fair music - Interview with Eva Lichtenberger

Abandoning old ways of thinking

Eva Lichtenberger is the European Delegate for the Austrian Green Party and Vice Chairman of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. No matter if about transport, climate or copyright, sustainable management is a permanent issue on her desk. With mica she talked about the free beer mentality, apparatuses fighting for survival, and the actual difficulties with participation.

Would you agree with me when I say that the issue of copyright has been put aside for too long by the political left parties?

No. I don't agree. I do not know exactly who you mean by the "left parties". Perhaps the Social Democrats? If that is the case, you should ask them. We in the Green Party have been discussing this for a long time.

You were a very strong opponent of the anti-piracy policy.

Ultimately, despite many initiatives and opposition to the European level, the conservative approach usually pushes through. Isn't that frustrating?

Of course it is frustrating, but given the money that the other side throws in the battle, it is not surprising. I have to live with that. I also have to deal with the transport lobby and the aviation lobby. It's almost the same there.

Why is the lobby of the creatives so weakly represented?

I believe many feel represented by their collecting societies, but these are only partially congruent interests and are sometimes very different. From my point of view, many creatives are not aware about this, because they believe there is a general representative standard. Yet they often don't realize that there are many different views and positions on intermediaries and creatives.

How can this be changed?

It is slowly but surely beginning to change, because the contradictions are clear. I can already see things changing. Step by step. However, I believe the cultural sector itself should articulate a much stronger claim for representation, because the interests of the intermediaries are only partially congruent with their own.

What developments do you foresee?

There is a rising awareness of interest equalities, but also interest opposites. More and more artists are criticizing how right exploiters take advantage of their rights. However, there are no equipollent representatives on the creative side, contrary to the side of the exploiters.

Do you think that the fair music campaigne can make a difference in this matter?

I very much hope it can make a difference. Yes.

Do you think the state should play a role?

Yes. Legislators have to be strongly aware that when someone talks for the artists, it does not necessarily mean it only concerns the interests of the artists. It's about the legislation and legislative process.

If I were to be mean right now, I would say that this awareness, of which you speak, has been considered far too little in the legislation in recent years . Why else hasn't anyone - just an example - done anything for copyright law in the past decades?

I agree with you. The answer: because it is a highly controversial topic.

Why is this such a hot topic?

First of all: this business is connected with a lot of money. That it is always very delicate. It is similar in the transport and energy area. Secondly: Right now it is still a development phase, which has to respond to the changes in the digital environment. Therefore old ways of thinking should be abandoned. If complete apparatuses exist because of these ways of thinking, these apparatuses will also fight for survival, and this is what the controversy is about.

With "apparatuses", do you also mean collecting societies?

For example. Yes.

Do you think that the system of collecting societies is obsolete in itself?

I think that certain areas of collecting societies should be reformed to strengthen the rights of creatives.

You addressed the legal matters. What about the parallel existing , perhaps even more extensive matter of raising awareness? It is a widely spread opinion that intellectual property is not worth enough to pay for. Is it possible to antagonize this and would you consider the fair music campaign as an acceptable instrument for this?

I think we shouldn't immediately assume that young people do not pay for intellectual property. It has been made very difficult for them in the digital environment. Young people do not always have credit cards, so that alone is a reason why they can not pay for certain online services. There are still not enough reliable and formulated systems that are accessible to young people. When I look at how much money young people pay for a ringtone, which can be easily purchased on the phone bill, I realize that it is not only because of the free beer mentality, which is often alleged to younger people, but that it is also due to the systems that are not adequately adjusted to the needs of young consumers. I am very careful about accusing someone of not respecting intellectual property.

But de facto too little is being paid for creative services. This can be solved technically. Or with an awareness campaign. So far, the second approach hasn't been well attended.

I do not agree. There was an awareness campaign about: "We lock you up, if you download illegally". There have been such measures.

I was thinking of an awareness campaign with a more positive approach. You are addressing the exact opposite.

There have been cinema spots, which threatened with long prison sentences. I think these negative awareness campaigns, as you just called it, have had more negative consequences. It would be important to create systems that are easily accessible for younger people. There should be pre-paid cards or the likes. And music platforms for young people. Most platforms are still dominated by big business.

When I think back to my own teenage years, I wasn't someone who would listen to mainstream. I would walk around with my tape recorder, record everything I could get hold of, without questioning it. Now, with the possibility of mass distribution, it is different.

I say: The existing platforms are either not sufficiently known or do not have enough attractive offers. In addition to this - and I've checked this together with young people - the distinction between free offers from advertising and paying offers is often difficult to understand.

... which is indeed counter-productive, in the respect that any logical thinking person would ask why to pay for something if he can get something similar for free.

For example. But again: It is not only the evil young people who don't want to pay anything, there are also actual difficulties with participation and offers which are not youth-oriented. If the so-called free beer mentality would be consistent, then platforms such as iTunes would not have any success. The idea of awareness is nice, but awareness also has to be able to manifest itself.

Would it be imaginable that the state would participate in a positive awareness campaign like fair music?

How should the state participate?

Well, the state supports a lot. It supports the music fund, the creative industry programs, so why shouldn't it support a campaigne like fair music?

If you state it like that: in my opinion, it would definitely be a possibility.

Another general question is, how much regulation can a system take; how far will the state be willing to take on the matter. In many areas (eg banking sector), we can observe that the state is becoming more and more aware of its responsibility. Do you think that the state would be willing to deal with copyright law and creatives?

With regard to government structure, possibilities have to be opened so that creativity can take place. You have to explain to me what you mean by regulation.

What I mean is that fair music is a platform, which on the one hand appeals to the conscious level of social responsibility, and on the other hand wants to set certain minimum standards for productions to be certified as "fair".

One would have to carefully think about the proper modalities to make this work. Principally, this could be very useful. But it is important to have a clear rule, because in my experience it is very poorly tolerated by creatives when you provide them with a playing field and nothing beyond that. In addition, there is a very high sensitivity that prevails over regulation.

I personally would be glad to buy a CD or download a track and know that the production process handled the creative work in a fair manner. I would be very glad to know that. Of course, the offer has to be good and have momentum. I would, if I had the choice, even pay more for it, knowing that, with my purchase, the creatives were treated fair. The question is whether this side can offer exactly the same as the other side. Otherwise it has no signaling effect on the market. I see this as very difficult.

What is the difficulty of your political work?

Exactly these matters. That there is no fair system which guarantees creatives receiving the money I invest with my cultural consumptions, and that my money does not completely go to sixteen intermediate departments. And to create a balance, opening access to non-mainstream culture, also for the visually and hearing impaired, to make the arts accessible in every way. The supreme challenge of our time is the choice of what mechanism we will use in the digital domain. We have been discussing this for years and I have yet to come across the ideal model.

Thank you for your time.