About digital-europe

Author Website: http://www.digitaleurope.org
Author Bio:

Articles by digital-europe

Creating digital jobs easier than putting humans on the moon

Posted by digital-europe on 23/04/13

I’ve always been interested in space. Mysteries of the universe, space travel, black holes and all that. So it was a real pleasure to hear an 83-year-old Buzz Aldrin speak at a dinner in Brussels recently, and to discover that my dinner table neighbour worked for NASA. It got me comparing the challenges of getting men to the moon, and crucially, back again, with the other challenge that occupied the beginning of that week; creating more digital jobs in Europe.

I imagined someone in NASA setting out a radical plan to achieve this incredible feat and then inviting people to build on it. Here, I’m standing on the shoulders of the many giants who have got us this far and setting out my thoughts on how to meet today’s digital jobs challenge.

The Grand Coalition for digital job creation was launched in Brussels on 4 March. It brings together four parts of the European Commission with a range of stakeholders, including my own association, DigitalEurope. Inspired by EU Commissioner for Digital Affairs Neelie Kroes, the coalition’s purpose is win-win; get unemployed talented Europeans into work and fill the gaps in their workforces that many employers say holds back their growth.

The launch was a big success and a culmination of some impressive cheer-leading and enthusiasm-building by Kroes.

The challenge now is to execute. And first we need a plan. Here’s how I see it.

Start with some definitions. We need to agree what digital jobs are. They aren’t just information communications technology (ICT) jobs but go far beyond that. How about “jobs that create or exploit digital technologies to deliver social or economic benefit in Europe”. Any good definition will stretch from programmers to web entrepreneurs.

Next, segment these jobs and guesstimate how many there will be and in which countries or regions. Only pay attention to big segments. I would guess a long list would include; (big) data analysts; cyber-security specialists; hybrids with both business sector (including public sector) knowledge, and digital technology expertise; app developers; cloud specialists; green experts; and business analysts.

Thirdly, identify the training provision needed for each big segment and spot gaps. Incentivise industry to create vendor neutral “unbranded” training schemes and create maps for each segment that show how the neutral and vendor specific schemes fill the needs.

Fourthly, develop schemes to encourage labour movement between high demand and high supply countries and regions.

Then build tomorrow’s workforce. Equip careers advisers and primary school teachers. Work closely with educators to ensure they find a way of both meeting students’ broader educational needs and giving them the best possible base for a future digital job. It is not either or – it has to be both. Industry needs to be clear – only a very small percentage of future digital jobs require a computer science degree. (Check out the employment rate differences in the UK between an ITMB and a “traditional” computer science degree.)

As NASA knows, a plan is a start but you need to execute it. So here are a couple of thoughts. There is a lot of expertise at a national level. Although there are some things that can only be done at a European level, much of the implementation must be done on the ground, in the countries and regions of Europe.

So bring some of the national e-skills leaders together to drive this forward. I haven’t seen much evidence of this so far. There is a lot of experience and expertise across the Commission, at least four of the directorate-generals. Bring them together into one “tiger team” or “hit squad” for the rest of this Commission’s life and have them, and the other stakeholders work to one plan with one leader.

Leadership and a focus on execution are essential. Don’t let bureaucracy and procedures get in the way. If we can put men on the moon, and get them back we can surely do this. Europe’s future might just well depend on it.

John Higgins – Director General DIGITALEUROPE

Education, Grand Coalition, InfoSociety, Innovation and Growth
Comments [RSS 2.0]

Digital and Security – a tricky mix

Posted by digital-europe on 11/03/13

Good audit committees need to be able to deal with all types of risks – many associated with matters about which committee members have no personal prior knowledge. Cyber security is a classic example.  Digital technologies are fast moving and ever more pervasive. Security matters are by their very nature often shrouded in secrecy. So audit committees have to ask questions and gather information that allows them to properly evaluate both likelihood and impact and put in place mitigation measures proportional to the risk. The same thinking could be used by policy makers too.

I moderated a DIGITALEUROPE briefing for interested European parliamentarians in early March. It was clear that the nature and scale of the challenge is not properly understood – and that’s understandable given the difficult nature of the subject. Those whose information or infrastructure has been compromised rarely advertise the fact. Yet efforts to raise awareness of the threat run the inevitable risk of causing undue fear.  Add to these the need to avoid stifling innovation and fragmenting the European market even further and you can see the difficult tightrope policymakers have to walk.

I offer three guiding principles that could form a useful framework for thinking about cyber security. First concentrate on raising awareness and building circles of trust within which information can be shared, and then implement voluntary mechanisms that are easy to use and bring rewards to the participants. And there are rewards, such as early access to information about new threats. Look for good practice that already exists – there is plenty. Secondly be proportionate. Don’t burden SMEs with unnecessary requirements and regulation and distinguish carefully between what really is important to our well-being and what isn’t. Don’t use sledgehammers to crack nuts. Finally, recognise that cyber knows no geographical boundaries; build the circles of trust using international standards and approaches with like-minded entities across borders.

DIGITALEUROPE cares greatly about the safety and security of Europe’s information and infrastructure ecosystem. Our members own or manage a significant proportion of it and have many years’ experience protecting it. We will continue to play a proper role in helping to shape an appropriate and effective policy and regulatory environment to increase that protection. We want Europe’s businesses and consumers to know they can use it safely.

John Higgins is Director General of DIGITALEUROPE, chairs a University audit committee and earlier in his career was involved in the establishment of an cyber information exchange in the UK.

InfoSociety, Security
Comments [RSS 2.0]

EU and US jointly set their sights on new trade standards for global economies

Posted by digital-europe on 15/02/13

The European ICT industry was anxious to hear what President Obama would have to say in his State of the Union Address  about the US trade agenda and in particular the much-talked about EU-US Free Trade Agreement. Indeed, the President announced the launch of talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union. In addition, a long overdue Final Report of the High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth was released, along with a statement by the EU and US leaders saying that they will each initiate the internal procedures necessary to launch negotiations on the Partnership. We were so happy to hear the Obama-Van Rompuy-Barroso trio (finally) speaking in unison about their commitment to making transatlantic relationship an even stronger driver of the prosperity on each side.

The European ICT industry very much believes that this initiative can substantially improve the environment for conducting business on both sides of the Atlantic. The transatlantic economic relationship is already the world’s largest, accounting for a half of the global economic output. However, in practice, product requirements imposed under technical regulations in the EU and the US at times diverge substantially, even if underlying regulatory objectives are more or less the same. A more harmonised or compatible transatlantic market would have a positive effect on market growth by increasing the competitiveness of our industries and reducing their costs. Therefore we applaud the European Commission and the US administration for moving forward with the shared goal of reducing excessive regulatory costs, unjustified regulatory differences and other unnecessary red tape.

Excitingly, the EU and the US leaders are looking beyond what is usually covered in a bilateral trade agreement; their interest extends even beyond the regulation of the European and American markets. “Through this negotiation, the United States and the European Union will have the opportunity not only to expand trade and investment across the Atlantic, but also to contribute to the development of global rules that can strengthen the multilateral trading system.” proclaimed the EU and US leaders.

In its contributions to the debate, the ICT industry encouraged the EU and the US to jointly promote trade liberalisation and to address problems created elsewhere, such as requests to provide unnecessary confidential business information, or trade secrets, to show compliance with technical regulations and thus gain market access. The two partners should definitely work closely together to avoid forced localisation requirements around the world. Governments are increasingly requiring businesses to locate R&D, IP, manufacturing, etc. through the adoption of mandatory local standards or other technology mandates, burdensome conformity assessment schemes, local procurement content mandates, local data centre requirements, or other discriminatory measures as a condition for market access. A joint EU-US trade agenda should help discouraging such trade distorting requirements and commit both governments to push back on those measures wherever they occur.

The decision to include those elements rekindles hopes that the EU and the US will assume leadership for promoting multilateral free trade framework globally, thus hopefully starting a new wave of trade liberalisation. The EU and US together account for 30 percent of world trade. Considering the size of the transatlantic partnership, the EU and the US jointly promoting advanced trade rules will no doubt influence the development of international trade system.

The industry hopes that the EU and the US leaders, recognising the complexity of present supply chains involving a great number of countries, will construct an agreement which will address distortions to level playing field across the globe and bring progressive change. The time has come for the EU and the US to propose and promote deeper links between the world economies and a more progressive multilateral world trade framework.

While we fully realise the magnitude of the challenge, it is worth the effort as further trade liberalisation will release additional trade potential, create new economic opportunities and jobs, and hopefully reinvigorate much needed growth. The industry reaffirms that we are prepared to work actively both with the European Commission and the US administration to achieve the ultimate goal of trade liberalisation across the Atlantic and globally.

This blog was penned by Julia Jasinska, Manager Public Policy, DIGITALEUROPE

Trade & Industry
Comments [RSS 2.0]

Creativity exposed or shielded? Striking the right balance for copyright in the digital age

Posted by digital-europe on 07/12/12

Europe has been fertile ground for creative minds for centuries. Over the past two decades, the digital economy has taken this to a new level. The European Commission’s orientation debate on copyright, the lifeblood of creativity, therefore comes at just the right time.

Those with the highest stakes in copyright have made their voice heard, from rights holders who make a living from copyright to the many industries involved in the production and distribution of copyrighted work to consumers who want more quality content now.  The degree of agreement among these groups looks encouraging:

First, there is an absolute consensus behind the need to modernize the copyright system. Secondly, Europe cannot wait any longer. We need a copyright regime fit for the digital age. Thirdly, the Commission must address the causes of the problems, not the symptoms.

Against this background, DIGITALEUROPE makes these three suggestions
- The Copyright Directive is standing the test of time. It is proving to be a flexible enough basis on which to create new business models that generate growth and jobs.
- The draft Directive on Collective Rights Management is a good start but should be more ambitious. As drafted, it would increase the transparency of the process concerned and improve the governance of the bodies involved. Yet it would be hard to enforce and needs stricter, more detailed provisions.
- But the real sore point lies with the current systems that aim to compensate for private copying. Device-based levies generate a patchwork of vastly different fees. Crucially only a fraction of them makes its way to rights holders. Sadly, they hit the consumers twice or more for the same content.

While the Mediator has yet to publish his recommendations, the digital industry in Europe has made no secret that the current systems are no longer fit for purpose in the digital economy and are broken beyond repair. Reason points to the need for a broad and deep debate on alternatives to hardware-based copyright levies.

So for the sake of creators and producers of quality content, for the sake of their distributors and other industries contributing to this value chain – including providers of cloud services -, for the sake of consumers keen to experience their favourite content on the platform of their choice, we hope that the orientation debate spurs the college to press on with reform to the copyright system to make it properly fit for the digital age through a genuinely result-oriented debate conducted within a strict time frame.

EU Priorities and Opinion, InfoSociety, Innovation and Growth
Comments [RSS 2.0]

Tectonic shift: why the “new wave” of digital culture is no ripple

Posted by digital-europe on 07/11/12

When a technology proves disruptive and ubiquitous enough to power networks that attract 2.2 billion users – one third of the world’s population – daily, is it reasonable to pretend that nothing is happening and to support status quo?

A variety of regulatory props have been designed to nurture creativity over the last five centuries. Legislation on copyright is one of them. Not surprisingly, the picture looks patchy at best to whoever embarks on assessing how the many items of this basic construct have weathered the tidal wave of the digital era. In the case of the compensation for damage possibly caused by private copying, this picture is definitely pitch-dark: systems currently enforced across Europe are deeply flawed. Acknowledging this fact, Commissioner Barnier has asked Mr Antonio Vitorino to recommend a fix. Digital Europe is keen to contribute to this major endeavour and aware that a sustainable solution can only originate in a wide consultation. Accordingly, we have suggested that a public debate be opened urgently on alternatives to private copying levies in order to leave no stone unturned. As matter-of-fact and sensible this invitation might look, it managed to wrong-foot some rights holders.

Tunnel vision

Instead of rising to the challenge of discussing openly the many options worth contemplating, five “creators’ organisations active on this dossier” singled out our proposal on State budget, only to dismiss it summarily as “difficult to justify”. DIGITALEUROPE had suggested a thorough and transparent debate with all stakeholders because none of them taken individually can grasp all the parameters of this multi-faceted, fast-changing issue. Only by confronting the whole gamut of perspectives will the light be found, our admittedly candid reasoning went. The exception taken to public funds by the “gang of five” may betray their fear that governments made cautious by “a time of austerity and unemployment” would borrow a leaf or two from the relevant Recitals of the 2001 Copyright Directive and from more recent CJEU case law. In turn, this closer scrutiny may well peg compensation to the harm actually done by private copying to the rights holders concerned and drive the hundreds of millions resulting from the unilateral and brutal application of a self-serving “rule of thumb” down into single-digit territory. A dire perspective indeed…

An exclusive approach

More worryingly yet, the same myopia that led these organizations to shy away from an open-ended debate on the ground that they feel uneasy with one particular proposal makes them see culture as created by and intended for the happy few. Should it belong to all, tax payers would be naturals for supporting the preservation and enhancement of their regional or national legacy. It defies logic instead to put the onus on importers and manufacturers of the devices that give access to the most popular forms of culture. A deep-rooted, time-honoured tradition of our democracies endows parliaments with the prerogative to vote budget by way of a contradictory debate that secures transparency. Expanding this process to include private copying levies could generate the “disaster” dreaded by the gang of five: the massive returns ensured so far by the tightly-knit circles in control may shrink into a mere trickle. Democracy proves uncomfortably disruptive at times…

Illustrious sources misquoted

Beyond the exception for private copying, it looks intriguing that “creators still struggle to make themselves heard” – as argued by Europolitics on 17 October – at a time when digital technology enables artists to enjoy direct, instant engagement with their followers. Perhaps these unsung creators fall victim to their overwhelming concern to qualify for subsidies, like those 18th century playwrights obsessed with the King’s patronage and mocked by Molière in “La Critique de l’Ecole des Femmes”: “If playing by the rules is a sure prescription to making a flop, if ignoring the rules may result in smash hits, then the rules must be flawed”. Indeed the litmus test afforded by the internet is more ruthless than any of those available in the 18th century to gauge the public’s taste for works of art: only quality content will pass muster; other production, however much subsidized, will not.

Another luminary from the birthplace of the cultural exception, Pierre Caron de Beaumarchais, shares the dubious privilege of being regularly misquoted. He is rightly hailed as the chief crusader of “droit d’auteur” for setting up in 1777 the “Société des Auteurs Dramatiques” whose remote successor will still convene in the shade of his bust to devise the many steps that foster the cultural exception. Yet, Beaumarchais was also the staunch supporter of freedom of expression who helped the US insurgents give birth to a new nation. His foresight and boldness were not lost to the figureheads of the internet addressed in May 2011 by then French president Sarkozy kicking off the eG8 forum: “This man is your kin: starting from scratch and with intelligence as only baggage, he turned upside down an order thought to be immovable and perennial”.

Digital technology spells the beginning of a new era

Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said on October 26: “Media and content industries are innovative and of great social and economic importance for Europe. Managing and reacting to the challenges of globalisation and the digital shift will be key, and that means new business models that turn these challenges into opportunities. This [JRC] report provides a valuable insight both for the industries and policy makers and will help us shape the right answers together”.

The shift to digital thus portrayed as a game-changer echoes a vision shared on November 5, 2010 by Vice President Kroes: “Today our fragmented copyright system is ill-adapted to the real essence of art, which has no frontiers. Instead, that system has ended up giving a more prominent role to intermediaries than to artists. It irritates the public who often cannot access what artists want to offer and leaves a vacuum which is served by illegal content, depriving the artists of their well-deserved remuneration.” Interestingly, Ms Kroes made this most perceptive statement on addressing a conference held in Avignon, France, i.e. in cultural exception territory.

Digital technology contributes more to cultural diversity than the eponymous exception

Proper reference to timeless luminaries of world culture and to current policy makers with a vision helps set in the right perspective the “current efforts to set up a coalition of countries supporting the cultural exception” as reported by Europolitics following the “Rencontres cinématographiques de Dijon”. Actually who needs these crutches to cultural diversity arbitrarily allocated by governments made immune to rule-based trade now that the internet affords everybody an opportunity to create online and to check instantly if there is a public for their production? However inconvenient this truth might sound to supporters of administered culture, bold, open minds ready to engage with their followers wherever they might be have been spearheading creation from the dawn of mankind. They stand for genuine creativity as opposed to the strand claimed by creators’ organizations: in digital times, the former hardly needs the latter to send millions into rapture.

The very future of Europe’s diverse creativity and of its ability to innovate is at stake. Therefore the call of the European ICT industry for an open debate on alternatives to private copying levies must be heard by the EU institutions. Equally critical is the involvement of consumers in this debate: as recognized early on by true creators of sterling value such as Molière or Beaumarchais, the public is the ultimate arbiter of creation that stands the test of unrestricted space and time.

Competition, English, EU Priorities and Opinion, InfoSociety, Innovation and Growth, Public Affairs, Trade & Industry
Comments [RSS 2.0]

La « nouvelle vague » numérique est une lame de fond

Posted by digital-europe on 07/11/12

Est-il raisonnable de se voiler la face et de se retrancher derrière un dérisoire statu quo au moment où une technologie s’avère révolutionnaire et omniprésente au point d’attirer chaque jour 2,2 milliards de fidèles – un tiers de l’humanité – sur les réseaux dont elle est le moteur?

Dans la panoplie réglementaire héritée de l’ère analogique, la législation sur le droit d’auteur se voulait un des piliers de la créativité. Pourtant quiconque cherche à évaluer comment cet édifice primordial a résisté à la lame de fond numérique se heurte à un bilan au mieux mitigé et, dans le cas particulier de la compensation pour copie privée, parfaitement clair: les systèmes actuels sont totalement inadaptés. Déterminé à remédier à ce problème, M. Barnier a confié à M. Vitorino une mission de médiation. Consciente, de son côté, qu’une solution durable passe par une large concertation, DIGITALEUROPE a récemment émis la suggestion d’ouvrir de toute urgence un débat public sur les alternatives à la redevance pour copie privée de façon à ne négliger aucune piste de réflexion. Bien que frappée au coin du pragmatisme et du bon sens, notre invitation a néanmoins induit une position défensive chez certains ayants droit.

Le confort illusoire des œillères

Au lieu de relever le défi d’un débat ouvert sur les multiples options dignes d’intérêt, cinq « organismes de créateurs actifs sur ce dossier » ont monté en épingle notre proposition relative aux budgets publics pour mieux la dénigrer tant elle serait « difficile à justifier ». L’idée de mener en toute transparence un débat de fond avec l’ensemble des parties prenantes nous est venue précisément parce qu’aucune d’entre elles prise individuellement ne saurait appréhender toutes les facettes de cette problématique particulièrement complexe. C’est seulement en jaugeant tour à tour chacune des propositions en présence par rapport aux autres que se dégagera peut-être une solution jugée viable par tous, nous sommes-nous dit peut-être un peu naïvement.

La crainte qui nourrit l’hostilité du « club des cinq » au recours budgétaire semble trouver sa source dans le raisonnement suivant : au cas où « ces temps d’austérité et de chômage » inciteraient les gouvernements à méditer les considérants les plus éclairants de la Directive de 2001 sur le droit d’auteur et certains jugements récents de la Cour européenne de justice, ils pourraient décider d’indexer la redevance pour copie privée sur le dommage réel subi de ce fait par l’ayant droit concerné. Les centaines de millions issus de l’application unilatérale et incontrôlée d’une évaluation « au doigt mouillé » pourraient ainsi se réduire à une poignée d’euros. Sombre perspective en effet…

Une approche élitiste

Le refus d’emblée d’un débat ouvert au motif que l’une des options proposées paraît inacceptable trahit la même myopie qui conduit à considèrer la culture comme l’affaire d’un petit nombre. Si tel n’était pas le cas, le financement de la préservation et de la promotion d’un patrimoine national ou local relèverait naturellement du budget y afférent voté par les élus des contribuables concernés. A l’inverse, il échappe à toute logique de faire endosser cette responsabilité aux fabricants ou importateurs des équipements donnant accès aux formes les plus populaires de la culture. La tradition budgétaire de nos démocraties assure la transparence à travers un débat contradictoire. L’étendre au  financement de la culture par voie de redevance pour copie privée risque de réduire à un maigre ruisseau le flot des revenus issus d’un processus plus aléatoire que scientifique de perception et distribution de cette redevance, « désastre » redouté par le club des cinq. Il n’est pas rare que démocratie rime avec abolition des privilèges, voire révolution…

Des génies recrutés à contre-emploi

Au-delà de l’exception pour copie privée, on peut s’étonner que les « créateurs peinent à se faire entendre » – comme le relate Europolitique le 17 octobre – au moment précis où la technologie numérique offre aux artistes un contact direct et instantané avec leur public. Ceux dont Europolitique décrit les difficultés souffrent peut-être d’un excès de dépendance envers les subventions, à l’instar de ces dramaturges du 18è siècle obsédés par le mécénat royal que raillait Molière dans « La Critique de l’Ecole des Femmes » :« Car enfin, si les pièces qui sont selon les règles ne plaisent pas, et que celles qui plaisent ne soient pas selon les règles, il faudrait de nécessité que les règles eussent été mal faites. Moquons-nous donc de cette chicane où ils veulent assujettir le goût du public, et ne consultons dans une comédie que l’effet qu’elle fait sur nous. »

Dans son impitoyable rigueur, l’internet permet aujourd’hui de juger plus sûrement qu’au 18è siècle l’appétit du public pour une œuvre d’art : seules les productions de qualité passeront ce test, les autres, même subventionnées, échoueront.

Autre fleuron des lettres françaises, Pierre Caron de Beaumarchais partage avec son illustre prédécesseur le douteux privilège d’être cité à tort et à travers. Père du droit d’auteur, il a certes créé en 1777 la « Société des Auteurs dramatiques » dont un lointain rejeton se réunit encore sous son buste en vue de concocter les instruments de l’exception culturelle. Mais qui se veut fidèle à ce personnage hors du commun décrira sa passion pour la liberté et son courage qui l’ont précipité au secours de la nation américaine en train de naître. S’adressant à un parterre de « stars » de l’internet, le président Sarkozy l’a rappelé non sans lyrisme lors de son discours inaugural du eG8 forum en mai 2011: «Cet homme, il vous ressemble car, parti de rien et n’ayant que son intelligence pour tout bagage, il a renversé un ordre que l’on croyait immuable et éternel ».

La technologie numérique marque le début d’une ère nouvelle

Mme Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissaire à la Recherche, l’Innovation et la Science, déclarait le 26 octobre : « Les industries des médias et du contenu sont innovantes et d’une grande importance économique et sociale pour l’Europe. Il est essentiel de bien gérer les défis de la globalisation et de la numérisation. Il faut pour cela trouver les nouveaux « business models » de nature à transformer ces défis en opportunités ».

Cette déclaration fait écho à celle-ci, plus ancienne, de Mme Kroes, Vice-Présidente de la Commission en charge de l’Agenda numérique: “Aujourd’hui fragmenté, notre système de droit d’auteur reflète imparfaitement l’essence même de l’art, qui ne connaît pas de frontière. Ce système a fini par donner un rôle prépondérant aux intermédiaires face aux artistes. Privé d’accès aux sources de l’art, le public se tourne vers les contenus illégaux, confisquant dès lors aux artistes leur rémunération légitime. »  C’est en Avignon, terre d’exception culturelle, que Mme Kroes s’exprimait ainsi le 5 novembre 2010.

La technologie numérique promeut la diversité culturelle davantage que l’exception du même nom

Il était nécessaire d’en appeler aux lumières intemporelles de la culture universelle et à celles des plus visionnaires parmi nos politiques pour mettre en perspective les « efforts actuels menés en vue de constituer une coalition de pays pour défendre l’exception culturelle » relatés par Europolitique à la suite des Rencontres cinématographiques de Dijon. Il peut en effet sembler futile de préparer l’An II de l’exception culturelle à l’heure où cette défense immunitaire de notre diversité culturelle européenne prend l’allure d’une frêle béquille tandis que l’internet autorise chacun de nous à exprimer en toute liberté les valeurs – non plus seulement nationales mais parfois éminemment locales – qui l’animent et à tester en ligne l’appétit du public pour le produit de cette inspiration. Pour gênante que soit cette vérité aux yeux des adeptes d’une culture bureaucratisée, l’audace, l’ouverture d’esprit et l’envie d’échanger avec son public où qu’il se trouve n’ont cessé de nourrir la création depuis l’aube de l’humanité. La créativité née de ces caractéristiques se distingue de celle revendiquée par les organismes dits « de créateurs » : à vrai dire, celle-là n’a guère besoin de celle-ci pour conquérir son public.

Il en va de l’avenir de la diversité de la création européenne que les institutions européennes entendent l’appel de l’industrie numérique à un débat ouvert sur les alternatives à la redevance pour copie privée. Il est aussi d’une importance fondamentale que les consommateurs y prennent part: comme en témoigne le génie créateur d’un Molière ou d’un Beaumarchais, l’arbitre ultime d’une création destinée à transcender les contraintes de l’espace et du temps n’est autre que le public.

Competition, EU Priorities and Opinion, french, InfoSociety, Public Affairs, Trade & Industry
Comments [RSS 2.0]

Memorandum of Understanding on common mobile charger delivers three years on

Posted by digital-europe on 29/10/12

Last week, European Commission Vice-President and Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry Antonio Tajani, stated that more than 95% of the new models of data-enabled mobile phones placed on the EU market by Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signatories during the first half of 2012 offer the common charging capability.

For consumers this means that the latest smartphones can be charged using any of the chargers provided by the fourteen signatories of the 2009 MoU. The MoU achieved one important objective: it fixed market fragmentation by replacing mobile phone chargers that could often only be used to charge a specific brand or model, and which became obsolete as new models entered the market.

Three years ago, the MoU set out to provide interoperable charger solutions throughout Europe. The underlying technical specification that effectively delivers interoperability is a European standard that was agreed in 2010 and was based on the common charging capability of a Micro-USB interface.

In parallel to the MoU, an increasing number of manufacturers have decided to use Micro-B USB connectors and sockets in their smartphones –  a clear choice based on their commitment to implement the micro-USB requirements of the 2010 standard. This choice, however, is a commercial one.  Manufacturers may decide to use an adapter to connect a Micro-USB plug to a proprietary socket in the mobile phone.  This decision is simply another technical solution but one that still achieves interoperability.

Recent criticism from some European consumer organisations and Members of the European Parliament suggest the MoU is inefficient. They claim that mobile phones sold in Europe should exclusively use Micro-USB sockets. But, critics are missing the point of the MoU – it enabled an important transformation and also demonstrated industry’s self-commitment over the last two to three years, which has achieved measurable and important positive steps in ensuring interoperability.

A single EU-wide mobile phone socket would not, on its own, achieve interoperability.  It would hinder innovation and limit manufacturers’ ability to release better technologies into the market.  As technology evolves at a frenzied rate, new and improved mobile phone sockets and connectors are also being developed and improved upon.  An obligation to commit to one socket and connector would stop this and limit their functionalities as technology improves.

It is important to remember that today’s smartphones use multi-use cables that are detachable from the external power supply, providing additional functionalities that enable high-speed data transfer and simultaneous charging.

Therefore, a common European socket in mobile phones will not provide additional value for consumers when charging their smartphones beyond the high level of interoperability achieved by the MoU.

 

This blog was penned by Klaus-Dieter Axt, Director Public Policy, DIGITALEUROPE

 

InfoSociety
Comments [RSS 2.0]

Tech and creators need each other – and it’s not a new idea

Posted by digital-europe on 24/10/12

Tech and content have always needed each other. Just like plants and bees. Ninety years ago a group of six tech companies in the UK actually created the BBC. They had radio (one of them was Marconi) but no content. It’s the same today – it might influence our choice of model, but nobody I know buys a TV or a smartphone just because it looks good.

This need lies at the heart of why the modern digital tech industry in Europe wants a better and bigger European content sector. Today, thanks to an old and fragmented copyright system in Europe, our digital music market is less than a quarter of what it could be. That’s not good for European creators, consumers or the tech sector DIGITALEUROPE represents.

Part of the problem lies with the intermediaries who have been very successful in resisting change, including hanging on to a forty year-old levies system. It’s not surprising that they resist new more efficient possibilities. Middlemen have been the hardest hit by the internet revolution, from travel agents to insurance brokers, as buyers and sellers realise that they can enjoy more efficiency and lower prices in the digital age. Smart intermediaries re-invent themselves and find ways to add new value – but some just want to hang on to their old ways and collect the rents like they always have.

In our recent paper we put forward some new ideas to reward creators with a bigger slice of the money they earn for their work, and more quickly too. Thanks to the work of the mediator Antonio Vitorino, appointed by the European Commission, it seems that the door might be open for a proper discussion. These and any other constructive ideas merit serious consideration by all the stakeholders – from law-makers to consumers. We needed it ninety years ago; we need it today too.  So it’s important to find solutions together if we are to get the bigger and more efficient European market that we all, well most of us anyway, want.

This blog post was penned by John Higgins CBE, Director General of DIGITALEUROPE

Public Affairs
Comments [RSS 2.0]

Measuring resource efficiency

Posted by digital-europe on 22/10/12

The resource efficiency agenda aims at merging two narratives that at times were perceived as opposing each other: economic growth and environmental protection. Indicators need to make for a compelling joint narrative. Accordingly, resource efficiency indicators must be based on a clear definition of the system under evaluation. Indicators to evaluate overall (national) resource consumption/ efficiency, and indicators to evaluate industry resource consumption/efficiency must be strictly separate.

The selection of indicators should be led by a set of criteria to ensure that the guidance derived from the indicators is not biased. The Commission already defined a rather comprehensive set in its consultation document, such as: RACER (relevance, acceptability, credibility, easiness, robustness), as well as timeliness, suitability for policy-making, consistency, coverage. These criteria should be adhered to. In addition, data availability should be used as a criterion to measure feasibility and applicability of indicators. Indicators need to be measured by reliable databases that entail data produced under agreed standardization processes on data measurement. Finally, the strongly developed environmental part of the Commission’s indicators proposal needs to be balanced with an economic part.

A need for a lead indicator?
The proposed lead indicator GDP/DMC (Domestic Material Consumption) brings about wrong conclusions for environmental policies: it does not directly measure impact decoupling and actually tells us little about the environmental pressure that economic activity exerts. It also leads to wrong conclusions for industrial policies underestimating the resource use of imports. DMC is consumption oriented, whereas DMI (domestic material input), for instance, would also evaluate the import of materials. The proposed indicator would ‘reward’ economies that generate GDP through financial services rather than manufacturing, as it ignores the importance of imported materials. It also does not give any guidance on the importance of domestic production in the context of resource independency.

A GDP/DMC indicator is blind towards the economic interdependencies of a modern economy, as well as the environmental impacts of economic activity outside a country’s borders. It therefore provides only an incomplete, very inward looking EU-centric picture. It is also blind towards some or all social, health, environmental, economic implications, because it considers all material as equal with its focus on weight/mass. Moreover, it is blind towards the crucial differences between recycled and virgin materials, and fails to see that renewable and non-renewable or hazardous and non-hazardous materials have differing characteristics. It would make much more sense to focus on non-renewable resources used.

Therefore, don’t use GDP/DMC as a lead indicator. It is said that “we do not manage what we do not measure”. The flipside of the coin is that we mismanage what we measure wrongly. The risks for misinterpretation inherent in establishing such a lead indicator are too high. If GDP/DMC is used a lead indicator this will send a wrong signal to countries and regions outside of the EU, who are turning to the EU for best environmental policy practices and will assume that the indicator is an accepted measure that can be adapted in other regions.

Rather, focus directly on the dashboard indicators, at least until a more comprehensive, carefully thought-through and proven lead indicator is available. One option would be to instead focus directly on the four macro-indicators. If the Commission is absolutely set on using only one indicator, this indicator would need to be adjusted in such a way that the above-mentioned criticism is remedied. And, create indicators that provide information about what the EU can control, because “we should not manage what we cannot influence”.

The DIGITALEUROPE response to the Commission consultation can be found here.

This blog-post was penned by Sylvie Feindt, Director Environmental Policy, DIGITALEUROPE

Climate Change, Energy Efficiency, Environment, Sustainable Dev.
Comments [RSS 2.0]

Opening doors or creating barriers to trade?

Posted by digital-europe on 17/10/12

DIGITALEUROPE’s vision is of a Europe that nurtures and supports digital technology industries, and prospers from the jobs we provide, the innovation and economic benefits we deliver and the societal challenges we address.  So we are pleased to read, in the renewed EU Industrial Policy published on 10 October, with the telling subtitle “A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery,” of the goal to bring back industry to Europe.  According to Vice President, Antonio Tajani, Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship, European industry can deliver growth and create employment. The Communication outlines that Europe needs to reverse the declining role of industry for the 21st century with the aim to deliver sustainable growth, create high-value jobs and solve the societal challenges that we face. But does the Communication set the right framework for that to happen?

One of the actions identified as an industrial policy building block is to ensure access to international markets. Today the EU is the world’s leading trading power.  But how long will it last? With emerging economies developing their own industrial policies, regrettably often supplemented or even replaced by protectionist measures, trading opportunities cannot be taken for granted. Preserving the EU’s trading position requires proactive initiatives. The communication describes the Commission’s commendable efforts to open markets and to connect Europe to the main sources and regions of global growth. It reiterates that the European executive will continue to push for an ambitious trade agenda.

One can hope that Members of the European Parliament and the Member States’ officials sitting in the Council will consider those points when they decide whether or not to authorise the negotiations for the free trade agreement with Japan. Last Thursday, in the vote of the International Trade Committee (INTA), a large majority of MEPs supported the start of the negotiations between the two partners. The resolution adopted by INTA points to the huge gains for jobs and growth offered by deeper ties with Japan; it also urges that the negotiations be suspended if Japan fails to remove barriers in key sectors. Metin Kazak MEP, the rapporteur for this file in the INTA commented: “The EU’s trade policy needs a game-changer: a free trade agreement with Japan. The huge untapped trade potential could boost the EU’s GDP, create jobs and increase exports. That is why I recommend launching negotiations. We know it won’t be easy – the key lies in removing non-tariff barriers, particularly in crucial sectors such as cars and medical devices. If Japan fails to deliver, the negotiations should be suspended”.

The European Parliament plenary is still supposed to adopt the Parliament’s final position in October; in parallel the Council prepares its decision on the adoption of the negotiation mandate. The outcome of those two processes is not certain, and the hesitancy of some big Member States like Germany and France looms large in the minds of those who have already calculated what they can gain on the abolition of trade barriers between the two economies.

A solid trading partnership with Japan will affect more than just the free flow of goods and services; it will reinforce the value of trade globally. Together with Japan the EU has an opportunity to promote open and free trade to other economies world-wide. Free trade will deliver long-term and sustainable economic returns. Moreover, it is only through cooperation and negotiations that trading partners can agree to avoid regulatory approaches that distort trade. With this in mind industry cannot but applaud the inclusion of the chapter on access to international markets in this new communication on industrial policy. The Commission’s stand on trade liberalisation and its commitment to facilitate the trade expansion of the EU is unquestioned. But the Council and the European Parliament’s discussion on the EU-Japan FTA will be telling. Will protectionism or openness win the day? In our view open doors, not barriers, are in industry and Europe’s best interest.

 

This blogpost was penned by Julia Jasinska, Manager Trade Policy, DIGITALEUROPE

Economy & Euro, EU Priorities and Opinion, InfoSociety, Innovation and Growth, Public Affairs, Trade & Industry
Comments [RSS 2.0]

Advertisement

This blog is proudly powerd by BlogActiv.eu - EU opinion & policy debates across languages.
Home | Newsletter | Support | FAQ | Contact