Dear Andrus Ansip, Vice-President of the European Commission,
Ladies Members of the European Parliament, dear Jean-Jacques Annaud, dear Aïda Touihri, whom I thank for agreeing to facilitate these exchanges with talent,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Dear friends,
I’ll make a brief closing remark, first of all to note that it takes the power of attraction of the Cannes Film Festival to bring together at the same table—which is not so common—YouTube, Amazon, our filmmakers, our authors, SFR, Orange, and everyone you’ve heard this morning.
You have been able to exchange on two worlds that, in reality, already know each other, but do not really talk about what constitutes, for us, the foundations of cultural diversity. In our discussions this morning, we have seen the strength of digital in the dissemination of works and programs, but also in the detection and emergence of new talent. We have also seen the new uses and services developed by these platforms, which are very attractive to the public.
But the issue for public authorities and Europe is to ensure that this wealth, this abundance, is truly put at the service of European creation – and for us French. We saw very quickly, more than a decade ago, the rather negative effects of the digital transition, with the piracy and declining value that the cultural industries have experienced, especially the music that is just starting to recover an economic model thanks to streaming.
The question that was asked this morning was, how do we create, produce, and disseminate in a digital environment? We must not be naive. If platforms and telecom operators are interested in programs and works, it is because it comes back to where value is created. It’s because there’s a pull on the public and on their clients that they go back to the programs looking to invest. This is evident not only at the Cannes Film Festival, but also in SFR’s strategy, which includes exclusive rights to programs created by you.
As you know, the European Commission has a great ambition to create the Digital Single Market – three terms that sometimes scare us when they are next to each other. The creative world, as Mr Ansip pointed out, did not at first understand why copyright was perceived as an obstacle to the dissemination of works by Community bodies. From our point of view, we see copyright as a modern tool that allows the circulation of works and at the same time provides remuneration to creators and those who have invested in the production and financed those works. After 18 months of intense discussion, I hear that the European Commission has realized that copyright is perfectly compatible with the desire to circulate works in Europe. I think that’s a significant development. Negotiating rights is the way to pay the creators and the films of tomorrow.
France is making proposals that I think we need to hear, because France has done a lot to protect creation and diversity. As has been pointed out, we see here in Cannes the role it plays not only for French cinema, but also for world cinema. So that’s an example that might be interesting to look at. France also has a lot to lose from a lack of regulation at the European level, since we are dealing with actors who are multinational but who intervene in a market that it has structured and protected.
We have highlighted, in the Community debate, the major issues that arise in the digital world: the recognition of rights, the fight against piracy, the financing and protection of European creation, the problems of value transfer, the issue of interoperability, which will become a major issue, and finally fairness in terms of regulation and taxation. I thank the European Commission for listening in recent times and for including these questions in its communication of 6 May 2015.
Now there are many areas to explore that I think are of great interest to all of you. The first of these topics, which was very strong last year but has evolved well, was the debate on the territoriality of rights, which has now given way to a discussion on the portability of paid services. France is in favour of this development, but, as I said to you this morning, Mr Vice-President, will be concerned that the conditions of access to this portability are well controlled – otherwise this would put the territoriality of rights in jeopardy again.
Other consultations have been launched. One, I think, is the audiovisual media services directive. This is our priority. Indeed, as was well shown this morning, the line between linear, non-linear and platform no longer really makes sense. These regulations are dated. Linear broadcasters – and they are right, dear Delphine Ernotte and dear Véronique Cayla – are obviously moving towards non-linear and fully investing in the digital world. Services that broadcast non-linear programs should have the same responsibilities for funding production, since it is not a matter of an orderly suite of programs, but rather a presentation of these programs to the public. The opening of the work on the directive on linear and on-demand audiovisual media services shows that fifteen years after the adoption of the major directives that have framed the birth of the digital economy, it was necessary to review the regulatory framework. The debates that took place this morning showed that new actors have become major players in the distribution and financing of works. But these regulatory tools, which are now regulated, have been designed at a time that is no longer adapted to these new players – and I share what Viviane Reding said about the delay in this area. There are even some pretty glaring examples of that.
Another major point of the SMA directive, which we must apply more generally, concerns the obligations in terms of exposure and financing of European creation. There is no justification for new broadcasters not to be subject to the rules that have been established to preserve and encourage cultural diversity.
In addition, issues such as the protection of minors and incitement to hatred have emerged forcefully in the public debate and in the challenges facing European societies. I believe that we must not neglect them in our reflections. In a context of increasing violence and the temptation of withdrawal, no one can accept that what is unacceptable on a television channel is perfectly admitted on the Internet. That is why France has proposed extending SMA regulation to certain platforms that broadcast audiovisual and cinematographic works.
These platforms also play another role, which has been mentioned and on which I know that the CNC is working, dear Frédérique Bredin: the detection of new talent. I think that’s really a plus. That’s what YouTube and a number of telecom operator services do. We can build on this new input – without being complacent or naive about the role these platforms play in program delivery.
The fact that large digital companies are turning to the production of works is good news if these investments stimulate creation and diversity. I think it was also pointed out this morning that filmmakers and writers are not asking for handouts. They ask for the application of a principle that we have consistently defended, according to which diffusion finances creation – and European creation. That is why we have these regulations. The fact that these companies are coming towards creation is a very good thing, but they must do so fully and completely towards European creation and not only according to their interests of the moment, as Virginie Rozière recalled.
The regulatory tools that have been founded to stimulate original creation in the various European countries must be able to be applied regardless of the mode of dissemination. Countries which, unlike France, have not implemented a proactive policy in favour of creation have gradually lost all their production capacity.
Beyond this subject of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, it seems to us that the very status of the hosting provider is absolutely no longer adapted to platforms that present audiovisual or musical works, that sort, expose, filter as they see fit. That is why France has brought to the attention of the European Commission a number of proposals for these platforms to contract with rights holders - which they have begun to do. With contractualization, it is the remuneration of works that will be allowed.
Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words about the copyright exception issues that were cited, as well as the tax issues, which were more on the margins of your discussions but are important. On copyright, we are awaiting a forthcoming proposal from the European Commission. France’s position on this issue is consistent: to prefer licensing and agreements to generalized exceptions, except where it is shown that there is a real copyright problem. Today, at any rate, we have not seen it as a barrier to dissemination. As far as taxation is concerned, we want - and I know that the Commission has heard us, and we are grateful for this - a VAT neutrality for digital goods (books and newspapers, for example) equivalent to that for paper.
Finally, we talked about delay earlier. It should also be remembered that since 2013, the French Parliament has voted for a new contribution from video-on-demand services that broadcast from a European country that is not France but is aimed at the French market, where they generate a turnover. These services must contribute to French and European creation. This is a project that Germany is also carrying, in a slightly different way. But since 2013, this project has been waiting for approval.
Dear friends, it is important to hold together and not to oppose technological developments, cultural regulation, diversity and creation. We see that the new digital players are destined to become the new partners of creation, including from an economic point of view. The issues behind this, as Radu Mihaileanu said in his manifesto, which will henceforth be “the Cannes manifesto”, are crucial because they concern the image of the society we want to transmit to our children. And that, I believe, is the true foundation and legitimacy of European intervention. For if this is not what Europe relies on, it runs the risk of definitively losing the hearts of citizens who will prefer to have their national support mechanisms for creation. That’s why I think this is a bigger issue than film and audiovisual. It is a more general issue about the legitimacy of European intervention and its meaning.
Thank you.