The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Paris, France, from 12 to 14 November 2018. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: This is the second forum and how to incentivize and make sure that local will have their role. This is an open forum. It's being co‑organized by EBU and UNESCO, and we have some distinguished guests that can go in this hour trying to give us best practices and solution to this problem.
As you know, we are at UNESCO, and that is the house trying to define the Internet indicators. These are indicators that you have seen as one of the main healthy criteria to define where an Internet is properly functioning.
The quantity and the quality of local available content and services in local languages all around the world because the problem that we are facing today is that the Internet is a platform where already existing vehicles can go very fast and can reach everybody, but where it's difficult to have local vehicles that can circulate even inside their own markets.
The reason behind we partner in this is because as EBU broadcaster, you know, traditionally they have their own network, they have their own access to the citizens so they don't pass through intermediaries, and in the broadcasting world there is traditional local production of contents. That is the main reason for the success of the broadcasters in the relationship with their viewers.
Now with the Internet there is a shift of habits of consumption, and this tradition of the past is challenged because new tools of distribution are coming on, and when it comes to distribution of the Internet on the Internet of broadcasting contents, for instance, we have to go for gatekeepers, and these gatekeepers can influence the way the contents are accessed and distributed. It's important to see how the mobile of the past worked and other worlds, like the traditional media, the broadcasting, the printed media. It can be the successful one in the past can be exported into the new world.
To discuss this we have distinguished set of panelists here. I leave them to present themselves, each one, starting from ‑‑
>> PAOLO LANTERI: I'm PAOLO.
>> DANIELLE CLICHE: I'm Danielle, I working for UNESCO. I'm in charge of the cultural expressions department.
>> PANELIST: I'm RADU, vice president of DFA.
>> GONAZALO LAGUADO SERPA: My name is Gonzalo.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: Okay. These are the panelists. The mix is trying to cover a wide range of things. As you can see, I would like to give the floor first to Danielle. That probably can explain that there is ground needed on the international treaties when it comes to the Internet that is something that is going beyond the frontiers. Please
>> DANIELLE CLICHE: Thank you, Jack. Good morning to everyone. It's the second session for today. I know you have already started talking about these issues very early this morning.
What I wanted to give is a sort of framework for our discussions today to talk about an international law that was adopted by UNESCO member states in 2005 and which was entered into force in 2007 very quickly after its adoption here, and that's the UNESCO convention on the diversity of cultural expressions.
Now, why was this international law adopted? Why was it considered important? Well, at the time the member states of UNESCO, the governments of UNESCO said that the right of governments to support local content production were under threat. There were cases that were taken to the WTO court, which said that investments in film production, Facebook prices, cultural policies to support, filmmakers or broadcasting programs were anti‑competitive and should not exist anymore. This was the reason for this law.
It states at the very beginning simply that governments have the sovereign right to support their creative sectors. It seems such an obvious idea, but at that time it was really something under threat.
Today 146 governments around the world including the European union, which is unusual for European union itself as a body to ratify an international law like this have ratified the convention.
In 2018 I've left outside for all of you here a copy of the executive summary of a report that we have produced on the impact of this convention. It was ratified in 2007, and we are already now able to see what type of change that this international law is producing. It's not just a piece of paper. There's an active civil society. There's an active community of professionals working in the creative economy around the world that is using this as an instrument for change. The global report is showing that, of course, in order to insure media diversity, in order to insure media freedom it requires policies to strengthen domestic production and to achieve a balance in between local content and imported content.
It also shows that national content quotas of both public and private media have been able to enhance diversity of cultural expressions in at least the 90 countries around the world that have employed these content quotas.
Today we know that we are facing a new environment with this international law, and that is the digital environment Internet governance. We see that the digital revenues in the music market are growing exponentially and that this is caused by streaming in the recorded music market.
As a result of this and other statistics I could cite, but we don't have much time, so I'll leave you to look at the report where there's a lot of statistics. It says that governments even in the digital environment should maintain this same right because this also is not evident. Today UNESCO is working with different governments to help them to introduce policies and measures that cut across what we call the value chain. It's not just about investments in creativity, but also investments in production, distribution, and access to diverse cultural content, and this mixed approach, which involves actors from across not only the government, but across the society involves the professionals working in the industry talking with the officials making policy to be able to have a successful outcome, which is our goal is to promote diversity of cultural expressions, including in the digital environment.
Now, I just wanted to share with you an example of how this can work. In Columbia this is one of our countries where we've been working a lot the last years. We saw in 2003 that only four films were produced. Four.
In that year there was a new cinema law that was passed, and it took what I just talked about this integrated approach. It introduced not only a law, but a production fund, financial incentives to encourage film distribution as well as tax incentives to encourage investments in the film industry. A few years ago in 2016 the number four turned into the number 41, so we could see ten times increase in the level of films produced in Columbia over that period of time.
We also saw there was a doubling of the number of visitors, so there was a local consumption that also skyrocketed, which proves or shows that diversity of cultural content, which nowadays also includes local content is something that is wanted, as a good investment. It's not just there to support principles of diversity, but it can also have important returns.
Today UNESCO is working with a new digital platform in Columbia called the Retina Latina. It has been supported by the fund of the convention, the international fund for cultural diversity, and its goal is to expand this approach to diversity and content production to other Latin American countries by creating a free on demand streaming system for the distribution of films from Latin America.
We are curious and our colleague here on the panel will tell us about a new orange economy law that was passed last year, and we are curious how this is gas station to impact how this work has been done over the last years to invest in policies, to use international instruments for the benefit of increasing local content production and diversity of cultural expressions.
Before I end, because I think I have just five minutes. I don't want to talk too much. I want to draw your attention to some publications I left outside one is the summary of the global support, and the other is guidelines that were adopted by the 146 countries I talked to you about earlier about how to promote diversity in the digital environment. These guidelines include everything, including electronic commerce and the trade of digital cultural products and how it encourages governments to introduce cultural clauses in their trade agreements to insure the exchange of such cultural goods and services.
The guidelines are outside, and this December I invite you all to come back to Paris in December the week of the 11th of December where the intergovernmental committee, so all the countries that have signed this law, ratified this law, will come to Paris together with over on 100 civil society organizations and professional associations to talk about what are the priorities for the implementation of these guidelines. One of them will obviously be how we can work together to develop and implement innovative policies to support this diversity in local content production.
I look forward to hearing any questions you have, and thank you very much.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: The question we gather at the end, if you don't mind.
The next is Paolo. He is from ‑‑
>> PAOLO LANTERI: As you may know, it's a specialized agency of the United Nations with 191 member states. Our activities are on the bold side and the technical assistance side and are driven by our countries and our member states.
What's more, here we are at the IGF, partnering with the UNESCO and many other private stake holders, bringing local content on the agenda. Bringing contend, again, on the IGF. Since Giacomo forgot to mention, I think it's important to remind ourselves why do we put so much stress on the content?
Like it or not, content is the main driver making people going to the Internet on a daily basis, being a movie, being music, being news, being news of the day. We want to remember that ourselves each time we speak about content at the IGF because we believe content should be kept at the center of any inter-governance policy discussion.
Today we add another layer of complexity because we're going to talk about local content. Local in terms of language. Local in terms of cultural relevance and perhaps place of production.
This content is on a constantly high demand because we will always need local content, but on the production side and on the offer side we face more challenges. One of the objectives of this session today is actually looking at what are the challenges faced in local content production distribution, and what could be a viable solution on initiatives in order to boost that production?
WIPO is operating in different ways in this area, but I think I can classify our main activity in two areas. One is creating a level playing field from a regulatory perspective with our countries. This is broadly intended as international treaties in the field of ‑‑ we implemented and administer, and at the same time we also facilitate discussion and negotiation with new norms. What are the main characteristics of the international legal framework and what is the link with local content? The legal framework provides, first of all, economic incentives. Some basic economic rights that are considered sanctions obstructing investment.
You can well understand how, for instance, in publishing or news reporting, leaving aside the visual sector because we have several speakers that will tackle those issues. It requires major investment, a lot of time, and a lot of money. We need to provide economic incentives in order to have this content produced.
Another element that is often forgotten and an oversight in this forum is that the international legal framework also provides more rights, recognition in terms of attribute use of being recognized of a certain creation. This is actually in my view a very important element for local content. One that plays an important role even in those cases where content is created without any commercial purpose and is often forgotten.
Finally, I want to give a sort of initial analysis of what is the impact of protection on access? We access knowledge and it's a popular topic at the IGF and other forums as well, for very good reason. We say that it hinders access to knowledge. I think this is not the case for a number of obvious reasons.
First of all, people that are devoting their lives in content creation have all the interest in distributing that content and being heard, being watched, being listened by the public.
Secondly, we have many examples of viable business models where the public can access content that is protected, valuable for free. This is an example of public broadcasters where the incomes are generated through advertisement and other business models.
Then, on the Internet we have a growing number of services where we have access to an unprecedented repertoire of content for a fee, which is not unreasonable, I guess.
On top of that, the system provides for ample flexibility in terms of exercise of economic rights. Plus, limited exceptions that are taking into account the broader interests of societies such as news reporting, educational purposes, or the interest of people with disabilities. Actually, incentivizing creation of content as a very positive impact on the further access to it. We are not saying that the system is perfect. In fact, our countries are constantly negotiating and discussing possible updates and notification of the legal framework.
I can provide two examples. Member states have been discussing for over 20 years now the possibility of updating the protection of broadcasting organization against the signal attached and another very important project that is currently undergoing in Geneva, and it comes from a proposal of Latin America, and it's a request for deeper analysis of what works and doesn't work so well on the Internet in terms of copyright.
That proposal goes into the practices about the role of the platforms. What is the share of the revenues and who keeps what, and many other very important issues that will give guests work for the next few years.
On the side of the norm setting, what was also deeply engaged in technical assistance and in supporting our countries. Again, we have been receiving a growing number of requests for assisting countries, specifically for boosting local content production.
One very successful example was started a few years ago in the context of the CDP, the committee on development intellectual property. This is called development agenda. It was called strengthening the sector in Africa. Some of the partners of that project are present in the room, so perhaps they can make intervention. That was a project very practical looking at training. We were looking at what data were available, what was the feasibility of boosting awareness of how the system would work. We look also at management practices.
From that regional project that was implemented in Kenya, Morocco, and Senegal, we now have a number of new projects that are going to be discussed next week in Geneva.
First, we have a request from Africa to do the same for the music sector. Secondly, we have a broader and much more related to the Internet request from Latin America, from Brazil, to dig in to what's happening with the audio‑visual sector and the audio‑visual platforms in Latin America. What are the movies watched by Latin America customer? Who is producing the movies? Who is keeping the money out of the monetization of those movies? Finally, we have an interesting project coming from Kenya that is trying to look at how software and mobile application can be boost and produced locally? It's only partially related, but, in fact, we are distributing a lot of local content as well through apps.
To conclude, I think from observing these factors, on the one hand, the trends ‑‑ on the other hand, the constant request received by member states for technical assistance in this specific field, we can sort of highlight three elements. First of all, it the recent appetite and a growing awareness of policy maker, of the importance and the strategic importance of local content. Secondly, we have to admit the issue is very complex. There is not one solution that's enough to provide tax incentives to actually boost local content production.
Finally, we are not here to say that the copyright system is a panacea or major solution, but it's fair to say that it's part of the solution. A sound and balanced system that is required and needs to be combined, matched with, coupled with other policies, other initiatives, other incentives like the one we just heard from UNESCO, and we're going to hear from the speakers that we brought here that will share with us what they've done in Africa and Latin America and what are the results coming out from this endeavor in boosting local content. Thank you very much.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: Thank you, Paolo. To follow‑up, I think it's best to give the floor to Edwardo. It's one of the successful example that is we can listen to that was mentioned either by UNESCO and also from WIPO. Gonzalo, can you share with us?
>> GONZALO LAGUADO SERPA: Thank you and thank you for your he introduction on the Columbian system. We were created by our culture for the specific purpose of nurturing and promoting our industry in Columbia.
So over the course of the past 20 years we've been setting forth various legislations and policies on our film industry. These instruments, rather than being separate, disjointed, compromised and unified system composed of tax incentives, cash rebates, disbursements for local production, and other elements that interweave and form a single framework that has allowed our industry to flourish.
To most of you, I think the Columbian cinema is known for the movie "Embracing the Serpent." It was nominated for the 2016 Oscars for the category of Best Foreign Film. Yes.
It's interesting because this movie was a beneficiary of one of our funds, which is called The Film Development Fund, created in 2003. For explaining what the Film Development Fund, the FDF, is let me share some figures for you that Danielle has already introduced, but still.
The FDF has disbursed $31 million to local productions and $12 million to other projects targeting education, research and distribution. The number of released Columbian feature films has increased greatly. We went from five feature films in 2003 to 44 in 2017. The number of admissions for locally produced films is multiplied from 2 million in 2004 to 4 million in 2017. Screens and theaters have tripled as well from 462 in 2007 to over 1,000 in 2017.
In short, there is more access. There is more production of local content. There is more delivery of local content because of this.
The way we did this was by eliminating a set of taxes that were levied on cinema and that had nothing to do with the film industry, and we replaced that with a small tax that the FDF collects.
We also created tax incentives for investors Bibi investing you can apply for tax deductions for up to 165% from your income tax.
All this to say that by doing this, we may take it more affordable. We created an autonomous source of financing for local productions, and we attracted investment. The FDF system is supposed to be a circle. Low cost and increase admissions by increasing admissions we create collection for the FDF. The more resources the FDF has, the more financing local productions have and the more local content there is no distribute.
Of course, this progress has resulted in the create E creation of many jobs in the film sector. This is where another piece of legislation is important. That is the 2012 Columbia filming act, and this is nine years before the FDF, mind you. We had already made great advantages in access to local content. We had other targets in sight. We created another fund. The Columbia film fund. This fund operates differently because rather than disbursing resources to producers, what it does is offer ‑‑ it uses a cash rebate model.
Production companies are provided with a cash rebate for 40% of the expenses paid for film services, and 20% of its capacity for food, hotels, and transportation. The first season of the Netflix series "Narcos," which I'm sure most of you know, received a cash rebate from this fund.
The purpose of this fund, Columbia Film Fund is to help invest in local film service providers, and that boosts local employment and promotes our country's desirable filming location.
This purpose, I believe, was also ‑‑ has also met great success. To make a long story short, I'm going to refer very briefly to the last fund that we created which is the New Media Fund, which is ‑‑ we partnered with the ministry of telecommunications with the chamber of commerce and with the Canadian media fund to create a fund that is targeted at audio visual and cross‑media content specifically designed for digital platforms. That being said, if you have any questions, I would be glad to elaborate. Thank you.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: Thank you very much. Very interesting. I think that the fund you mentioned is exactly the bridge that we were looking for between the old world and the new world, and it's exactly in line with the discussion we are having.
Just a word, it was supposed to be here with the secretary general of the African broadcasting union, but, unfortunately, he has to be today in Abidjan for an important meeting for rights. For him that's more huge than the prospective of the Internet in the future. With the support of EBU and the main coordinator, we're working on a project to enhance collection capacity in the audio‑visual and exactly in the Internet world. The floor is yours.
>> PANELIST: Thanks, Giacomo. There is a huge need of local content in Africa because for years it's continued to be ‑‑ I believe today it's time to provide to African viewers and African cities something different.
When I've been launching this five years ago, this was the bet. This was what we wanted to do with an African partner. We tried to put together African content coming from any countries from Africa made by African directors or made by African producers to promote this content only in Africa, but outside Africa. Today we're representing 132 producers and directors from 30 countries of Africa. Not only French‑speaking, but also from English‑speaking territories, says and even Portuguese territories.
The market in Africa is really booming. We are expecting more than 1,000 broadcasters by the end of 2020. There is a huge number of local broadcasters from different countries that are now existing. This is the case of Ivory Coast. There is a huge boom of Internet platforms like video on demand and subscription platforms. More than 150 platforms in Africa today. And all these platforms, channels need local content.
In addition to that, there are very few theaters in Africa where films could be released. Even if some were a small chain, in some African French‑speaking territories, thanks to groups that are investing in new theaters, mainly in capital cities, and countries where there are no theaters or just one in the capital city.
It's very difficult when all the film producers are working today to release and to get the regional investment.
What we are looking to try to establish a new framework where local content will be able to find first some funds to produce this content and secondly, to establish new business models where broadcasters, African broadcasters, can reach this premium content because today in Africa on French‑speaking territories, there are two big broadcasters. These two broadcasters are just keeping all the rights, all the premium content that all local broadcasters, public or private, are not able to get.
It is, of course, pity for the African viewers. What we try to do today is answer certain needs to add, first, and secondly, to help distribution of the content. What we have in mind with EDU and ABU, African public broadcasters is to put together all these broadcasters around the table to do something, which is ‑‑ which was used to be used years ago that put together the resources to buy or to pre-finance content. Even a small public TV in the small African country can invest little money, $100 per hour, for instance, but all together, when they are sitting around the same table talking with the same theory, or same program, this broadcaster could leverage some other funds.
These funds could be advertising, because they are representing different territories, which are very interesting for advertisers. It could be also money from public foundation. I know that there are some series talking about VRH or any of these things supported by this kind of foundation, and we need to reach the cities and we need to reach the people in the countries. Only the public television are able to cover 100% of these territories. This new platform, African hub, will be able to provide to the territories where they have a rich audience. We provide to the producers of the capital city to raise money not just from the public television, but also from the funds like ACP, which is a European fund, which is not open, but which we open by the end of the year.
It will be also possible to create a sort of basket fund where money from ‑‑ or the institute in Germany or public institution can invest money. Being sure that investment will be really done in the best way, best quality, transparency, and high quality.
This project is not today established because we are, of course, working on it at this moment, but we have a strong basis of that. We know that many advertising companies are interested because when you come to them and say we have ten countries for this program, you immediately think about their potential market. It's also the same for foundation look UNESCO or all those supporting entertainment that are interested by most ‑‑ the most biggest number of territories for these movies.
Of course, it's interesting for these broadcasters, African public broadcasters, because it will be able to provide to the audience the strong and high-quality content that first we were not able to have at this moment.
This is very interesting because all though content can be put 150 different platform says on the 54 African countries. They are all looking for content.
Finally, to join what was said before me, we really also need a legal framework. Many are investing their own money in these movies, and it's very difficult, and we need to have a strong legal system. We need to have a strong public policy it support this sector, and we need that. More cooperation is existing, and we are not really involved today from my view in supporting the film industry or the content industry.
Thank you very much.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: Thank you. So I would have also my presentation, but I will not do because we will not have time for the floor. Now questions from you for the speakers. I see many persons that are directly involved in their daily work, but they are shy for the moment. There is one that is not shy. Please. If not, I will give my presentation, and then it's over.
>> JORGE VARGAS: Hello, everyone. My name is Jorge Vargas, and I have partnerships with the foundation that's the nonprofit that supports and operates Wikipedia. Usually the first or second result is a Wikipedia link, and I think this is why it's important, there is a lot of content that is missing. Particularly in local languages, right? Pretty, the job I do is to find partners that are interested in supporting our mission of finding the sum of all knowledge, and also in all languages. Right now Wikipedia is available in 300 languages, but usually it's French or Spanish and not in languages that are relevant for many local communities.
Within the work that we do, we FROO try to identify partners that want to help not just identify the local content that is miss, but also create it. My question for you all and for the panel is how do you find ways to identify what is the local content that is relevant for the people that are interested in because oftentimes we fall under a bias where we think that certain content that is relevant for us in the west or for certain specific characteristics of people should be the relevant content for certain people in the field, but, unfortunately, sometimes that is kind of like a mismatch.
Is there any mechanism that you think should be utilized or that you are utilizing to identify what content is relevant for the people in these parts of the world?
Thank you.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: If I may try to answer this, and then I'll give the floor to others. Broadcasting industry is relevant because it's able to provide to local viewers what they are asking for. The more success you have to answer the needs of the local population. Wikipedia, it's a very specific part of the needs of the population, but, of course, looking for what already exists is the best way because you know ‑‑ there is a know‑how, there is the experience, and there is expertise.
The problem is that people from the broadcasting doesn't feel that they are involved in the Internet until now, and people on the Internet, they don't look at broadcasting and traditional media world.
I think that the interaction would be the best and the shortest way to cross‑fertilize the environment. Any other comments from the panel? No? Okay.
Second question?
>> AUDIENCE: Just one little comment on this question. I think and what we are seeing in talking to the people in Brazil who are developing Internet network communities. It's not trying to find what is relevant for those communities who are building a network, but try to give them autonomy to decide what is relevant and just stimulate a production based on their own references.
This is quite important for the important question that my colleague has done.
I have one comment and one question. In Brazil we were starting the project of open CDN. The idea of open CDN is to deliver content via Internet exchange points to regions of lower Internet activity. Let's say activity ‑‑ we are measuring in terms of Internet traffic in our Internet exchange points and number of ISP's. Number of autonomous systems in specific regions.
To stimulate local providers to deliver content. The content delivery, it's very costly. It costs us a lot to develop an infrastructure of servers to deliver content, and some regions, it's very important to providing the infrastructure of ‑‑ for the contents together and then stimulate providers to deliver content and create what would be a competition in this area.
There are a lot of objectives that this policy tried to address, but one of them is that we believe that it may contribute as the diversity of the content because if you stimulate the Internet providers market in some regions, you may find providers that would deliver content in a special segment that are desired by specific groups in that region. We don't have ‑‑ I think we could do a study looking for impact on the production of the content and not only on the stimulus of the market, of the Internet provider ‑‑ Internet service providers market. This is the comment.
The question is ‑‑
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: Keep it short because we have to close.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay. I'm sorry. Is there any research showing that small producers are making their projects viable by intellectual property rights. I was curious about this idea that Internet intellectual property may provide for small artists and musicians and writers a way for them to make their project viable
>> I think it's ‑‑
>> Yes. I think we can hear directly from a wide variety of people that are directly engaged in production and creation of content. I think if you are ‑‑ whether there is a study that shows that directly, probably there are a number of studies that I'm happy to discuss, but it's enough really to talk to the people that are involved in that.
If you are a small movie producer in a small country in Latin America or in Africa, how would you go about monetizing your up front investment on the production without the possibly of exposing that creation? There are no real alternatives, unless you get funds for the creation from public source, which is not really a viable solution, sustainable solution in the medium and long‑term. If you look at individual first role creators and performers, perhaps this is a situation that is different, but in terms of authors, their main income comes from the fact that they can control their own creation. It's through that in order for them to make money, they need to transfer it up immediately, so often they would not be the owner down the line, so this is the perceptions of the industry that owns the copyright, but there is a reason for that because as an individual creator, you need to transfer to make money out of your creative effort and then the recent industry that is well organized to exploit it.
On the side of performers, the people are not creating it. Just interpreting existing creation. Perhaps there are cases where since the protection of performers is not really global and in many cases perhaps they leave out live performances and one‑off monetization of the fixation of the performance. Still, it's based on related rights. My answer is that there is different from each writer, but yes, in terms of practices and licenses and when you look at the money they are making, it's mostly through licensing and copyright, but perhaps here we have producers and many other comments.
Be sure to leave the room for others
>> Good morning. My name is ‑‑ I am here from Lagos and Nigeria, and "work as a producer raising financing for film and TV and different things.
It's a cross‑section of comments that were made today about just different pockets, and it's interesting because in my space where, first of all, I have a country of over 100 million people with maybe, honestly, not 50 cinemas in that space. There's so much room for expansion.
I think the way we go about one producing content, who we make it for, and how we're going to exhibit it, and then how we're going to distribute it. I think there has to be a rethinking of how it becomes economical for everyone. We can commoditize and monetize this situation. It's an international picture like "Black Panther" during the time of its cinema release. There's definitely potential to make product that are viable and interesting and people will come.
To expand, there's a need we think how do we do this expansion? To retro fit a cinema in my country costs maybe somewhere around $1 million to do. The unit price for someone who is making a certain standard of living cost it's not viable for them to pay upwards of $10, $15 to come watch a picture. How do we rethink the exhibition situation in how do we make it cheaper to build up and out, and how do we make it affordable for a consumer to come and enjoy and experience the product? From a producer standpoint, if I lived in a country with 40 cinemas and that number is doubling to 80, says it just expands. I don't necessarily have to make ‑‑ rather, it doesn't have to cost me any more to make the product, but then I expand out with the possibilities of how much I can make from the product. There's a whole ecosystem that needs to be rethought and not copied, but rethought for the particular environment, and I think it goes for other emerging markets as well.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: I would like to close out with two questions. They are the last ones. Please, very short.
>> WESLEY: My name is Wesley. I'll get straight to the point. I see that there might be space for fiscal incentive as an inducement to support industry, but my question has to do with the other side, which is this notion that one can regulate for positive discrimination with respect to local content. My question is how anachronistic for that?
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: The other question, please.
>> AUDIENCE: Forgive me, I was not here at the beginning of the discussion, and I'm not aware whether you talked about this before or not, but I was really surprised to hear that there is just one way to extract value from content, and that is to sell your content and to have the rights on that. There's a lot of ‑‑ there's a whole lot of economy and a whole, let's say, universe of content which is licensed under creative commons, and there are people making money out of licensing their contents with creative comments.
Also, there is a movement of free software, which has created a whole new discussion on prevailing economic model in our era, so I'm not aware whether you discussed about this or not, but this is something really important to consider
>> I'm not sure whether you were here when I presented, but I made a point about the flexibility of the system and definitely creative comments and open source software are a way. They are just a way of exercising economic rights. We organize a similar session last year at the IGF, and one of the main examples I brought to the floor was actually Wikipedia, a great platform of enabling content. I come from an organization that actually licensed all its new works with creative commons. Absolutely. It's part of the puzzle.
In this specific session and towards the end, we were talking about audio‑visual productions, which I'm not aware of any viable model of audio‑visual production that are ‑‑ we were using the examples we have on the panel. I fully take your points. At least for software development, they are probably the emerging model being like open licensing. Absolutely.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: Just to explain, we have been launching last year a movie at the same time. On Internet.
>> PANELIST: It's a movie made by a giant producer called Cares of Africa. It's a movie that was a big success on the Internet with more than 700,000 views.
For all the views, the producer received ‑‑ at the same time a film was released in eight theaters in the middle African cities in western Africa, and we had about 15,000 tickets sold, and the producer received $500 from these theaters.
It means that's a huge difficult market for film producers or content producers in Africa. I can have something for them. In 2017 the best movie in Ivory Coast was the biggest, and it made more than 20,000 tickets, and the producer went more than 7,000 Euros for that.
It means, just to conclude, that this figure, that without broadcasters, without public money, and without advertising, there is no way to produce proper content in Africa. It's not that we provide the money for the content.
>> GIACOMO MAZZONE: Danielle, closing. We have to leave the room.
>> DANIELLE CLICHE: If there was no investment from the public sector, there would be no publishing industry, film industry, music industry. I mean, it's quite a big thing. What you are talking about in terms of figures and somebody else asked earlier about studies. The problem is that we don't have comprehensive studies to be able to show.
There is anecdotes. We've all heard them. They create a lot of fear. They create a lot of anxiety. What we need really are hard facts, and if we are going to go forward, we need to be able to talk seriously about diversity of cultural content of local cultural content in the Internet age. We need really to work together to be able to produce this data in order to inform the new models.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Just a word to answer your question. No, it's not anachronistic. The fiscal deduction works for big capital investment like movie production. When it comes to the Internet, we look for small sums. The tax incentive until now, my knowledge, we don't have a model that works. Probably this could be invented. I think all things evolve if there is a will to evolve in the right direction. I think what we wanted to discuss today here with the seminar is to say it's possible to do, and we have to look at the example of the past and to see how they could be modernized to answer to the same needs even in the future for the new platform, Newt distribution.
I thank you, everybody, for being here, for being so patient, and I ask if you want to stay, the next panel is the international rights and principles. Thank you very much.