This snapshot taken on 02/02/2011, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.

Blog

c&binet forum 2009, images from sessions on 28 October 2009

Andrew | 30 Oct 2009, 17:07

Wednesday’s sessions included an openning speech from Lord Mandelson , and questions from the floor.

Matt Britten, Managing Director, Google UK the preseneted Fast Forward - Be Greater with Data and joined the following panel discussion led by Tim Bradshaw with Lorraine Heggessey, chief executive of Talkback Thames; Laurence Green, chairman, Fallon London; Spencer Hyman, internet entrepreneur and former COO of Last.fm; James Tye, CEO, Dennis Publishing and Dharmash Mistry, general partner at Balderton Capital to discuss Making Free Pay

_MG_2762

_MG_2772

Liz Nottingham, Chair, IPA People Managing Group followed with a session on Diagonal Thinking and then joined the following panel discussion.

Creating Opportunity was led by Martin Bright, political commentator and chair, New Deal of the Mind with Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, Boko Inyundo, global sector manager, Linklaters and trustee of The Africa Centre, and Ben Wolff, Director, Music Technology Ltd, Ian Dunleavy, Chief Executive, Pinewood Shepperton, Liz Nottingham, and Digital Media Consultant Kathryn Corrick.

_MG_2835

_MG_2823

Finally, Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrapped things up with a closing speech.


_MG_2835

_MG_2885

Over the coming days we will be uploading all archive footage of all the main session and podcasts summarising the fringe sesssions from those that led them.

Scale, risk and investment: Patrick McKenna’s speech to c&binet

Nick | 29 Oct 2009, 11:42

Patrick McKenna, c&binet forum 2009

Patrick McKenna, Founder & Chief Executive of Ingenious Media addressed c&binet forum on Tuesday, October 27th, on the challenge of how to increase the flow of capital in to the content industries, to faciliate the growth of smaller companies. He then discussed the issues raised with a range of experts including Simon Fuller, Founder & Chairman, 19 Group, Lorna Tilbian, Executive Director, Numis Corporation, Julie Meyer, Founder & CEO of Ariadne Capital and Daniel Waterhouse, partner at Wellington Partners.

This was his speech:

I am delighted to have the opportunity to get us started in this session as these are questions I have grappled with all my working life. Given the twin challenges of structural upheaval and global recession, that we all know about, it is vital to come up with some answers.

However, we should not hide behind the recession: it is the structural challenge that matters most. The biggest issues are the impact of the digital revolution on business models and consumer behaviour, and changes in the landscape of regulation.

Out of the resulting disruption we have, so far, seen only a handful of proven winners – with many clear losers! There are, of course, also many other businesses and business models, where the jury is still out but right now the consumer is the real winner, with greater and cheaper access to a wide variety of quality content.

This unprecedented level of upheaval creates greater competition and numerous investment opportunities, but with it comes lack of certainty. The only one constant in this ever changing equation is the need for compelling and distinctive content but, commercially, this is perhaps the area of greatest uncertainty.

I think that when talking about the “creative industries” we need to remind ourselves that they are overwhelmingly made up of small and very small companies. Most of them employ only a handful of people, but this is where great content tends to be made. It is also where most future growth is likely to come from if we can get the financing issues right – which is the ground I want to cover today.

Although my focus will therefore largely be on precisely these small companies, the issues will be of interest to everyone. Let me explain why.

I believe that access to finance is now the critical factor determining which type of company will succeed in the digital world. It is no longer simply the old argument about distribution over content, and which business model will prevail.

It’s a fact that with more open access to the new distribution platforms, content companies can move up the economic food chain as a consequence of having direct relationships with their consumers. In the process they can access new profit margins and build value, but none of this is possible if they don’t have the necessary funding to retain ownership in their content and have the monetary firepower to ensure effective marketing penetration.

So far there appears to be little consistent evidence of direct access to the consumer on the part of creative content companies in spite of some well publicised exceptions. Most content producers still access the consumer through the major distribution companies and to a very large extent this is due to a lack of alternative financing.

My central proposition today therefore is that creative content companies now have their biggest opportunity for growth, but only if certain very clear conditions are met.

In setting the framework for our discussion today there are three points I would like to make.

Firstly, when talking about finance and the businesses that comprise the creative industries, one size does not fit all. Indeed from an investment perspective they are distinctly different. These distinctions are not primarily about genre – publishing, games or film. They are about business models - different business models reflecting very different risk profiles.

From an investment perspective we can identify three broad categories of business model. If we think in terms of a spectrum of risk, at either end of the scale we have what I call demand-led and non demand-led business models, with distribution and licensing companies somewhere in the middle.

Let me explain why I use this terminology. By “demand-led” essentially I mean service businesses – advertising and design companies for example – whose work is funded by client commissions and client demand. This is relatively low risk activity in purely investment terms because it’s possible to manage the expenditure base to match the revenues.

By “non demand-led” I mean companies which have no way of predicting accurately in advance the demand for their product - the song, the book, the film. Will it be a “hit”, or a “miss”? As we all know, this is exceptionally high risk stuff.

In these non demand-led content companies the cost of the product and the cost of bringing it to market can be extremely high, thereby exacerbating the risk.

In the middle we have licensing and distribution companies which usually enjoy the benefit both of scale and catalogue.

Understanding and responding to the distinction between these different models and risk profiles is crucial in determining what, if anything, needs to change to stimulate investment in the creative industries.

In my experience it is content businesses, subject as they are to chronic unpredictability of demand, that have the most extreme difficulty in raising investment capital and breaking loose from their dependency on the big distribution companies.

To be clear. The current reality is that nearly all content funding is provided through “the trade” itself – that is to say by well-funded distributors. Very little is currently provided by business angels, venture capitalists, private equity houses or other financial institutions.

Having defined our terms of reference I come to my second point. There is a need to develop new and alternative sources of finance. This is a critical objective. If we fail to achieve it the major distribution companies will continue to dominate the creative economy and the growth opportunity for content companies will remain aspirational only.

Why does this matter?

It matters because the myriad of talented entrepreneurial companies that are involved in the creation of content will be denied an opportunity to develop if their financing continues to be derived almost exclusively from the majors who, as a consequence of that funding own and control the creative output.

It also matters because right now there is a once in a lifetime opportunity for creative companies to develop their businesses free from the grip of the gatekeepers that have hitherto regulated their access to the consumer market.

The central issue in economic terms is control of the IP. It is vital for content companies to retain some ownership in the IP they create so as to generate meaningful profits to fund future growth.

Of course the pre-selling of some content rights to help fund production costs is desirable, mainly to get a degree of marketing commitment from distributors, but too often creative enterprises find themselves locked into a scenario in which they are forced to pre-sell pretty much all of their content.

Unless some IP is retained in a content business it will always be small, project feebased, and commercially vulnerable.

At the same time, creative businesses need to make themselves more attractive to investors if they are to take advantage of the digital opportunity. What does this mean?

This is certainly a question the panel will want to take up, but let me offer three initial thoughts.

First, the vast majority of these companies need to develop business skills to match their entrepreneurial and creative skills, not least so that they are able to appraise and obtain new sources of finance.

Secondly, they need to embrace new, more holistic business models and become much more sophisticated in their approach to funding. They need to be broader and more ambitious – it also means adopting business models that reflect the different ways in which a single piece of content can now be exploited. And it means accessing the multiple sources of funding that arises as a consequence.

In other words they need to raise project financing, including equity, from a much wider range of sources than ever before. The finance function for creative businesses is becoming much more demanding because of the move away from single source funding.

Thirdly they need to be able to draw from a far wider industry knowledge base than previously. The exploitation of content in a multi-channel world requires a greater range of skills and knowledge as business models become ever more complex and the funding environment more diversified. For example record companies are now looking to expand their activities across the spectrum of the music industry and this will involve broadening their skills base across the other parts of the music industry, and beyond!

On a corporate level, most content companies will not be able to achieve critical mass and this will reduce the number of investment sources open to them. Those - the vast majority - that cannot achieve scale quickly enough will need to consider alternative investment sources such as specialist media funds that can offer their investors, through a portfolio of investments, the scale and diversity of risk that investors demand.

These media investment funds understand the market and therefore hold the key to the future partnerships that content companies will need to form to maximise their growth potential. They can provide both project financing and equity investment for corporate development, but the creative industries need more of them.

Knowledgeable investors create sustainable investment and this is what is needed.

Ben Bradshaw closing speech to c&binet forum, 28 October 2009

Andrew | 28 Oct 2009, 14:31

Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP closing speech to the c&binet forum, 28 October 2009

Ben Bradshaw, c&binet forum 2009

Creative industries thrive on calculated risks. This project – c&binet – has been a calculated risk and I hope you feel it’s a risk that has paid off.

We weren’t sure it would fly. It has.

More than 300 here – over-subscribed. A much bigger international audience on Twitter and our website live stream. Four Government Ministers. High level representation from a number of overseas Governments and the EU Commission. 

I hope you have found it useful both in terms of developing ideas and making connections.

Thanks for coming. Thanks to the sponsors Clifford Chance, Coutts and Kinura. 

Thanks in particular to our ambassadors who have put in so much work here and in the preparation. 

Thanks to the exhibitors and to David Rowan of Wired UK who curated the exhibition.

To the British Council and their young creative entrepreneurs who brought a welcome international and younger feel to the event.

Thanks to my team at DCMS who have worked incredibly hard and been under a lot of pressure to make this happen and make it a success.

Thanks too to you Jenny for compering all the way through and to those who led the main and fringe sessions.

Thanks to Curran and the Wolfnotes and Katie Shotter for entertaining us on the two evenings.   

The great thing about modern technology is we don’t have to wait long for a verdict on how c&binet has gone. Comments have been streaming in live since the start and I don’t think I’m putting a positive gloss on things by saying the response has been pretty positive.

Comments like

‘it’s a great thing that it’s happening,’

‘great that Government is involved,’

‘the UK is ahead of the game in holding a conference like this’ 

And the most encouraging thing for me is the strong expressions of interest to take c&binet forward including the possibility of private sector involvement in taking it on – that really would help develop c&binet into a Davos for the Creative Industries. 

That doesn’t mean to say we couldn’t have done things better or differently or that everything has been perfect.

From the first session when it took Anita Ondine’s question to draw attention to the singular lack of diversity of the opening panel, the lack of gender and cultural diversity has been a recurrent theme – striking how an industry that lives off the richness of cultural diversity is so un-diverse at the top. Could that mean they are missing something?

I know a lot of time has been spent discussing peer-to-peer, but what has been encouraging is the overwhelming desire to move on and develop new ways of meeting the expectations of consumers in the digital age.

The fact that I picked up more chat about the age old and creative tensions between the bigs and the smalls or the young and the old rather than just the rights holders on the one side and the ISPs or open rights community on the other is surely an encouraging sign we are moving on.

The impromptu “out of the closet” smalls alternative conference that happened last night in the Amber Foyer was great. But even those of you I spoke to who thought the forum has been too dominated by the bigs acknowledged this has been a refreshingly flat get together.

Not in terms of the atmosphere but in terms of the democratic mixing and cross-fertilisation between some of the biggest and most established and some of the smallest and newest players in the business.

I suggest that flatness would be difficult to recreate in any other industrial sector.

I have certainly learned a lot as have my officials who have been here all through. It has helped highlight for us where we need to do further work on policy.

Some of these were picked up in the Q&A session with Peter Mandelson this morning. We do have more work to do on licensing and the copyright strategy launched today acknowledges that we need to bring out licensing regime into the modern age.

On EU copyright legislation – the current system is a mess. It’s generally life plus 70 years for books but only 50 years from the date of recording for sound recordings. The current EU proposal is to increase that to 70 years – reflecting the fact that for many living musicians that is their pension.

The original EU proposal was for 95 years. Our position is that we support an extension from 50 years as long as there are clear benefits for performers. And in response the question from Adrian Hon –

would we support an ever increasing extension of copyright that would stifle innovation? – the answer is no. There has to be a balance.

A lot of other challenges and ideas for us to do more work on – skills, access to finance, the bank lending point raised by Brian Message with Peter this morning.

And a challenge to all of us is to internationalise this discussion as the ultimate solutions can only be provided at international level.

I want to end where I began on Monday evening when I reminded us that as a proportion of our GDP the UK creative industries are Number 1 in world:

As big as the whole of the building sector to our economy. Twice as important as hotels and restaurants. Twice as many people employed as in financial services.  And that’s just the economic value – it doesn’t include your value to our sense of national health, wellbeing and pride, or the image of Britain you project to the rest of the world.

Yet – if I were to have a conversation with people on the streets of my constituency in Exeter about the importance of the creative industries most of them would not know what I was talking about.

A challenge to all of us is how to embed your importance into the consciousness of the British citizen – in the same way as they understand the importance of manufacturing or the City – so that we in Government and you in the industry have the licence to do what we need to do.

One of the problems has been that this has not been a sector that has spoken with one voice.

C&binet isn’t and can’t be that voice but it has for the first time provided a forum that has brought all of you, the diverse sectors, together with policy makers – that is an historic achievement in itself and we need to build on it.       


ENDS

Lord Mandelson speech transcript on P2P copyright and creative industries 28 October 2009

C&binet | 28 Oct 2009, 12:23

Rt Hon Lord Mandelson speech to the c&binet forum, 28 October 2009

Lord Mandelson keynote speech, c&binet forum 2009

I’d like to make a couple of basic points today about the creative industries in Britain. First, I want to put down a firm marker on the scale of their contribution to our prosperity in a globalised economy. Second, I want to say something about what we need to do to preserve that strength for the future, especially what we now plan to do to adapt and update our approach to copyright for a very different, interconnected and digital world. 

Why the creative industries matter

I’ve been trying to think of the first time that I was really aware of just how seriously Britain’s impact as a creative economy is out of all proportion to its size. I think it was some time in the last decade, probably looking up at Norman Foster’s glass dome for the Reichstag or reflecting on Harry Potter’s decade of global conquest, or maybe it was watching Robbie Williams charm the socks off 15000 Belgians – and at least one Englishman - in Antwerp a few years ago. 

Did you know that there is now almost no country on earth where you can’t watch Midsomer Murders? Which means there are a lot of people out there who have a very distorted view of the British homicide rate. Just think of it.  We watch The Wire here in Britain. But in West Baltimore they watch Midsomer Murders and say “Sure, it’s pretty, but man it’s dangerous over there!”

The numbers that back up these anecdotal examples – I suspect an underestimate - are genuinely striking. The export earnings of the UK creative industries alone are worth about 16 billion pounds. That’s about 4 per cent of UK exports. They employ almost two million people in our economy.

I’m a big defender of an economy based on making things, which is why I often speak about manufacturing. But in terms of added value in a global economy the difference between making a car or a plane and making a TV show or a video game is largely a meaningless one. Especially when you consider how integral and central to the manufacturing process innovative design is.

The digitalisation of creative industry

But of course the creative industries are undergoing an immense shift, driven above all by the internet and by digital technology. We now have greater unmediated access to cultural goods than ever before, and in formats that make them easier to appropriate and share than ever before. A world where creative content is conceived, published, distributed, advertised and consumed digitally is revolutionary for the users of cultural goods, and revolutionary for the people who produce them.

In some respects it creates huge new opportunities for the creative industries. It means industries have greater ability than ever to reach new customers, to speak to them directly and to tailor creative goods to them, their needs and their tastes.

They are also less geographically bound than they have ever been – the contributors to a creative product, even one produced in hours like a newspaper, no longer even need to be in the same country, let alone the same room. Our most ambitious creative industries are going increasingly to see a world in which English is the preponderant language as their wider market, with the UK as a hinterland and as a launching pad. 

This means we are going to have to work even harder to make sure the environment for creative industry here is right. At a very basic level that means making sure we have the digital infrastructure in Britain – which is one of the key questions that the Government’s Digital Britain report addressed.

It’s going to mean making sure that our education system is producing the right skills – both the fundamental intellectual and artistic confidence that is the root of creativity, but also the craft skills that underwrite so much creative endeavour. The technicians and producers and programmers and editors, and even the builders who often literally build the stage on which creative industry takes place. 

But the big challenge that the digital economy poses for the creative industries, of course, concerns content producers’ control over their ideas and goods. The creative industries are literally built on the idea that it is legitimate to protect the value of creativity through copyright and intellectual property rights. If they don’t retain that, frankly they don’t have a viable business model left. 

The creative sector has faced challenges to protected formats before and it has survived robustly – in spite of some Cassandra-like predictions from inside the industry. Home taping didn’t kill the music industry.  Home video didn’t do for movies.  But the threat faced today from online infringement, particularly unlawful file-sharing, is of a different scale altogether.

I was shocked to learn that only one of every 20 tracks downloaded in the UK is downloaded legally. One in twenty. You just can’t have sustainable creative industries under the pressure of this kind of theft – and that’s what it is. So I want to be absolutely clear. The British Government’s view is that taking people’s work without due payment is wrong and that, as an economy based on creativity, we cannot sit back and do nothing as this happens. 

The trouble is that too many users of digitised cultural goods simply don’t see it that way. When 15 year old intern Matthew Robson reported back to his bosses at Morgan Stanley in the summer on the attitudes of his peers to digital content his key conclusion was pretty much: they want what they want and they don’t really want to pay for it. That was the view of a 15 year old intern at Morgan Stanley.  And, of course, on the internet it’s incredibly easy to get just that.  The important cultural and ethical sense that it is an issue of right and wrong is eroding before our eyes.  This is not just morally unacceptable:  it’s also commercially unsustainable for artists, for investors and producers alike. 

A new business model

Now, it seems self-evident to me that trying to evolve new business models against these kind of attitudes is very hard, and I take my hat off to those who have tried.  Further investment in new business models is important.  But the Government also has a responsibility to act.  That is why we have decided to intervene and legislate to tackle the problem of file-sharing, and it is why other countries, including France and the United States, are doing the same.

What we will be putting before Parliament is a proportionate measure that will give people ample awareness and opportunity to stop breaking the rules.  It will be clear to them that they have been detected, that they are breaking the law and that they risk prosecution.  If necessary we have also made it clear that we will go further and make technical measures available, including account suspension.  In this case, there will be a proper route of appeal. But it must become clear that the days of consequence-free widespread online infringement are over.

When I reopened this issue back in the summer there was a lot of contentious debate, not surprisingly. But, let me be clear on this point: technical measures will be a last resort and I have no expectation of mass suspensions resulting. If we reach the point of suspension for an individual, they will be informed in advance – having previously received two notifications – and will have the opportunity to appeal.  But the threat for persistent individuals is, and has to be, real, or no effective deterrent to breaking the law will be in place. 

Neither do we want Internet Service Providers to be unfairly burdened. ISPs and rights holders will share the costs, on the basis of a flat fee that will allow both sides to budget and to plan.

That’s our side of the bargain.  The aim here is to give rights holders and others the space to invest in and develop new ways of offering content, in the way that people want it, and at a price that makes sense to buyer and to seller.

But the reality is that the massive demand for easier and cheaper access to books and films and music and other content is not something that we can or should be indifferent to. The market is telling you in no uncertain terms that people want access to copyrighted material on different terms from those the industry currently wants to offer.  Every time that demand is ignored, we give free-riders an excuse to keep on taking the stuff through the back door.

I strongly agree that we have to educate people on the value of intellectual property rights. Our new approach will create the launch pad for such an educational campaign.  But the only way to re-establish a strong consensus around the fairness and value of copyright is to bring the whole IP regime into the modern world.

A ‘legislate and enforce’ approach to beating piracy can only ever be part of the solution. The best long term solution is there in front of our noses. It’s the market –  but it has to be a market in which those who love music and film, for example, can find a deal that makes breaking the law an unnecessary risk. I know how complicated building these networks and services can be, but in that respect, the industry needs to move faster in a much more agile, commercial and market response orientated way to help itself. There are some good, cheap, legal services operating. If I can help by convening discussions or knocking heads together then I want to know.

Andrew Gowers did a fine job of looking at this from a UK perspective in 2006. But we have also recognised the need to approach this from a broader angle, recognising that many of the most important levers for this exist at European and international level.

We announced in Digital Britain that we would be looking at collective licensing and at Orphan Works, and these practical changes will make a real difference, and help make the process of clearing rights less painful without eroding the position of rights holders.  However, I am announcing today a Copyright Strategy to take us to the next stage. 

In particular, our strategy grasps the nettle of what a fair deal looks like between creators, rights holders, copyright users and citizens. It accepts that there is a case for easier and cheaper access to copyrighted material and that making a reality of this is a key part of the wider bargain of which tougher penalties for illegal file-sharing are but one part.  We need to be clear what is and is not allowed.  At present, the legal framework – almost universally ignored – disallows all sorts of perfectly sensible private use, like moving songs from computer onto an IPOD.  If we are to make clear that rules are to be enforced, then all the rules need to be sensible and they need to be up-to-date.

I think this new approach is particularly relevant in two cases. For pre-commercial use of copyright material – where wider access could help transform it into innovative commercial uses for which the original holder would of course be compensated.

And for non-commercial uses in the home and among friends and families, where there needs to be a whole new approach. Together we are going to have to figure out exactly how we can do this.

No less important, the strategy recognises that we have to do this at the European level and it gives notice that the UK wants to help lead and drive this debate in Europe.

The bottom line for the Government is that the creative industries are and must remain central to a balanced, knowledge economy.  They are one of the keys to the recovery now underway and our whole economic future. There is no economy on earth in which the creative industries play such an important part in overall growth and job creation, and that is an immense asset to the UK that we are determined to preserve and strengthen. Anyone who doubts that needs to take a look at the Love and Money exhibition in the Ivory Foyer, here in the Grove, which is a wonderful expo of fifty years of British creative brilliance. Today our collective challenge is to deliver the basis for the next fifty years of creative British endeavour and leadership. 

I hope that our approach and the stable, predictable framework being put in place will allow good commercial decisions to be taken for the benefit of everyone including consumers, who we are all here to serve.

c&binet forum 2009 - summary of the first afternoons discussions

Andrew | 27 Oct 2009, 19:25

Nobody can truly believe they have an entitlement to take the creative work of others for free, was Elio Leoni-Sceti’s message at the start of the afternoon session. Free has a place, he argued – as a trial, a booster, a way of engaging people with the music – but the bottom line has to be to give people what they want and make it quality, then they will wish to pay.

EMI Music’s Chief Executive looked to gaming as a useful lesson in how to create demand among an engaged online community –  neatly trailing the panel discussion on free content that followed.


_MG_0347


Kristian Segerstrale, CEO of Playfish spoke of the ideal model for the games world leading players not to a single choice to pay for the next level but to a shopping mall of choices with emotional resonances – like playing or paying for gifts to send such as virtual flowers. Tongue in check, Robert Andrews of paidContent:UK, admired the mastery of getting someone to pay for something that doesn’t exist.

The consensus was that the way forward is quality of consumer experience – or to focus not on the stick but on ‘big carrots’.

_MG_0378

_MG_0409


_MG_0387

Next, Patrick Mckenna began the Scale, Risk & Investment session by highlighting that through the digital age comes the unique opportunity of our time through access to consumers which the internet has provided. Because of this, the small companies – that make up the majority of the creative industries - can grow more rapidly than ever before, providing they have access to investment. The challenge for them is accessing finance whilst retaining their IP, which is vital to generate profit and future growth. He also pointed out that majority of financial backing comes from the major corporations, independent sources were scarce.

Simon Fuller followed saying entrepreneurs need to think long term to guarantee future success and stressed the importance that when finding an investor, make sure that they really understand your business. Don’t be afraid to take risks, however entrepreneurs need to prove their success to obtain higher market values.

Lorna Tilbian, said stock markets were not the best place for entrepreneurs to be growing their businesses, as this area wants scale and reliable profits which creatives who are starting out struggle to offer. Therefore do not rush to list too soon. 

Julie Meyer said entrepreneurs must think big, start small and move fast. However in the UK the financial investors and venture capitalists have not yet caught up with the quality of their creative industries.

_MG_0464

_MG_0489

The last session of the day saw a discussion about whether there was a future for Copyright in the Digital Age and centered around what the true value of online content was in the digital age

_MG_0527

_MG_0520

Points were made that the ability for producers to charge a higher market price should be maintained through legislators taking measures to restrict filesharing. This was backed up by an assertion that over 50 per cent of the bandwidth from ISPs was being taken up by those downloading content unlawfully. In response the point was made that by reducing the unit price of the content you would increase demand sufficiently for you to raise more revenue. The inflexiblity of the current copyright regime was criticised with points being made about the high barriers to entry, with illegal routes providing less barriers than legal routes.  Other points included the need for the establishment of a copyright framework that was understandable by consumers so that they knew their rights, as well as knowing what they couldn’t do and a short discussion about whether the EC needed to get to a common viewpoint on copyright across member states if industry were to make progress with views on both sides of the argument.

c&binet forum - summary of discussions from the first morning

C&binet | 27 Oct 2009, 13:39

A call to unleash the full extent of Europe’s creative potential ended this morning’s session – one that began by addressing as unproductive the ‘deafness and shouting’ around piracy that has dominated discussion up to now.

Creative Industries minister Siôn Simon, Dame Gail Rebuck of Random House and Chris Clarke of Sapient Nitro debated the shades of grey between the polarised opinion, with a consensus emerging on the necessity of moving forward on a range of fronts – new business models, acceptance of consumer’s mindsets, and proportionate action to protect rights holders.

_MG_9921

Vivendi’s Jean-Bernard Levy, interviewed by Amanda Andrews, set out how his company is successfully straddling the content production and distribution worlds, declared the album not dead and dropped a teaser for things to come – gaming guitar heroes exchanging virtual axes for virtual decks with DJ Hero.

_MG_9992

Wired’s David Rowan then drew out visions for the near future from the Creative Infrastructure panel – all-seeing, all-knowing TV that responds like a Wii, protective walls around creative businesses coming crashing down, and sexed-up meta data.

_MG_0078

The rights issue returned, with Ashley Highfield contrasting the easy march of technological progress against the complexity of liberating content for future exploitation. That before David Rowan asked if piracy isn’t dead in the face of the opportunities opening up for creative leaders prepared to take risks and sail into choppy waters.

As a curtain-raiser for Lord Mandelson’s speech tomorrow, intellectual property minister David Lammy had a dream of a clear, fair and reasonable future where ‘freedom of access is not the same as access for free.’

Odile Quintin, the EU Director General for Education and Culture closed this morning’s session with a call for greater partnerships between the creative industries and educators to unleash the full extent of Europe’s creative potential.

_MG_0199

The response so far to the event from the online community has been tremendous, with #cabinetforum trending at one point during the session.

Many thanks. Stay with us for Elio Leoni-Scetifrom EMI Music restarting proceedings before discussions on Free Content and Scale, Risk and Investment.

  • Page 1 of 3 pages
  •  1 2 3 >