Hello. Who has never been tempted to download a CD or a film free from the internet? The number of sites allowing us to share a piece of film or music is increasing exponentially. In this world of virtual hook-ups where everything is within our reach, how can we respect the old, sacrosanct copyright laws? And is downloading from the internet only a loss, or is it also free worldwide publicity? We'll discuss it with our guests. First, Andreas Dietl has met with some authors, a photographer who has expanded his client portfolio thanks to the internet, and a cartoonist in the capital of comic strips. Let's go and see. Brussels, the capital of Europe, is known to many, Brussels, the capital of comic strips, perhaps a little less. The city inspires François Schuiten and Benoît Peeters. Here they have set up their workshop where they create their highly artistic brand of comic strips. The mix of literature, visual arts and architecture with a generous Belgian dash of surrealism appeals and the duo's works have been translated into most European and several non-European languages. This is much to Benoît Peeters' liking, but he wonders if he could sell his works even better if they weren't available on the internet, on file sharing networks like BitTorrent. I think there is a confusion in the minds of many, especially young people, between the rights of the majors - the big companies that talk about copyright - and the artists who just have to manage. No, that's not right. Some people have a way of exploiting the idea of copyright in order to protect capitalistic interests, but there are also creators who absolutely need to be remunerated for their creation. It's a right and technology can't change that. But what can the artist do about it? Those who download his works are often those who also buy them in a shop. Benoît Peeters doesn't think it's useful to go after them with the police. I'm against repressive solutions. I think the artist shouldn't be involved in laws like the HADOPI law in France, where in theory people could be prosecuted and have their network access blocked. I'm not in favour of it and I think that few artists are in favour of it. What's lacking is a legal framework for what is common practice on the web - file sharing between individuals, mostly young, who don't seek a profit, but want to access works of culture freely. I'm in favour of developing a broad legal offering of content, available at a reasonable price, on a pay-per-use basis rather than subscription. Then for everything that doesn't fit into that model, I'm in favour of payments for circuits, for the circulation of works, for flows, and so they should be paid by the large operators of this network. Change of scenery - we are in Leicestershire in the English Midlands. This village is home to Jonathan Worth, a photographer who is known not only for his hypnotic portraits of celebrities ranging from actor Jude Law to astronaut John Glenn, but increasingly for the ingenious way he uses the internet to build his reputation. Today we're seeing what may seem like a photographer despairing of his profession. Worth is about to destroy more than half of 111 limited and signed prints of a photo that he took of writer and web legend Cory Doctorow while writing his latest novel, and a signed manuscript page to go with each. But the destruction was part of the plan. Worth made good profit on the pictures and manuscript pages he sold and collectors who bought them can be sure their value will go up after the shredding of the leftovers. I can live with destroying my pictures, but when I see this, I know there is someone who would love a Cory Doctorow signature on an original manuscript. They had the chance. - They did. And the only way to maintain its value is to destroy it unfortunately. Worth and Doctorow not only used blogs and Twitter to reach out to their following, they even posted the photos and the novel for free download. They put both under a Creative Commons licence, so users can pass the works on as long as they state who the original author was, don't modify them or use them for commercial purposes. It's sort of new media photo-economics... That would be one way of putting it. A lot of what Worth does may sound counterintuitive, but he's convinced this is how most photographers will work in the not-too-distant future. To talk about copyright on the internet, I have with me Cécile Despringre from the Society of Audiovisual Authors, Christian Engström from the Group of the Greens and Samuel Legrain, our IT expert, who will help us to understand the wonderful world of the web. Hello. Let's go straight into the world of the web, where distances are shorter and everything seems possible. Christian Engström, you were elected for the Pirate Party in Sweden. It seemed like a provocation here but you won 7% of the vote. What is the slogan of your party, its manifesto? The Pirate Party is about protecting fundamental rights on the internet and reforming copyright and intellectual property so that we can take advantage of this fantastic thing that is the internet. Fundamental rights, does that mean no longer having the rules of the jungle? Do you agree with this principle - crudely summarised - of the Pirate Party? It all depends on what you mean by fundamental rights. Authors believe that copyright is a fundamental right, a right recognised by the International Declaration of Human Rights, so it's also a fundamental right. All these rights must coexist online and intellectual property must be respected. Samuel, let's talk about technical matters. What can we download from the web? You can download everything. There really aren't any limits, whether it's music, films, TV series or even digitised books. All these can be easily downloaded. So that means that I can watch a film on my computer? Yes, if the film has been uploaded by somebody who bought the DVD or by somebody who had a camera in the cinema or even by somebody in the production house. It's possible to download the video, watch it and pass it on afterwards. Is that legal? - No, it's illegal. Cécile Despringre, we can see that box office sales increased in 2009, the online sales of music increased. In your opinion, is every sale on the internet a lost sale? No, the statistics about the effects of piracy on legal trade don't tell us that a download sale is a lost sale. The most recent studies are saying one in ten, a one-in-ten rate of substitution. But we mustn't underestimate the effects that illegal downloading can have on the various sources of financing creativity and on European artists' ability to continue their creativity in the future. Christian Engström, do you agree? Are there risks for the financing of films? The number 'one in ten' is a made-up number. The industry is making up numbers all the time. But it doesn't matter. We have the internet. It's fantastic technology that gives everybody with an internet connection access to the culture of the whole world with one click. That's something great that we should be happy about. But the old industries want to stick to their old models where people have to go to a shop and buy a plastic disc, or they are beginning to think about transforming that into 'you should go to a site, and pay the same to download it.' That won't happen. Kids are used to having an MP3 player filled with music worth tens of thousands of euros. No kid has that money. You're living in a fantasy world. That would be your problem, if you weren't trying to destroy the internet and in particular the right to privacy on the internet. In order to try and uphold your very old business models you want to spy on everything that everyone does on the net and that's not acceptable. We see laws like the HADOPI law in France shutting people off the internet. This is the 21st century. - Excuse me, Mr Engström. I believe artists see the internet as an opportunity... He said you are destroying the internet. That's serious. I don't think anyone can destroy it. It's a incredible mode of communication and artists are the first to have huge opportunities in many countries. Warning and prevention systems are being debated... Like the HADOPI law in France. Yes. It sends warning messages and reminds users of the law. Could you explain this to us, Samuel? The HADOPI law means warnings and finally cutting a person off the internet. Will it work? HADOPI is an agency that has been set up to monitor internet use. There are ways around it, so it will hit ill-informed people. The big distributors won't get caught out. When a teenager with an MP3 downloads music illegally from one of the hundreds of thousands of existing sites, he will receive a letter. If I'm not mistaken it's three letters and then his internet connection is cut off. Will that be enough to change their mindset? That's my question. Yes, I think warnings and the threat of having to appear in court can change a person's attitude while respecting their rights and freedom. Will the French law work? - No, it can't. The music and film industries have been using this tactic for 10 years. We have 10 years of experience of massive file sharing. We see that information campaigns don't reduce file sharing, threats don't do it either. We've seen file sharing increase exponentially during these 10 years. And we also see people in the creative sector making as much or more money now than they were 10 years ago. Record companies are losing money, but musicians and artists are making more money because the people who like music are spending as much as before. We'll come to the solution soon. I just want to ask Samuel something. Is it technically possible... We can see photos of Pirate Bay, this site which is booming in Sweden. Can it be shut down? Pirate Bay is just one of many sites. It's a politically active one. It's different from the 1990s, when there were servers like Napster and Gnutella, massive servers that monitored all the data. It was a server that sent data to customers, so a teenager who wanted to download music would ask Napster for it. Now file sharing protocols have advanced so much that people downloading data become servers themselves and can send the data to anybody else. There are no more big red 'stop' buttons. Let's say Pirate Bay gets shut down. What would happen? There could be a clone, although Pirate Bay is special because its founders are very vigorous. They'd just open up a new site, exactly the same, three days later in a different country. Thank you, Samuel Legrain. Now, practical proposals in view of the rapid development of the internet, which enables even small authors to become known around the world. How can we guarantee the fair remuneration of copyright holders? Have you put forward proposals for rewarding or compensating artists at source, and what are they? Firstly, I don't agree with Samuel that because copyright infringement is decentralised nothing can be done about it. We have great faith in awareness raising campaigns on the value of copyright because there's an entire generation that doesn't really understand how they can harm artists. If things were more like they used to be less harm would be caused. The French system hasn't been implemented anywhere, so we don't know whether it works. This will be the first time. Let's see what effect it has. It's important to reduce the level of piracy so that legitimate supply can develop. Artists see the internet as a way of circulating their work, but want to have the choice of making it available or not. It shouldn't be up to others to decide to make their work available, it must be the artist's choice. If we want legitimate supply, video on demand, to be able develop as a viable economic model, piracy needs to be reduced and consumers need to be persuaded to move towards legitimate supply. What do you think? How the industry finances its investments is their problem. They're businessmen, that's their problem. What we can see is that people who are interested in movies are spending as much money on films in various forms. 2009 was Hollywood's best year ever, and they complain the most. If you want video on demand to develop on the internet, you can't put it in unfair competition with pirated and free films. The internet would never become a proper channel for circulating work. This is getting incredibly boring. It's like listening to a broken record. In the '70s you said that home taping is killing music. In the '80s, that the video recorder is like the Boston Strangler to a woman home alone. You, the industry, have been opposed to every technological advancement since the self-playing piano. Every time you say that this will kill culture, artists will starve. During the last 100 years we've seen the exact opposite, more culture, people spending more money on it, more people being able to live off culture. It's time you stopped complaining and started living in the world as it is and figured out how to make money. I think Mr Engström is bogged down in his very backward-looking views on European culture. Artists are tired of this kind of ideological and popularity-seeking discourse. We saw this during the 2009 European elections. There used to be a left-right consensus about European creativity, but today copyright has become an issue which people espouse to get elected. It's a shame. There are more internet surfers than artists among voters. I think that nowadays this has too much influence on practical political debate about respecting copyright. Artists want to remain in control of their work and to keep on creating. We can't blame artists for all the evils in the world, particularly in the USA. Mr Engström isn't considering the European nature of this issue. Thank you very much. That's all for this week. Goodbye.