we'll have Marietje Schaerca. I do apologise. I've been in the Netherlands now for a little while and it's not getting any better for the Dutch having me here to listen to my horrible pronunciation of these words. So I apologise. Marietje is an MEP in the Dutch Democratic Party, which is part of the ALDE group. She works on neighbourhood policy on trade and technology and she was involved in the European Parliament's dealings with the TTIP, but she is also the founder of or I found a member of the digital agenda intergroup, which includes amongst others Julia Radar, well-known figure in the copyright world. So Bertrand. Thank you Lionel. As Lionel said, I'm an economist and I work in one of the joint research centres of the European Commission. I don't work in the policy group, so whatever I say should here should not be interpreted as necessarily reflecting the thinking that's going on in Brussels on the policy side and the policy making side regarding these neighbouring rights. I'm an economist and my job is to look at the empirical evidence regarding potential impact of such rights and that's what I'm looking into. First, let me start with a few comments first of all. It is clear I think that the newspaper industry is under enormous financial pressure over the last couple of years and some for many years already and they're losing subscription revenue from print and trying to compensate that through digital and experimenting with paywalls on their websites, some more successful than others, trying to get ad revenue. They're lost at revenue in print versions and they're now trying to compensate that at least to some extent and in most cases to only a small extent with digital ad revenue and so I understand their position that they're trying to find all kinds of possible ways to increase their revenue if I were in that industry I would certainly do the same thing. I'm not so sure though whether the news aggregators or their main enemy or the main competitive pressure on their business models, I think there are many other sources of pressure on the industry. For one thing I think there are many more sources of news nowadays than there used to be before the internet age. You have bloggers, you have all kinds of people who produce news on Twitter, on Facebook, on so many places on the internet that if you want to read news you can find it anywhere for free basically and so the newspaper business model is under a lot of pressure and I have a lot of understanding for that. At the same time I think we should look at that wider picture rather than just a news aggregator case. This morning we had a lot of talk about obviously Google news as an aggregator and you could also talk about Yahoo news that's far less important here in Europe but more important in the US. Apple news is now coming up and we should not forget new kids on the block, new big kids on the block like Facebook who are rapidly making inroads in the newspaper industry with fairly different approaches I think compared to Google news and I think it will be more difficult for the newspaper industry in the future to resist the offers from Facebook than it is to resist the offers from or the lack of offers from Google news. Secondly another comment is that I think somebody this morning in the second session used the word ripping when he referred to the fact that 100 years ago journalists from Mr Hearst's group used to walk to the associated press windows look what the latest news was there run back to the office and write down an article and then onwards with it. Ripping nowadays is a universal phenomenon in the newspaper industry. Somebody did a study last year on the French newspaper industry Julia Cage and some of her researchers from Paris Telecom and they monitored a number of newspaper websites 50 or 60 newspapers in France for a period of time and what they found is that as soon as a new event new item appears on one newspaper's website within half an hour 40 minutes it appears on everybody else's website which means that they are just monitoring each other and as soon as something news appears they take that news event rewrite it a little bit and then post it on their own website so ripping in that sense is become a universal phenomenon in the newspaper industry not because of the aggregators but in the industry itself. A third comment I wanted to make is that we spoke a lot about the Spanish and the German case this morning but maybe we should also have a look at the Belgian case and the French case where the newspaper industry came to some sort of an agreement with Google news maybe not entirely to their satisfaction but at least it generated some revenue and some arrangements that were thought to be beneficial short of a full license agreement and so the negotiated approach may offer some inroads. Another comment that I wanted to make is that I'm over the last couple of months very much involved in looking at media platforms and I think somebody also mentioned the word platforms and the economics of platforms here it's indeed very hard to beat platforms and especially large platforms when it comes to the revenue and the attraction that they offer and so there is the risk and we've seen that in many industries not only in newspapers is that content providers the ones who actually publish or produce the content whether it's digital services media services or even goods they become a sort of a almost a subcontractor to the platform and the platform has a lot of leverage on the prices and on the margins they extract from that we see that in the hotel business we see that in airline bookings we see that in so many industries and the same is happening to the newspaper industry and so resisting that pressure from the platforms is a very hard thing to do and I understand that the newspapers want to get a fairer share of the advertising revenue that the platforms get from this business but as an economist and I think for most of economists the word fairness or the lack of it's unfairness is a concept we have a hard time to deal with we know competition and the lack of competition in the market and we have some criteria to deal with that but unfairness how well is 10% of the share is that fair or unfair the German newspaper publishers want to get 6% and even that is a hard struggle is that a fair share or not we don't know as an economist I leave that to the politicians and to sociologists or whoever but I cannot answer that question so this brings me to a more economic approach to to this newspaper business and news aggregation and there is some empirical evidence already there by now as far as I know five six studies empirical studies that deal with this that look into this uh somewhere already mentioned here this morning indeed for Spain we have a study done by Nesta UK consultancy company at the request of some Spanish newspaper publishers who were unhappy with the change in the copyright regime that led to the closing down of Google news in Spain and because they saw that it diminished the traffic to their website and so it diminishes their ad revenue and indeed the Nesta study confirmed that and that had a negative impact on their ad revenue what the study also showed is that indeed users rather than going through the Google news aggregator that did no longer operate in Spain went back to the old search engine Google search and that way found their newspaper articles but for me as an economist this is possibly the worst of all possible solutions in the sense that the newspapers lose in terms of traffic and ad revenue and consumers lose because it sets them back five years in time in access to internet based services five years on the internet is like a century in the offline world so instead of having everything on your app on your mobile phone you have to go back to search and search on your mobile phone is a tedious business so you only do that on your iPad or on your laptop so a lot of transaction costs focus so consumers use and producers lose so nobody's a lose lose situation rather than a win win situation in that sense the German solution is is not that bad in the sense that Google still operates their Google news aggregator so the situation despite the law the current situation is still the same as it was before the law um so what we know from this empirical evidence is that the impact of dropping Google news aggregation is actually negative for newspapers and so that leaves a puzzling question for an economist why would newspapers want to do this or have this change in the law have this neighboring right when it doesn't bring them any benefits what do we expect from it now what they expect of course is a larger share a fairer share of the revenue the ad revenue whether they're going to get that through this means I don't know we'll have to see what court cases in amongst others in Germany are going to say in the next couple of years on this so this brings me to a second aspect that is important from an economic point of view is that we do not only look as economists at the revenue side of copyright the revenue for the owners of rights for the publishers of newspapers in this case we also look at the consumer side and we try to strike a balance between those two and see who gains who loses and how much and so I'm a public policy economist and I look at the impact on society as a whole not only on one group of stakeholders in society and then we see that with this increase in transaction costs for consumers the consumers lose out on this so how much is this worth in terms of consumer welfare compared to how much is this worth in terms of producer welfare additional revenue so far we have not seen any additional revenue for for newspaper producers and but there's a loss for consumers so another aspect of this is that we should look at the innovation side of this again we talked a lot about google news did one of the giants in this market but we forget often that there are dozens of other smaller news aggregators in that market and in the case of spain for instance several of those had to shut down as well and these were small startup businesses and they simply disappeared from the market because the legal situation did not allow them to continue so there's a lot of innovation that's being struck down through this approach and then we have to think about what do we want to do from a european digital single market perspective do we want to promote innovation or do we want to protect existing business models so what is the balance between those two how can we deal with this is a very difficult question to answer i think um so the question is what is the question and i've been wondering this this whole morning listening to the first two sessions so what is the problem that we are trying to solve clearly for newspaper there's a problem there's diminishing revenue whether that could be solved through an extension of this neighbouring rights so far the empirical evidence doesn't seem to point in that direction i i try to be very diplomatic on this i maybe there are other examples where there is evidence but so far we haven't seen any of that evidence the problem from a consumer side is that these new segregators give them lots of benefits in terms of an easy transaction cost low transaction cost based approach and and and if that cannot come through then yeah there's a problem for consumers as well um can we address this by other means then copyright and can we address this through a platform approach um i think some of the cues that we get out of the french newspapers and the belgian newspapers idea to work through the search google search function rather than the news aggregation function offers some scope for other ways of solving this coming to an agreement with the google search function and that way getting back into the news aggregator uh because obviously newspapers especially big national newspapers rank very high in the search engine ranking in a particular country and so google would probably be very sensitive to losing that traffic because it's an important part of their traffic in that country uh of course consumers for newspaper reading are rapidly moving to mobile reading on their mobile phones and then these apps and the aggregator become a key entry gate but there may be a few years left for newspapers to try to work their way back into this through the search engine gate rather than through the news aggregator gates but time is short for that because consumers are rapidly shifting ways and we've already seen and there are some statistics for the u.s. i think that show that more than 60 percent of newspaper reading actually now happens on mobile phones compared to four years ago where this was less than 20 percent so it's very rapidly moving and i think in europe maybe we have a one or two years delay compared to that but people also moving in that direction um what we don't have empirical evidence on and this i think is a big gap in our knowledge is a wider view on what the impact of search of news aggregators or the lack of news aggregators would be on overall societal welfare in terms not only of news producer revenue but also consumer welfare some people have started working some researchers have started working in this direction but there's not really enough empirical evidence for that in order to do this sort of work properly we would have to work with some of these big news aggregators because they have the data to do this but these are privately held data by these companies and we as researchers have no access to that. There was some work done by Microsoft in 2012 on these news aggregation sites in France again that shows that the impact of news aggregators varies by type of newspaper and i think this is also an important message that we should take into account and again a message that we've seen in many other media industries what happens is that let's say the middle of the roads provincial or national newspaper that produces a bit of everything but it's not very specialized in anything can lose out from these aggregators but the more high end newspapers the quality newspapers or the more long tail newspapers that specialize in a particular topic and people who really want to read that newspaper because they're interested in that topic they don't lose out they gain a lot of traffic from these news aggregators so it depends as a newspaper on where you are in that spectrum and we've seen this superstar economics versus long tail economics in many other media industries all over the internet where we see that the search engines put a lot of pressure on the middle ground but increase the superstar effect and increase the long tail effect so for newspapers otherwise also probably a question of positioning one final comment if i may that i would like to make is a lot of the debate this morning implicitly or explicitly referred to the question so how come we got that far how come the newspaper industry is under such a lot of pressure again as an economist and looking at the evidence empirical evidence what we see is that there's an enormous increase in the supply of news i already referred to that briefly that you can read newspaper articles anywhere on the internet for c basically about current event current events but if you want a more specialized or more background or more deeply researched articles of course that becomes more difficult than then you go to more specialized sites but even for this specialized news thousands millions of bloggers in the world thousands of millions of facebook accounts offer you such a rich insight but it's of course uncreated and a lot of the function of these news aggregators is curation and many news aggregators not only go to newspapers but also to blog posts for instance and personally i find in the areas where i'm interested in looking at specialized aggregation engines that follow the subjects that i do a lot of the news events come out of these blog posts and out of facebook accounts and and there's simply an enormous increase of supply and increase in the production of news and if supply increases and demand remains constant the price goes down so the value of a news article actually goes down and people are willing to pay less for it because there's such an oversupply of it and we've seen that again in many media industries we've seen that in music for instance where you get spotify nowadays and you get an offer of 45 million songs basically all the music in the world you could possibly think of for six or seven euros a month and so and for every spin every stream of that song the the music producer gets paid at a hundredth or a thousandth of a euro cent and so yeah they complain it's very little money but you get streamed millions of times and maybe you can still make some living out of that and the same i think is the destination for news industries how to make a business model out of that how to build a business model around that in the long run i don't know the answer but there's certainly going to be a lot of experimenting around this as we have seen in other industries the music industry has been struggling for 10 years now they seem to sort of get around to that with a few streaming sites that dominate the business increasingly but that somehow make it livable whether the same destiny is waiting for the newspaper industry i would not know but we've again we've seen that in many online industries so i'll stop there thank you very much ask anybody ask any reasonably intelligent copyright expert and we're all at least reasonably intelligent why news is not copyright subject matter and the answer will probably be because there is no copyright in ideas facts and other bits of information this is uh sort of rule number one on copyright we learned it at the very first day we do a lecture on copyright um it's the idea expression dichotomy uh that's those are complex words to express this very simple notion it's a rule that we don't see in our national laws usually although it is in the united states copyright act but we do see it increasingly in international agreements it's in trips it's in the wipo copyright treaty and it's also but in a different form in the burn convention already that very old original international copyright convention article two eight says the following the protection of this convention shall not apply to news of the day or to miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information that's a reflection of this idea that copyright should not attach to facts it's actually a little bit more than that the fact that it mentions shall is an instruction to the convention states not to grant such protection and in that respect it is comparable to the quotation right on which our chairman Lionel Bentley is writing a very interesting 100 page paper that will soon be published um but and which actually relates to this issue in other words um in copyright all burn union states and that's about 168 states including all the states that we consider civilized and a lot of uncivilized as well are under an obligation not to protect news of the day under copyright there are a number of reasons for not doing this um ideological systemic conceptual mireia will speak in the next panel on the ideological argument freedom of expression and information and this is a very important one and it also of course ties into exceptions and limitations and to journalistic freedoms but there are also systemic reasons not to grant copyright to news um and one of those I think is sometimes overlooked in this discussion news and I think you see it also reflected to a degree in in current attempts to introduce some sort of protection news simply does not have sufficient form to be to produce to generate creative original works to to which copyright can actually attach items of information in other words are to abstract there are only so many ways to express a news item uh let's give let's give the example of a football match and this will be a bit painful for our chairman the example is an arsenal match arsenal crystal palace one one there are only so many ways that you can express that fact this is I just expressed it in one way here's another way arsenal one crystal palace one and then there's a third possibility although I'm not sure that's even correct English crystal palace draws at arsenal or draw perhaps in I should say at arsenal one one and that's about it um choosing between one of these only handful of possible expressions is not a creative choice that can or even should be rewarded by copyright and a related problem directly related to that abstractness of news facts generally by the way I wrote a whole dissertation about this so that explains some of this philosophical music a related problem is imagine that there would be some sort of copyright protection what could be the scope of that protection if not a full and very undesirable information monopoly how could we prove infringing misappropriation of these abstract facts that have no shape how could we prove that we extracted it from this news producer and not from that unless in the very unlikely case of a single news monopoly a single news single source news producer and those are rare of course there's copyright available for the news industry and we all know that for the news expressed in original news articles and that's what the journalists write and those are rightly and fully copyrightable but that's not what the discussion is about today introducing a neighbouring rights for news publishers as is now contemplated in the in the consultation that came somewhat as a surprise to me to be honest and I think to many observers of the IP scene in Brussels introducing a neighbouring right for news publishers could perhaps solve this originality issue but it would never deal with in a satisfactory way with the issues of scope and of evidence that are attached to that the best I could imagine for this new neighbouring right to be able to do would be a right enforceable against wholesale piracy just like the existing phonogram right that clearly has inspired it but it would not solve the problem and I think that was already mentioned by many speakers here that is at the heart of our discussion unauthorized news aggregation as was mentioned and I think I should repeat that present laws on neighbouring rights do not provide such protection against unauthorized news aggregation so why would transforming the existing phonographic right into a publishers right do the trick it's difficult to imagine unless it would be totally recrafted in fact the only right presently in under in existence that does somewhat protect against aggregation and Dirk Fissel already mentioned that is the EU's sewer generous database right it is now rather downplayed in this discussion but I remember vividly that one of the reasons why we introduced a database right in the 1990s and it was controversial then it's become much more controversial today but it was already then was to protect news publishers compiling news data was one of the reasons Reuter was lobbying for it I remember okay that's old stuff in fact this whole idea of a neighbouring right is a very old one it reminds me of many older discussions held at the Dutch Vreiniging for Auteursrecht in the 1980s about introducing an outgeversrecht in the Netherlands and I'm sure we've had similar discussions in many other member states I remember Willem Groesheid Professor Willem Groesheid and my colleague from Utrecht advocating in favour of it and others there was a whole committee dressed up at the Dutch copyright committee and there was some there were some some arguments and but it never led to anything probably because publishers in the end concluded that they were already sufficiently protected against third parties on the basis of copyrights transferred from their authors and that of course is the same even today so again the question arises why if we look at the arguments the very limited number of arguments presented in the consultation one reason for introducing a neighbouring right for for publishers would be the analogy with the phonogram producers and the broadcasters and the film producers they have it why don't we give it to the publishers the equality argument I think it was mentioned by by Richard in the very first session sort of the why not argument if they have it why not give it to the publishers I can imagine if I were a publisher I would argue along the same line and I do recognise like the previous speaker all the troubles and and problems that are that the newspaper publishers are currently facing and they are enormous and there are a source of concern to everyone but the why not argument somehow doesn't really convince me I think before arguing along the why not line I think we should first look at the the why what would a neighbouring right really bring to this industry that would be in any way useful to them as I said earlier and on many speakers before me probably not what you would really want a right to either prevent or prohibit or make licensible aggregation vis-à-vis news aggregators such as particularly Google the Spanish and the German examples are I think rather clear it's not going to work all you would have in the end if we would seriously introduce this neighbouring right would we would create yet another layer of rights on top of an already well stacked sandwich of rights many of which simply have little or no role to play some of which actually make life in the digital realm even more miserable than it is already today is and that was also mentioned earlier is reprobail then perhaps a good reason to introduce such a neighbouring right reprobail of course has nothing to do with news it is a totally unrelated discussion I think but it definitely plays a role at the political level and it is probably not by accident that this consultation is underway now only a few months after the European Court's decision in the case of HP versus a reprobail and for those not in the know I'm sure you all know the story but according to this European decision the reprography right levies that exist in Germany and in many other countries in Europe most other countries in Europe belong to the authors and not for 50% to the publishers that's roughly what April Bell says I know this is very un-nuonston but this is roughly what is being said and this is now under repair clearly by way of this consultation is that a good idea is it a good idea to introduce a neighbouring right simply to override reprobail I can't imagine that that is we do not introduce new intellectual property rights simply because the reprography levies are now flowing to the authors and and still partly to the to the publishers I must add even in in Germany after this decision not that cannot be a good argument for one reprography is an almost dead technology we're talking about photocopying here that was an issue indeed in the in in in in the past but it is an issue that is becoming gradually extinct yes there is still there are still millions of euros being made but this is a rapidly rapidly decreasing income stream this cannot be the reason for introducing a neighbouring right on balance and this is to pacify the chair I'm almost there on balance I'm afraid and I have to agree here again with my neighbour on on the right side I'm afraid and law is not going to help us very much here at least not intellectual property law again realising fully the crisis in which news production news publishing has finds itself in and it is very serious and I I know this industry very well too it is a very serious I don't think intellectual property is going to help us out of this crisis I really think we should not even waste our energy thinking along those lines it is it is a common reflex look at IP law it's always IP law that that is at fault here but I don't think IP law in any in any imaginable world is going to help us out of this conundrum other business models surely are that's not my department of course I am not competent here but I would obviously look at that subsidies always interesting I'm from the Netherlands we love subsidies I'm all in favour of that a rerouting money that now goes to to public broadcasts to the press I'm all in favour of that more taxing Google and them pay their taxes in in the countries where they're really making money yes please but I don't think IP is going to work and again the music industry is indeed a very good example the music industry too looked at intellectual property but the solution did not come from there thank you very much um and thank you for including me in this discussion as a non expert um nodding in copyright I have some experience in dealing with the news media but I promise to those of you representing them I will not hold it against you in this discussion um I was looking on on twitter and I couldn't help but notice that today is international day of books and copyright did you know this yeah it was I thought maybe this event was organized as a celebration but at least it made me smile because um you know I think we should really look more broadly than just the means like books but maybe access to content access to information and perhaps a broader perspective could help inform us at least on the political side too about what is wisdom and I tend to agree with Professor Hugenholz here but let me share with you some observations from from my perspective as a member of European Parliament who has worked to reform copyright to advance a digital single market but who looks at the role of government really from the primary question of what problem are we trying to solve what goals are we trying to advance and certainly not informed by favoring one industry or one sector over another I simply don't think it's the role of government and policy makers to protect one over the other in fact I think we need to help faster innovation and focus primarily on preserving principles like fair competition the respectful fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and also access to information and we should help innovation flourish so the context in which the whole discussion about access to information online copyright the future of news but also more broadly takes place now is very much related to the development of a digital single market in Europe there there is at least the promise of a single market but even there a lot still has to be changed in order to harmonize rules and to create a more predictable smooth regulatory environment for anyone frankly to to navigate whether it's the citizen that wants to access information whether it is the startup that wants to roll out a new product or whether it's the big company that seeks to to provide its services in Europe and the discussion about copyright has really been quite paralyzed and stagnated for a very long time it's become very sensitive even though there are those who hope for and push for radical change oftentimes these are startups that are extremely frustrated by the fragmented regulatory landscape which hinders them from bringing the new movie streaming service from Sweden to consumers in in Spain for example but there are also those who want absolutely no change change at all and I agree that there has perhaps been too much focus on copyright law and too little consideration of the bigger picture and we see this very much in the way in which the the movie and music industry too have sought to use copyright enforcement and and higher punishment as a solution for the threat that they experienced from technological developments and I think some of the publishers at least are going down the same route pushing for very harsh measures claiming very high values lost economic values lost even though I think we could also argue the reverse generally speaking it is easier to stop change in policies than to pave the way in terms of where new policies should go so I think that in the effective landscape that we operate in comments have an advantage because it's much easier for them to block proposals they've already built networks of access to decision makers etc etc and so I think we've seen this in the discussions about copyright reform taking place as well but while this whole struggle about you know whether to have a revolution or an evolution whether to have drastic or incremental changes going on technological developments continue and many of them actually facilitate workarounds the very laws that people are still discussing so for example the fact that so many people are now using virtual private networks to access information in different EU member states is testimony to that and I honestly think that these people don't feel like they're they're engaging in in illegitimate or criminal activity and if you look at access to content and who should pay for it I always find it very interesting that as a dutch taxpayer I cannot look at the evening news that is being streamed when I'm in Belgium because I too have paid for this so it's not only about whether or not consumers or internet users are paying journalists or media companies enough it's also I think an experience of consumers who feel like they've paid for content whether it's a commercial platform like Netflix or public broadcasting like nos news that they simply cannot access once they cross a border a border that at least in the promise of what the EU should mean should have no impact on this access to content so the questions about whether the laws are still legitimate whether they are creating a fair deal for all stakeholders or whether they're functioning in times of technological developments I think are very much an integral part of this discussion having said that I do think it is absolutely essential that in this rapidly changing environment we very much look at the public interest and the way in which the open character of our societies can be preserved and I do think responding briefly to the to the first speaker that there has been some very important research into you know the impact of the use of search engines has on access to information on creating a tunnel vision books like the black box society by Frank Frank pasquale I think are very interesting in this context so I do believe that this is something policymaker should also very much be aware of the challenges of journalism are I think well known the question is can this be solved through copyright law and I believe we need a much broader discussion for that I think I could learn more from you today about this question of you know what is news what is investigative journalism you know what is a fact that anyone could find what is a scoop that that perhaps leads to expectation of more recognition but also the reverse in in what way and I don't know if there is journalists in the room as well but in what way can journalists through social media and the global internet develop brands in a way that they never could before which then increases the value of the information that they have to offer and perhaps makes them more attractive for sources to contact so I think there is a whole different kind of dynamic that works many different directions that should be explored and I think that if we look at the the need for having pluralist free diverse media we need to look at both funding independent media or creating a space for independent media that is not subject to the ebbs and flows of the free market but that really has a standalone position as part of of open societies but we must also look at facilitating innovation I think these are these are both important now looking at what is happening on the European level it's been briefly mentioned already but it's very interesting to see that there are two members of the European Commission primarily responsible for the policies in this space one Commissioner Ansip very much leaning towards embracing the opportunities of technological development and the other Commissioner Utting are very close to the publishers particularly in Germany and so what you see is not only that their weighed views of what the new European digital single market should look like are reflected in the proposals that are put forward but they also take on board the existing differences between 28 member states as well as different sectors and so unfortunately what you often see is that it becomes the lowest common denominator that's presented at the beginning it is hardly ever very ambitious the proposals that we see and the little space that might be there often gets sort of pushed back by the different stakeholders that then get involved in the discussion so I think we will continue to see a lack of of meaningful change in the laws reflected and both the market and technological developments kind of catching up as well as the courts being important or spaces for these fights between different interests to be fought out and I say this without any pride I wish we could have better European laws sort of embracing the changes that we see and safeguarding the principles that we believe in but I want to be open about the practice that I see day in day out so maybe I'll just try to conclude here and hope that today we can also talk a little bit about how innovations in the market of news media can inform us as policy makers I don't think we should only be pessimistic I see a lot of interesting initiatives coming from the Netherlands such as Blendell for example where contrary to the analogy that more access to to more media should bring down the price I believe I'm paying more per article than I would if I would weigh the size of one article against buying the entire publication so this notion that there are new models to both create more interesting access to content for consumers and remunerate the the publishers and the journalists I think are are certainly worth exploring yeah let me just end there and I look forward to the discussion okay thank you very much we have just 35 just about 35 minutes for discussion so plenty of time do we have any questions for so we have one at the back first I'd like to thank the organization Evier and Sibyl for this wonderful day because as Bound himself unfortunately said during the lunch but here he was absolutely right it's the moment to do this and it's it's unbelievable what kind of people you brought together today and I'm really fascinated at hearing all which is said of his being said I'm suppose we would think about an intellectual property right for news publishers I have three short observations in the first place I think that news publishers is something which is quite different from a neighbouring right for publishers in general um it is somewhere on the border between unfair competition and intellectual property it would be right to keep an eye on that and the second remark is even when you're thinking about an intellectual property right you could still look for unorthodox ways um to to frame it uh for example what would be the duration of such a right and there I would say that it is not excluded that the news publishers would be very much helped by an exclusive right of a duration of 24 or 36 hours which would make the weight such an exclusive right places on the freedom of information much lighter because as Akbar Domring I think once said the news of today tomorrow is history and well still very important from an informational point of view and then a third very short remark and even more controversial what about a moral right for the news publishers I'm sure everyone is shocked I would be in favour of a very strong moral right of a duration of about a week I'm more specific specifically about a paternity right a right to be mentioned as the source and I would make it strong because I would make it unwaithable why because I think there is a particular interest from society to know the source of a good reliable and innovative news and if you maintain that right for for a week or for 10 days it wouldn't be a problem neither thank you very much yeah Michael Gruber on this of by right I have a question for bone who can hold and I think we partly agree that this enquire of the commission is due to the fact of the decision to reprobill case however I think the reprobill case dealt only with reprographic copyright levy but let's think about other cases like the technic university downstatt case where it really really go into what can universities libraries archives do and then we have exceptions and limitations to the making available right and that's actually quite important so if if what I think is is now on a political side of the table particular with the recent developments in in Germany that there will be a greater push for for publishers in general to pursue such an ancillary right and I think we we as copyright lawyers we should open possible alternatives and one alternative is well let's open and we phrase the infosock directive here and make let's make an amendment that's a possible alternative to that publishers are entitled in revenue sharing with the copyright levy since on and then that would all be off the table and I think we really should should ventilate that idea because that would be a much better solution for this problem than creating ancillary right for for publishers in general. I can speak on any topic but yes I'd like to respond to both first to Michael I I totally agree we would take off the pressure a bit of this idea of a new neighbouring right for publishers if we would create that rule in the infosock directive it it's probably a much easier politically speaking approach the question does arise what what kind of rule would that be and wouldn't that introduce a neighbouring right in the infosock directive because what would the basis be for the publishers to get that 50% but okay that's the fine print I agree with you having the choice between the two I would prefer your model back to Anton Quadflig you will propose various things I will I would like to react to the well you said a very you made a very good observation and I think we we all agree on that there is the the arguments for some sort of neighbouring right for the news industry is a very different one from the argument for having a general neighbouring right for publishers and by mixing the two into one initiative I think we're we're confusing arguments the news industry needs different things here and interestingly again we have brilliant historic parallels here there has been there have been in the past many attempts at the international level particularly to introduce some sort of specific protection for the news industry particularly in the form of news bureaus news agencies like Reuters and AP in the past and many of those proposals were about very short term protection schemes of 24 hour or 48 hours in line with the case described by in the previous panel by Chris the the hot news that that gave us the hot news case the the stealing of telegraph of news telegraphs a very short period of protection would probably be sufficient that's totally different from what what what neighbouring rights generally has on offer there a term of 20 years is sort of the minimum and it's it's moving towards 50 or even 70 years so we're talking about very different kind of rights and needs there are actually several countries I've been studying this in in in the world that have such unfair competition law based very short term protections for news producers I don't think these are ever enforced in the digital realm but we have them and they are yeah certainly an interesting model to look at they're not neighbouring rights they are specific rules of unfair competition maybe just one additional comment on this notion of exceptions which is a very lively one where I think oftentimes the public interest gets squeezed by those who seek further reaching realization of their rights so I think one thing to keep in mind is that in the interest of harmonization which I do believe is very much needed and then we can argue further about you know what kind of laws but that also the exceptions are harmonized because frankly while on the one hand open education and international access to information in in the public interest are becoming more and more relevant and simply more easily accessible the exceptions are still very fragmented and leads to all kinds of problems with access to culture scientific research etc so we have to think about the full picture when we when we look at what we should organize EU wide and and exceptions hadn't been mentioned but I think are very crucial I just wanted to to add something in response to Anton's question just to reiterate really what burnt burnt said but to add one further comment in relation to his moral right for news publishers it is the case that the exception for quotation under the burn convention under article 10 1 requires attribution of the source and that derives from the previous version of the burn convention where the exception was directed specifically at news reports and so effectively by way of an exception and newspapers do have a moral rise of attribution don't know how strong it is but it's there first of all of course the funny thing is why did we get that right in the first place and most people who were involved in getting it here in the 1960s are dead but I have been told that the only reason why this right came about was to give them something where they would be the people had to pay for the other new neighboring rights so it was the performing artists who got their own right and obviously the phone game producers called that right because they were the strong lobbyists at the time and especially the public broadcast at the time were very much against it especially in the Netherlands as late as the 1990s were against it and only when they were convinced that was absolutely sure that the olympic games would come to Amsterdam in 1992 and that was necessary for them to have their own neighboring right at the time where they convinced it was a good idea so it was a funny funny reason why we got the neighboring right for the broadcaster the first place another interesting thing is that the neighboring right of the broadcasters does not bring them very much it brings them a little bit of a share of in the private copying levy and it gives them a right to take action against rebroadcasting retransmission which is always the live rebroadcasting so it is the signal piracy actually it's a very short term of protection it is about a 10 second protection it's not even 24 hours it's only against the live rebroadcasting that it's actually used in some in some cases and in fact it's only now the only right they actually need recently in which you do not have in all countries came became aware in the Seymour case because in the Seymour case it was about hyperlinking to illegal peer-to-peer live broadcast of sports games and there it turns out that it's actually not harmonized at the european level and that the Swedes I think it was the Swedes in the Seymour case do have a separate neighboring right to protect broadcasters against signal piracy through peer-to-peer so in effect that does work that does serve a purpose and that in might give us another reason to come up with a very limited parallel for a very short term of protection I'm not saying it's a good idea I'm just drawing the parallel that in in in essence the neighboring right to the broadcasting company broadcasting company is very limited time in time as well and to that extent it might work I still favor the proposal by Michael that we should simply have a rule that we should solve reprobail and and leave all the rest to the marketplace if you want to do something you can draw the parallel was the broadcasting which remains interesting I thought you were going to propose to give a neighboring right to google in parallel but uh if we if we additional discussions maybe but they tried to of course to give the broadcasting right to websites I think it was in the late 1990s it was discussion at the wiper level nobody that discussion is not over yet it's incredible no anything would be protected that's an endless dossier in in Geneva yeah yeah so um I mean one of the things about them proposing a new neighboring right is that when we and people who know something about what neighboring rights contain know that they all differ so saying having a consultation about a new neighboring right for publishers just doesn't tell you anything about what the content of the right that's being proposed is and how can you possibly respond to a consultation when you don't know what the content of the right to speak on those days maybe they're hoping you'll come up with a solution in the consultation but I mean thanks man I have an egg out I have I don't know I've got the lots just one remark I guess that's about what Anton proposed that there should be a right of attribution for news publishers or publishers more generally in the context I think of the news aggregation services the mentioning of the source is not a problem as far as I know I mean it's obvious where they're linking to so that's that's a solution in search of a non problem I guess but I um and I was also thinking when it comes to the question if you would introduce some sort of right with a very short time span how's that going to be enforced and I immediately started thinking hmm time zones internet I'm not sure that I don't know but maybe somebody with a more technical background can explain how that would be enforceable but my main questions were two um uh one was uh uh to you Marie Chesracon because you were involved with the letter by a number of MEPs basically saying to the commission please will you not go forward with talk about this ancillary right do you get any feedback from the commission on that right so on that on that letter or I'm not sure whether they're you hear things but I'm sure you hear a lot of things but how things operate at the european parliament in terms of feedback loops between the commission and members of parliament that just was very curious what kind of response if any you got and then the second question is to Bertin Martins you talked about how it's common in many industries that you see the superstar effect and the long tail and the squeeze in the middle and today we focus on news publishers and then everybody agrees that they're in in dire straits um is the same true across other areas of publishing I mean book publishing general publishing we've heard this morning from STM who are in a totally different dynamic because they rely uh to a large degree on publicly funded uh uh content basically um because if we talk about a publisher's rights I'm still struggling to understand why I can see the position news industry are in I'm not in favour of a neighbouring right for a lot of reasons but I have even more trouble conceiving of why other publishers would need one is there any economic basis for it so sorry for looking at my phone but I just looked up the answer um which we got uh but it basically refers to the consultation and says that after that decisions will be made so usually what happens is not unlike many other answers that we usually get they refer to process while we ask about substance and so um just pushing kicking kicking the can down the road a bit still but I think what you see reflected here also is really attention within the European Commission on where to go enormous pressure from the publishing industry to protect them um and also pressure from others to ensure that there is a better functioning harmonized European copyright suited for the digital age which is a much broader goal than just asking how are news companies uh I don't even want to talk about newspapers much anymore but how are they going to survive which is a very legitimate discussion but I I agree that the risk really is to see um you know a nail because all you have is a hammer kind of thing and just kind of not look broad enough at the problems like you said in order non problems that should be solved and instead delaying progress in a legal framework which could could also in the ultimate case lead to a complete lack of of trust and legitimacy experienced with regard to some of these laws while technological developments simply allow for circumvention and then nobody wins if you ask me because then it just becomes kind of a de facto establishment of norms um yes to answer your question on on this squeeze in the distribution uh this is indeed a phenomenon that we observe generally all across the internet and all across sectors the reason why this happened is very simple to understand what you what what you get with the internet is on the supply side all of a sudden you get a choice between millions of newspaper articles goods books films music whatever so there's an enormous choice an enormous variety on the other hand you have consumers who look for what they want to find and they use search engines or aggregators or whatever channels to find what they're looking for you have two types of consumers two types of search let's say you have consumers who say give me the hot news of the day and they automatically are led to the superstars what are the hot articles for today what are the subjects that are really on today and you have consumers who say i'm interested in what happened on that particular topic or in a very specific issue and they are the long tailed searches there are not not many of those but since there are millions of articles they will find an article on that since consumers are split between these two types of search behavior what is left out is this big middle ground of things that are of some interest somebody but uh do not attract really either the attention of one group or the other and so we see that in music we see that in film we see that i haven't seen any research that has studied this in newspaper articles yet but i'm sure if somebody would do it will probably find a very similar phenomenon what stops this movement from happening is compartmentalization or segmentation of the market so if people are used to go to one newspaper or two newspapers and they watch only those every day you get only the articles that are on that newspaper and that's why people go to aggregators because you get an overview of all the newspaper articles anywhere in the world or in your country and your language or on your subject and that's where you go if you're more targeted research so that is the main advantage of these news aggregators from a consumer perspective no i just wanted to develop this thought a little bit further and if we look at the interest of access to you know pluralist free independent media i think we need to also highlight the reverse effect i talk to journalists a lot about how news media are struggling with new technology and also the business models that some of the search engines and and ad based services are are using and it is also informing editorial decisions to a huge extent so there is a constant analysis of which articles are clicked on gossip articles are much more often clicked on than let's say investigative journalists journalism pieces so i mean i think we need to have a more philosophical discussion about the interplay between the quality journalism access to multiple sources of information avoiding sort of tunnel vision etc etc and how new business models and new technologies are influencing both sides i think it would be too simple of a representation to suggest that there are sort of you know publishers and journalists on one side standing by and looking at how this wave of technology is washing over them they're constantly business driven decisions and editorial decisions being made also that are informed by these new business models as well. Martin Zennifleben Free University Amsterdam well actually thank you so much for all the insights we we received today i think it's very clear now which kind of related right we need um actually the problem with the present approach is that it all focuses on copyright and copyright focuses on the what i would call the individual information unit so one individual work in the sense of one individual article or one individual quotation one individual snippet this is wrong because people are not longer willing to pay for this individual snippet we have heard that this is substitutable there are lots of bloggers twitterers and so on out there so nobody will pay for this but obviously people are willing to pay a lot for content aggregation this is why the googles of these of this world have no difficulty making lots of money so it is quite clear that publishers if they want to develop sustainable business models must simply behave much more like aggregators and much less like individual information unit producers this is where the future lies i think i mean i'm not an economist myself but listening to what has been said today um this i think uh transpires quite clearly from the whole debate so if you think about some help for publishers and i'm not sure whether this should be a related right whether this should have something to do with intellectual property but if you also think about something in terms of subsidies or something i think the question is how can you help the publishing sector and perhaps in particular the news publishing sector in europe to create premium aggregation websites that are so attractive that people do not simply go to the offers of the general search engines or news websites but go to these premium aggregation sites that publishers create themselves and why should they have difficulty i mean if it is true what publishers themselves have said this morning they know better about their content they are closer to their community they simply know all the things nobody else knows about the content they even know more than the academic community for example so else fear knows more about the academic community than the academic community itself so let them show that they can create these premium services and i'm sure this would also have an added value for consumers and information welfare um in total so this should be the question and not so much this old-fashioned focus on an individual work or snippet or whatever which will never be solved and which it seems will not work anyway so my question would be how do we do this we're going to take a number of of points and questions so do you want to pass it to tarlach and but we'll yeah thank you all for the interesting presentations tarlach meganigal from eivir i'm not a copyright expert and at the risk of being labeled a mischief maker i was hoping to ask a question about the definition of the news i was wondering whether in relevant debates there's a consensus about at least the approximate meaning of news or is there are there any definitional aspects that are proving controversial or relevant from the point of view of whether a new law would help thank you with a lot of things that were said especially with bern's argument that law itself wouldn't help much to increase the or to make to make the work better for press publishing in the future i don't think so that there is the angle of the solution which we cannot can come up with and i do also think that we in our expert filter bubble here all agree on that more or less and that there must be some something else to come up with the problem that I see although is that in the Brussels filter bubble there are a lot of argument arguments exchanged that that definitely not and deliberately not distinguish between all these different aspects like they don't go into the question whether reprobail is fair or not and whether we need or where whether there is a connection between a neighbouring right and this value gap if it is if it is one for the press publishers and so on and so on it's not it's not a discussion like that on the political level the discussion is framed totally different and if you go to a conference and listen to commissioner Ertingon people like that you will get the impression and if you are not a very informed observer of this discussion and an expert in these things you will get the impression that a we need a neighbouring right for publishers because that is essential for media pluralism in the digital world right and you won't hear an argument that underlines that or emphasizes that or proves that even but it sounds reasonable right and everybody says well yes journalism is extremely important quality journalism even even more right and so you say you need a neighbouring right for that okay yeah let's do that why could anybody post that so that's and that's exactly the danger that turned out to be the problem in the german discussion and in spain there was no discussion so I don't know about that obviously right but in germany it was like all the time people were saying this or that I know it's complex there is no connection between the income of of of news aggregators and news publishers because and so on and so on we all know that but commissioner Ertingon does not and he prefers not not to know and not wanting to know right and that's I think that is exactly what we have to do to to make these distinctions to go into the details and say well reprobail is not a problem with a neighbouring right or not a neighbouring right it's a problem of a simple rule that could be come up with in the by changing the infosock directive by the way the german ministry of justice has made such a proposal some weeks a week I think after reprobail was published and officially to commissioner Ertingon how to solve this and this has nothing to do with neighbouring rights or ancillary rights it just says um publishers can be entitled to a share and if they are um it whether they are that is the decision of the national um member states yeah I'd just like to ask a question about the political wrappers uh that um go around the products that have been discussed at the event today um you know oh that's very very confusing um my question is this um the outer wrapper let's just stay with that one the outer wrapper uh under which all of the politics and policy proposals are made is that of the digital single market um can any of the panel um make any connection between what is going on and the pursuit of a digital single market um so we've got Andrew and then the person behind Andrew and sorry I've disallowed you just because we're running out of time can I just say one thing to indefensive publishers um I work for the Guardian and the idea that kind of an individual blogger could have done the Panama papers or Snowden is ridiculous um an organisation like the Guardian all the times that did the um uh Lans Armstrong story it requires teams of journalists and teams of lawyers to go through a story line by line so I think this idea that kind of um bloggers on their own can survive and kind of produce public interest journalism is is kind of fantasy I think I just wanted to ask the panel and highlight the fact that creating a connection between looser copyright laws and innovation is utterly ridiculous I don't see any evidence and I don't think any of you can produce any evidence that relaxing copyright law creates innovation all it does is encourage people to sit in bedrooms and play with taking other people's content trying to resell it it's that's not innovation and I think we should be clear on our heads about that computer science and engineering and I just wanted to add a comment to to earlier speakers regarding the uh as opposed 24 36 hour um right of the publishers and how that could be enforced and I was thinking along the same lines as an earlier speaker that um on the internet it's very hard to prove when something was published because it's very easy to forge something so I mean yes you could probably implement this as a law but you would have extreme difficulties enforcing it I choose to answer to Martin indeed the world would look very different if newspapers could get together and create their own platform on which they would publish their content and try to draw all the consumers together so that consumers could roam around and pick articles from different newspapers on the same platform however there's a collective action problem there how do you get hundreds of newspapers together to work together so people have tried this in different ways and look at the Huffington Post for instance as an example started from scratch we're not professional journalists but everybody else could write their own piece and bit or some sort of editing and curation at the editorial level but it turned out into a rather successful business model in the end and this copies of the Huffington business model have been tried in several places several countries some successfully some some not but did not involve unfortunately the newspaper industries or the newspapers directly so they were started from scratch I think what Facebook is trying to do nowadays is again trying to bring the newspapers together on its own platform of course with some sort of negotiation conditions and and hope that it works so this is an alternative I think to the Google news or Apple news approach where you simply aggregate existing things without even asking the newspaper publishers whether they agree we'll see in the future how that works out so whether that is more successful I think it has lots of chances but it requires more collaboration and negotiation between the newspaper publishers and and Facebook in this case yeah I chose to respond to myself also to speak to what what Tilla said earlier that the discussions in Brussels indeed are oversimplifications obviously and I think this is something for us this this should very much be of concern to the newspaper industry well represented here the issues their issues are clearly being hijacked by the general publishers and and and eventually the result is predictable this general neighbouring right will not happen and then party over I would be very concerned to be sitting on the panel next to an STM publisher if I were you these are would be the beneficiaries of this very same neighbouring right that would help you nothing and would probably help a lot of other publishers a lot more and and and I think politically that would be a very bad idea for everyone clearly let's take the example of the STM publisher I'm not sure he's still in the room what he had to fly back sure um okay then I will attack him vehemently imagine this a neighbouring right for for scientific publishers who in the last 20 years have outsourced almost everything all the editing all the correction everything that they used to invest in for making good books it's now being done by us authors scientific authors the printing is outsourced the distribution is outsourced or has become digital there is hardly any investment worth a leisdwm chwsrecht compared to the old days when even then the the arguments were fairly weak today they are almost non-existent this is not something that applies to the news industry I should say but it does to many other publishers the argument for a general neighbouring right general neighbouring right for publishers is exceptionally weak and if you join forces with them I think this is the end of the story so I would say and agree with many others here that if we want to do something for the news industry it should be something for the news industry and not for publishers generally okay thank you I mean first of all should it not have been clear I I think we all have to make sure that there is enough quality journalism to apply the the needed check on power whether it's in the hands of elected officials or the private sector or whoever else but the question is how do you get there and I think it merits a broader discussion and in political discussions I'm afraid it will always be the case that there are simplified frames false arguments etc etc and so it's one up to you to bring scientific research to the discussion and to to make sure that you're at least competing with bringing information to decision makers but it's it's nothing new I mean in the whole discussion about copyright for so long we've heard major movie and music industries claiming to to seek to protect the arts from the internet right and I think that was also a terrible simplification not in the least because the creators are often not the ones who get fairly remunerated by those very same industries that are claiming to speak on their behalf so this is nothing new um but it's important to to be aware of how it goes and that's unfortunately very complex discussions often get simplified now on what does it all have to do with the digital single market why does it matter why is it relevant for for innovation etc etc um one of the opportunities that we're trying to create by removing unnecessary barriers is that of scale so that in a more predictable and harmonized regulatory landscape an audience and a creator whether it's a journalist and a reader or a musician and a listener or whatever can more easily connect with the help of technologies and so in order for all kinds of business models to be competitive also globally and for startups to scale etc this relatively fast rollout to a large audience helps and that is what we're trying to do and it is it is through harmonizing laws where they may still be chopped in 28 different pieces which is the case for copyright law and this is just like a structural observation regardless of whether you think there should be neighbouring rights or not there should be more rights or fewer rights but factually speaking there are 28 different copyright systems 28 different sets of exceptions and it simply costs a lot of time and money for people to navigate that space but we also have to work on all kinds of other aspects of the digital single market in order to create a digital an open and predictable environment with fair competition and consideration of internet users or consumers or whatever you want to call it I've worked a lot on ensuring there's net neutrality we've we've sought to abolish excessive roaming charges so that it's easier for people to go cross borders and still use the same services but it also should be addressed through competition law that is applied equally etc etc so it's a much broader discussion I think than just about copyright at all but in an environment that's more predictable and that it is larger it would be easier for all kinds of different services such as the ones that were sketched like premium services you know I don't know if government should even get involved in dictating where the market should go but if there is such a solution which could help content and audiences get together and benefit from scale through lowering prices etc etc that could be an opportunity that flourishes better in a digital single market than in a fragmented market oh we're keeping people from coffee okay I understand just one more one more comment then and I'll close but the question was why does the digital single market even help innovation if I understand correctly that was another question well or why what does copyright reform help innovation you know what what the neighbouring right have to do with the digital single market I think that well I thought there was a gentleman behind here that asked the question well I think exceptions for example are crucial for remixing just to give you an idea for access to culture for digitising cultural heritage and making it available to the public and not only in Europe but globally for scientific cooperation across borders I think there are actually a lot of ways in which exceptions and more flexible copyright can help innovation but I understand that's a political discussion okay thank you to our panellists and to the audience for great questions