It is vital that local economies and cultural operators are able to exercise rights of self determination and economic participation in today’s globalised world. Creativity and solid industrial policies are key to translating a qualitative advantage into quantitative benefits.

Leaders all over the world boast about creativity being the engine of innovation and progress. The same leaders also tell us how important small business is because it leads innovation. In the creative sector 99.9% is small business. Small business is the “backbone” of Europe’s economy and authorities should “think small first”. The EC has a charter dedicated to small business. Yet when it comes to ensuring their own operators have space, the EU seems to have forgotten some basic principles. The SonyBMG decision makes light of the EU’s charter at the very time when it should have shown real commitment to Europe’s small business.

The long-term consequences of decisions of this type are disastrous for Europe. It is comforting models which it detests – does it want music to become the next film sector which depends on subsidies for survival?

And what about entrepreneurship and competition? This is essential for all operators. True competition is not possible when excessive concentration controls who plays in the market and over what consumers pay and get for their money. Our competition regulators are supposed to be our guarantors of an open market, consumer choice and diversity. They ignored their own previous concerns and simply waved through SonyBMG despite opposition from retailers, record companies, artists, performers, on-line businesses and consumer groups. The approval was all the more extraordinary since two consecutive market investigations carried out by the EC in 2000 and 2004 led to strongly worded statements of objections.  These investigations highlighted, among other competition issues, the problem of the marginalisation of the independents who are the innovators and therefore vital suppliers to the health and competitive functioning of the industry.
 
What kind of an incentive to entrepreneurship is that? A level playing field amongst market players and increased market access conditions are the basic requisites for creativity and diversity to flourish and develop. The goal of any rational competition policy, like the goal of any democratic system, should be to ensure that no player is excluded from the game. This is what we seek – real competition.

Cohesion policy is another classic. The world is composed of a mosaic of regional, national cultures and localized cultural industries. For Europe for example, cohesion policy is vital. It highlights that culture has an important contribution to make to regional development yet, as the Sony/BMG case highlights, in practice, fragmented cultural producers struggle to benefit from the internal market to the same extent as traditional industries and large players. It is absolutely vital for the economic and social success of Europe’s cohesion policy that competition rules are complementary and supportive. Both need to liberate the power of creators and the creative industries.

Innovation policies are also important in this debate. One of the world’s most famous examples is EU’s Lisbon strategy to make Europe the most competitive knowledge based society with sustainable economic growth and greater social cohesion by 2010. European leaders recently highlight the alleged failure of the strategy. They absolutely need to act. The creative sector is one of the keys to unblocking Lisbon. The Commission itself recognises that is “important for the European Union to play a pro active role by supporting content providers and fostering the emergence of innovative services”.  

Fine words about progress, growth, enterprise and innovation must not allow them to fade away as soon as concentration is on the agenda. The opposite should be true. This is the challenge we set our leaders. We call on our elected leaders to keep their promises and to...

... stand up for freedom, competition, creativity.