Van eijk -_plenaria_workshop_24-05-13

221 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
221
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Van eijk -_plenaria_workshop_24-05-13

  1. 1. Exploring new policy options Nico van Eijk Rome, 24 May 2013
  2. 2. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 2Institute for Information Law (IViR)  Empirical research  Role of internet service providers  Regulatory/policy context  Towards more balance
  3. 3. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 3Institute for Information Law (IViR) Empirical Research
  4. 4. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 4Institute for Information Law (IViR) Economic and Cultural Aspects of File Sharing (2008)  Multidisciplinary study by TNO/University of Leiden, SEO economic research and the Institute for Information Law (IViR)  Commissioned by three Dutch ministries  Assist development of new government policy  ‘Identify the economic and cultural effects of file sharing on music, films and games’
  5. 5. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 5Institute for Information Law (IViR) Music Sales 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Indexnumberofrecordedmusicsales(1999=100) US NL
  6. 6. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 6Institute for Information Law (IViR) But also… 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 music recordings DVD/VHS sales weekly cinema takings DVD/VHS rentals games software
  7. 7. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 7Institute for Information Law (IViR) Customer survey  File sharing is part of Dutch society (44%):  40% of internet population downloaded music in past year  13% downloaded films  9% downloaded games  Consumers are often not aware:  of the the legal status of their activities  of the techniques they use  of the number of CDs or DVDs they downloaded  File sharers are the largest customers of the entertainment industry  They buy as much music and even more DVDs and games  They go to concerts more often and buy more music merchandise  If downloading would not be possible, a majority states that they would not buy more…
  8. 8. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 8Institute for Information Law (IViR) Reasonable Price
  9. 9. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 9Institute for Information Law (IViR) Possible Effects on Purchasing of CDs, DVD’s and Games + Introducing new artists and genres (sampling effect) + Enhances demand for related products (concerts, merchandise) = Meets demand of consumers with insufficient willingness to pay = Meets demand for products not on offer – Substitutes demand for purchases (substitution effect) Positive net welfare effects on audio (however record industry loss of approx € 100), film and games
  10. 10. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 10Institute for Information Law (IViR) Conclusions: context  File sharing is ‘here to stay’, but also willingness to pay  Cultural diversity:  no cause for specific policy, more available then ever  New models for talent development and exploitation emerging:  New payment methods: iTunes, streaming, flat-fee  New value chains: 360-degree deals, sponsorship deals, tv- commercial appearances, live is kicking!  New platforms: YouTube, Facebook, Spotify
  11. 11. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 11Institute for Information Law (IViR) Conclusions: enforcement  Substantial civil law remedies have been put into place  Notice and take down, Injunctions,  Damages/Surrender of profits, etc  Application of criminal law is ‘ultimum remedium’  Penal sanctions in copyright legislation  Priorities (public interest, manpower)  Focus on large scale activities and economic impact
  12. 12. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 12Institute for Information Law (IViR) Recommendations  Non-legal:  Promote innovation  We need to know more  Limited research on various sectors  Realistic data on “damage”  Shifts in consumer preferences  Make consumers conscious about their activities, without disinformation
  13. 13. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 13Institute for Information Law (IViR) Recommendations  Legal:  No immediate regulatory action needed, avoid symbolic regulation  No legal actions against individual users  Enforcement (only) against commercial/large scale copyright infringements
  14. 14. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 14Institute for Information Law (IViR) Study 2012 Downloading from illegal source 2008 2012 Music 32% 22% Film/Series 10%* 18% Games 7% 6% Books n/a 6% Total 35%** 27% *excluding serie’;** excluding series and books
  15. 15. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 15Institute for Information Law (IViR) Downloading, Streaming, Purchasing Past year Purchased (1) Download& streaming legal source illegal source (4) All Channels (1 to 4) Total Legal (1 to 3) Paid for (2) Free (3) Music 40% 17.1% 36.5% 21.7% 63% 60.8% Film/series 44.8% 11.8% 25.3% 18.3% 59.4% 57.2% Games 19.7% 8.8% 14.6% 6.3% 28.7% 27.7% Books 69% 7.8% 9.2% 6.3% 70.9% 70.5% Total 82.6% 27.8% 47.3% 27.2% 98.2% 98.1%
  16. 16. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 16Institute for Information Law (IViR) Conclusions  Downloading from illegal source is not dominant and declining  Downloaders are also buyers  Willingness to pay
  17. 17. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 17Institute for Information Law (IViR) Internet Service Providers
  18. 18. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 18Institute for Information Law (IViR) Moving Towards Balance: A study into duties of care on the Internet (2010)  Two/Three strike approach. Substantial obstacles:  Limited social acceptance  Limited resources enforcement  Risk of going underground  Lack of proportionality  Legal or illegal hardly relevant: no significant differences between countries.  Enforcement effects only temporarily ?
  19. 19. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 19Institute for Information Law (IViR) The Pirate Bay blockade (2012) Reaction or Expected Reaction Ziggo/Xs4all UPC/KPN/etc. Didn’t (no longer) download 76.3% 77.9% Stopped/will stop 1.9% 1.5% Less 3.6% 4.8% Just as much 17.1% 12.6% More 1.1% 3.2%
  20. 20. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 20Institute for Information Law (IViR) Legal/Policy
  21. 21. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 21Institute for Information Law (IViR) Existing Legal Framework  Uploading forbidden  Downloading falls under the private copy-exception (nature of the source irrelevant)  Compensation via a levy system
  22. 22. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 22Institute for Information Law (IViR) New government policy  Promotion and protection of new business models  Focus enforcement on civil law (websites/services)  No two/three strikes models (open internet)  Only access to subscriber data in case of large scale infringements  Parliament:  no dowload-restriction or limitations on private copy  (pending) no ‘policing’ by internet service providers
  23. 23. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 23Institute for Information Law (IViR) More balance
  24. 24. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 24Institute for Information Law (IViR) Framework Directive  European framework for the communications sector (article 13a of the Framework Directive):  Measures taken need to respect fundamental rights  Appropriate, proportionate and necesssary  Effective judicial protection and due process
  25. 25. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 25Institute for Information Law (IViR) Jurisprudence: fundamental rights  European Court of Justice  Promusicae-case  Scarlet/Sabam  Netlog/Sabam  European Court of Human Rights  Yildirim  Ashby
  26. 26. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 26Institute for Information Law (IViR) Policy/Regulation  More critical approach  European Parliament  National Parliaments and governments (ACTA, IPRED)  Hesitations about two/three strikes  Netherlands, Germany, France, etc.
  27. 27. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 27Institute for Information Law (IViR) In general: Leading Principles  Better understanding of the facts  Awareness of fundamental rights  Proportionality  Value chain approach
  28. 28. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 28 Yogi Berra ‘You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there’
  29. 29. Institute for Information Law (IViR) 29Institute for Information Law (IViR) References Ups and downs. Economic and cultural effects of file sharing on music, film and games, 2009 http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/vaneijk/Ups_And_Downs_authorised_translation.pdf Moving Towards Balance: A study into duties of care on the Internet, 2010 http://www.ivir.nl/publications/vaneijk/Moving_Towards_Balance.pdf File sharing 2@12: Downloading from illegal sources in the Netherlands http://www.ivir.nl/publications/poort/Filesharing_2012.pdf

×