Buchmesse: Die Zukunft der Gegenwart

VON Dr. Wolf SiegertZUM Freitag Letzte Bearbeitung: 18. Oktober 2015 um 21 Uhr 08 Minutenzum Post-Scriptum

 

I.

Bei der Vorbereitung des Besuches des heutigen Messetages stand zunächst der Besuch des NEM- des New European Media -Kongresses im Vordergrund. NEM steht für New European Media und wirbt mit dem Slogan: "Driving the future of digital experience".

Bei der Vorbereitung des Messebesuchs am 27. August war für den Vortag, den 15. Oktober eine Eröffnungsrede durch den EU-Kommissar Günther Oettinger [1] sowie die Begegnungen im Rahmen der 20. Generalversammlung.

Weiter auf dem Programm standen zu jenem Zeitpunkt:
– ein NEM communities day
– einen NEM vision day, zu dem es aber noch keinen Link gab
– ein Investment & Entrepreneurship Forum
– eine Ausstellung.

Und über die bereits vorliegenden Programmabfolge für diesen zweiten Tag war zu lesen:
•The creative industry challenges in Europe
— Albert Gauthier, European Commission, Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
•Transmedia, the future of Media industry
— François Pernot, C.E.O of the Comics & Animation division of Media Participations
•The Quantified Learner: little stories about me, a big story about us
— Chris Sizemore, BBC, Head of Product Knowledge & Learning
•The magic of the publishing sector : Key innovators tell their tale
— Holger Volland, Frankfurt Book Fair, Vice President
•New European Media, driving the future of digital experience
— Jean-Dominique Meunier, Technicolor, Chairman New European Media (NEM)
•Boosting innovation: Cooperations between the publishing sector & research institutions in Europe
— Holger Volland, Frankfurt Book Fair, Vice President

Dass die Rede Oettingers auf den heutigen Tag verschoben wurde, war nicht bekannt. Aber es gibt ja einen twitter-Account und auf diesem verweist er auf seine Rede vom 16. Oktober unter dem Hashtag #fbm15. Zu finden ist davon aber NICHTS. Oder doch?
Ja: Nach einigem Suchen findet sich der unten als Post-Scriptium zitierte Redetext an anderer Stelle hinter diesem LINK [2].

Auch andere Sprecher traten plötzlich auf den Plan, so wie Malte Behrmann mit seinen Verweisen auf die Spiele-Industrie, die einst ihre Produkte noch in Boxen und auf Spielgeräten anbot - und dieses auch heute noch tut - die sich aber inzwischen immer mehr auf Online-Plattfomen und mobilen Endgeräten durchzusetzen beginnt.

Kurz und gut: Letztendlich war diese Veranstaltung gut, um sich wieder ein wenig im Kreise der friends and family umzutun, inhaltlich aber sollten andere berufenere Quellen darüber Auskunft geben.

II.

Das Bittere an diesem Dilemma ist der Umstand, dass der Versuch unternommen worden, statt den etablierten Kräften und "Playern", jungen Kräften eine Öffentlichkeit zu verschaffen, die vom Thema und Anspruch her wahrlich interessant genug wäre - genauer gesagt: gewesen wäre. Und da kam so:

Für 11 Uhr war im Veranstaltungskalender eine Veranstaltung in Halle 6.3 LitAG angekündigt, in der die FUTURE UNIVERSITY mit ihrem gleichnamigen Institut zu dem folgenden Thema einlud:

Was kommt 2016 - 2020?

Unter allen - weit über hundert - Veranstaltungen dieses Tages machte dieser Titel und dieser Anspruch besonders neugierig. Aber, am Eingang auf der 3. Ebene auf Halle 6 angekommen, wurde der Zugange zur Teilnahme verwehrt: Es müsse dafür, So wie auch im Programm ausgedruckt, eine persönliche Einladung vorgewiesen werden.

Da eine solche nicht vorlag, gab es einen Anruf beim Veranstalter und sodann ein Anschreiben per Mail, um auf diesem Weg die Berechtigung zu erhalten, an dem Wiederholungstermin um 15 Uhr teilnehmen zu können. [3]

Allein, auch der zweite Anlauf verlief... im Nichts. Zunächst wurde von der Eingangskontrolle verlangt, den genauen Standort innerhalb dieses Areals zu benennen, an dem dieses Forum stattfinden würde. Auch der Hinweis, dass man diese Dienstleistung eigentlich von den dort anwesenden MitarbeiterInnen erwarten könne, führte nicht weiter... bis das Ganze dann auf eine Art 2nd level conflict handling - Ebene eskalierte. Mit einem guten und einem schlechten Ergebnis: Das gute Ergebnis war eine Entschuldigung des Veranstalter für die Unbotmässigkeiten des Empfang. Das schlechte, dass diese Veranstaltung abgesagt worden sei [4].

Vielleicht sollte man angesichts der vielen anderen guten Begegnungen und Gespräche dieses Tages nicht zu sehr auf dieser einen Total-Pleite herumreiten. Aber es ist schon Trauer angesagt, wenn gerade ein Thema wie dieses - und das ihm innewohnende Versprechen - so brutal in Grund und Boden geritten wird.

III.

Spannender war die schon die Diskussion um die Frage

Was können Bibliotheken für MOOCs anbeiten?

Online-Plattform sind eine niederschwellige Möglichkeit von Leuten des Zugangs zur akademischen Bildung. 2 ½ Milliarden Menschen haben heute den Zugang – auch zu den Bibliotheken? So die Ausgangsfrage.

Zur Erinnerung, MOOC’s sind sogenannte Massive Open Online Courses: Online-"Lehr"-Veranstaltungen im Netz, die als sogenannte X-Moogs eher für die "breite Masse" aufgelegt sind und die C-Moogs in der oft online weltweit bestimmte Gruppen von Spezialisten zusammentreffen.

Auch wenn der "Hype" um diese Angebote vielleicht vorbei sein mag, es bleibt ihr Wert durch die Möglichkeit, auch jenseits der zertifizierten Hochschulzugangs an der Vermittlung von qualifiziertem Wissen teilhaben zu können - auch wenn diese Erfahrung dann nicht sogleich formal mit einem Hochschuldiplom "gekrönt" wird.

Und, so wurde sehr schnell kar: Hier können die angebotenen Lernpakte auf die spezifischen Bedarfe der Nutzer zugeschnitten und deren Bedürtnissen angepasst werden.

Damit sind und bleiben sie ein Kontrapunkt gegen die sogenannte "Defiziorientierung“ im deutschen Ausbildungsbereich, in der es eher darum geht, Schwächen zu kompensieren als Stärken weiter auszubauen. Querschnittswissenschaften wie Data Sciences habe da viel zu bieten, und das auch jenen, die noch nicht akakdemisch abgebildet ist. Denn mit den aktuell vorhandenen Analytics lassen sich heute schon Programme bauen, die hochgradig individualisiert sind: Für einen individuellen Zugewinn auch jenseits des Zwanges zur Teilnahme an einer Prüfung.

Während im Verlauf dieses interdisziplinären Diskurses die Grossen Häuser wie Monsanto und Elsevier - welch eine interessante Kombi - als das „inkarnierte Böse“ tituliert wurden, gab es eine sehr viel offenere Haltung gegen über den Bibliotheken in Deutschland. Und eine klare Aufforderung an diese, noch viel mehr aus ihren Beständen als gemeinfreie Darstellungen aufzuarbeiten und zur Verfügung zu stellen.

IV.

In diesem Zusammenhang stand dann auch sogleich der Besuch in der gleichen Halle am "Brockhaus"-Stand. Ja, Sie haben richtig gelesen: Der "Brockhaus" wird nunmehr als Webplatform betrieben von einer neu gegründeten Tochter der - wie einst "wissen.de" - in München ansässigen schwedischen Nationalenzyclopedin (NE).

Also nicht mehr in der Hand des Bibliographischen Instituts und auch nicht mehr in der von Bertelsmann? Dazu das Börsenblatt in seinem Online Artikel vom 15. Oktober 2015: " Der Brockhaus kehrt zurück "

"2013 erklärte Bertelsmann das Projekt "Brockhaus" für beendet – nun kehrt der Name zurück. Die Inhalte der Enzyklopädie bilden den Kern eines neuen Webportals: des Brockhaus Wissensservice."
Und weiter: "Bertelsmann lizensierte zwar die Inhalte an NE, gibt Marke selbst jedoch nicht aus der Hand. Die Brockhaus-Redaktion, die auch nach dem operativen Aus im Sommer 2014 die Inhalte der Enzyklopädie aktuell hielt, verbleibt bei der Bertelsmann-Tochter Inmediaone in Gütersloh."

Mit ihrem speziell an die Bibliotheken ausgerichteten Angebot auf eine wissenschaftlich haltbare und zitierbare Quelle - die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek ist bereits mit dabei - ist natürlich auch wieder eine mögliche Brücke zu dem MOOC’s geschlagen. Ob sie dann aber auch begangen werden wird?

V.

Ein weiterer Besucht galt dem Messe-Stand der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. Dort wurden jeweils von 10 bis 12 Uhr "Zeit für Gespräche und Fragen zur Ablieferung von Netzpublikationen" angeboten. Und dieses Angebot wurde gerne angenommen.

Denn diese hier einzusehende Publikation ist eine der ersten - vielleicht sogar die Erste überhaupt - der bereits im Januar 2015 eine ISSN-Nummer zugeteilt wurde: Und die nun auch in der Pflicht steht, diese - möglichst tagtäglich und immer wieder aktualisiert - als elektronisches Belegexemplar auf die Rechner des Hauses einzuspielen.

Dass dies bislang zwar als ONIX- oder PDF-Datei, aber noch nicht in einem dynamischen Verfahren geht, war Gegenstand des Gespräch. Diese Frage war von beiderseitigem Interesse und wurde am Schluss mit der Zusicherung "beantwortet", dass man dabei sei, auch hierfür an einer Lösung zu arbeiten.

P.S.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/frankfurt-book-fair-opening-speech-conference-european-digital-agenda-content_en

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to be your guest at the Technology and Media Forum of the Frankfurt Book Fair.

To many people, a book is probably not the first thing which comes to their mind if they talk about new technologies.

Some people might even think that books and new technology are at a contrast:

A book is (often) printed on paper, it gets used, we put it into a shelf, it might get a bit dusty.

On the other hand, new technologies are associated with modernity; with progress and the future.

I always suspected that this contrast was specious.

If you reflect on it, books have on the contrary been at the forefront of modernity: think of the revolutionary printing techniques of Gutenberg; think of the impact they had to disseminate new ideas and generate new knowledge.

In this sense, books are probably one of the most important new technologies which have ever been invented.

Today, I would like to show that the European Commission is mindful of this link.

And I would like to show that the European Commission is in particular engaging on the side of the cultural sectors, not the least the book sectors, to adapt to the challenges of the new technological revolution.

First:

I have come here to tell you that I admire and respect how your industries are adapting to an unprecedented technological revolution.

You are already making books more attractive - especially to digital natives – You are re-thinking and innovatively developing your business models to cope with the new realities of the digital world.

As a consequence, also the role of the publishers as an intermediary between the creator and the reader is changing.

Let me take self-publishing as an example:

When self-publishing started, many people thought that it would deal as serious blow to professional publishers. After all, why would an author still need a publisher if he could do the same work himself?

Today, we see that this has not been the case. There are a variety of ways how authors use self-publishing platforms, often involving professional publishers.

Certain authors use self-publishing as a tool to enter the market, and, once they have built up renown, join a publisher.

There are self-publishing platforms which select successful titles to distribute them as print copies in the book stores.

Now, publishers experiment with collaborative platforms, where authors, graphic designers, readers and the publisher draft, check and elaborate texts.

Such platforms might especially attract young people who are used to social media and organising their work online.

All these examples show that the traditional model of book writing and publishing is changing and this change is often driven by technology.

I always thought that it is too easy for policy makers to tell industries that they "simply need to adapt to the internet" or that they "simply need to embrace new technologies."

I am not in the position to tell any of you how a publishing house, or how a book shop will be able to survive during the next years.

What I can tell though is that the European Commission is not only observing these technological developments but actively trying to accompany and influence them:

I am pleased to say that the European Commission, and notably my services, are providing support to help book publishers to cope with the digital transformation.

One of the examples is funding the activities of the Technologies and Innovation for Smart Publishing project. It is a joint platform of the IT industry and publishers whose objective is to help the cross sector exchange of ideas and technologies.

Furthermore, the Commission supports and is working in close cooperation with the New European Media Initiative, which represents companies and clusters active in the creative industries and develops a common research agenda.

I am glad to see that many publishers present at the Book Fair today are represented in this initiative.

The Frankfurt Book Fair is also a member of both organizations.

Moreover, both the Smart Publishing Project as well as the New Media Initiative have their respective meetings at the Fair.

You will be aware that one of the next workshops organized by the New Media Initiative will be dedicated to the publishing sector.

The Commission has just adopted the new Horizon 2020 work programme for 2016-2017.

There are funding opportunities for you. We want to help the creative industries stimulating the new technology development.

So, now it is a time for you to come forward with new initiatives and actively make use of the relevant support scheme.

It is my intention to reinforce even more our support to the creative industries and I am convinced that the Horizon 2020 agenda for innovation and creativity provides opportunity for that.

To this end, I am looking forward to a constructive and fruitful cooperation with the publishing sector, also through the New Media Initiative, which offers a great platform for conveying the views of the community.

Second:

As I just told you, we have to be able to grasp how the new technologies work.

However, as policy makers we have to do more than that. We have to ask ourselves what are the wider implications of the changes I just described.

Currently, we see the emergence of a new kind of actor who might even become a new intermediary settling between the author and the reader: the online platform.

Platforms set concrete conditions regarding the creation of books, they establish benefit sharing agreements, and they create new conditions regarding remuneration.

Who would have thought a few years ago, that someday, there would be a business model according to which an author would be paid per read page?

What had been technically and economically unthinkable is today a reality.

Such a payment model has obviously consequences for the ways books are written and read.

To stay with the above example, this model might give incentives to authors to write longer books, but longer books which are also easier to read.

The author would have no (financial) interest in challenging the reader if this makes the reader give up in the middle of the book.

This trend will be even reinforced by the way many of us use mobile devices: we read bits and pieces of texts, when we wait for the plane, in the restaurant, in between two meetings.

In Japan, you already have a name for this new literary genre: the cell phone novel. Authors of these novels upload their texts in short episodes on social networks which can be then downloaded and voted for by readers.

The writers are often not paid for their work online, no matter how many millions of times it is viewed.

The payoff, if any, comes when the novels are reproduced and sold as traditional books.

Readers have free access to the Web sites that carry the novels, or pay at most 1 EUR to 2 EUR a month, but the sites make most of their money from advertising.

Now here comes my question: are these developments good or bad?

In my view, all new models are in principle welcome as long as they lead to a cultural diversity and as long as they allow for a fair remuneration of authors.

As I already told you, I do not think that a European Commission is best placed to tell you which business models are recommendable for authors, publishers, bookshops and readers and which not.

Anyway, it is clear that the emergence of platforms as new players is playing a disruptive role in the book publishing industry, as it has been the case in so many other creative sectors.

Publishers have to find new strategies to remain competitive. Authors have to make sure that they will receive a fair remuneration. Book shops need to attract readers to come to their premises.

In my view, the internet economy will only be a success if we understand that the production of rich and diverse creative content and the presence of innovative online services are part of the same equation.

Therefore, the challenge for cultural industries as well as for further growth of the digital economy is to maintain the Internet as an open, disruptive force for innovation.

It must not become a set of closed ecosystems, guarded by gatekeepers.

This will also be important for consumers. We want consumers to fully enjoy the benefits of the digital economy and the Digital Single Market.

Interoperability is one of the core elements of the Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy.

The Commission sees therefore a benefit in an open standard for e-Books. We are however cautious on the idea – which some advocate for – of prescribing a specific standard to the industry.

But more generally, we have to make sure that there is a fair sharing of value in the platform economy.

There is a growing concern that the distribution of the value generated by certain service providers engaged in content distribution is skewed towards them.

There is a growing concern that certain platforms are denying a fair remuneration to right holders.

A well-functioning market place requires that right holders are in the position to negotiate and licence their exclusive rights.

They need a fair share in the economic success of the services that distribute their content.

I think we need to better how platforms function in order to reply to these questions and make informed and appropriate policy decisions on the interaction between platforms, news media and consumers.

Therefore, as announced in the Digital Single Market Strategy of May, we have launched in September a comprehensive assessment of the role of platforms, including in the sharing economy.

It covers issues such as transparency e.g. in search results, platforms’ usage of the information they collect, relations between platforms and suppliers, constraints on the ability of individuals and businesses to move from one platform to another as well as tackling illegal content online and the liability of online intermediaries.

And let be clear: I do not think that this issue is merely of economic relevance.

On the contrary. It is both an economic and a societal issue.

As my example shows, platforms do not only influence the way books are written, but in the end also the kind of books that we will read.

Third:

Let me now come to the planned copyright modernisation of the European Commission.

In May of this year, we have published an ambitious Digital Single Market Strategy.

It aims at opening up the opportunities of a market with more than 500 million citizens to the European consumers and businesses.

I am convinced that Europeans should take advantage of this huge market if we want to remain competitive within our globalised world.

To remain competitive, we also need to do our best to create the best possible conditions so that our citizens can be creative and disseminate their knowledge and ideas.

The copyright modernisation is part of this broader endeavour.

I use the term "modernisation" deliberately before you. In many talks I had the chance to have with you, I hear the same concern:

"Modernisation" would be just a term that the Commission uses to disguise it real plans, namely to weaken copyright protection.

This is not the case. I think that copyright plays a fundamental role in our economy and our market places, be they "offline" or "online".

Copyright is the incentive to publishers to invest into new book projects. As any company, you need clear and reliable conditions for making business. You need it to make sure that you can pay lectors, graphic designers and marketing specialists.

And only if you can invest into new projects will you be able to discover new talent.

At the same time, copyright is also the safeguard that authors receive a fair remuneration.

So let me stress that, if I talk about copyright modernisation, I am talking particularly about ways to preserve the incentive to the publisher to invest as well as the safeguard for the author.

Today, we need however also to make sure that copyright functions within the Digital Single Market.

Our copyright has been only partially harmonised. For the rest, national laws of 28 Member States apply. In the end, this results into legal uncertainty.

Therefore, we have to make sure that there is more legal clarity for example for a researcher under which conditions he can do text and data mining.

A teacher needs to have more legal clarity to be sure that he will not be made liable if he uses certain parts of text books also for online teaching courses.

An archive should be in the position to clearly decide whether it may or may not digitise a book and make it available for a researcher or student by remote consultation.

Our copyright rules have been drafted at a time where many of today’s possibilities to discover, disseminate and share ideas and knowledge did not exist.

In addition, both education and research are increasingly cross border activities and therefore highly relevant in the Digital Single Market.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are only a few examples, but I think that they show:

The European Commission is planning a targeted copyright modernisation.

We do not want to overhaul the complete system. We want clear, fair and reliable conditions for right owners and for users.

Therefore, before the end of the year the Commission will present a package of measures that will include our vision for the modernisation of copyright and targeted intervention relating to the portability of online content services. We are also working on the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty.

The proposals and initiatives to be made in 2016 will be included in a Communication.

It is too early to go into detail, but let me outline some overarching principles that I will be following in the preparation of the copyright reform:

Citizens and businesses should be able to provide services and to access content across borders;

Copyright should remain a driver for creativity, innovation and investment in the digital economy;

More opportunities for the users of content are compatible with the protection of the rights of creators and of those who invest in content.

I would like to present an ambitious and balanced reform, which will provide concrete benefits for consumers, online content services and right holders.

I am sure that we can find fair solutions to strike a balance between the different interests.

Finally, enforcement is an important element in order to make the Digital Single Market for content work.

Technology can also be misused and it makes it easier to infringe copyrights on a cross border basis.

Of course, national authorities are engaged in this fight.

However, there is the need to reflect whether and which extent the EU should address these issues.

We should avoid situations where divergences in national regulatory frameworks prevent enforcement from being more effective.

This is also to reduce the cost of enforcement, whose first victims are Small and Medium-sized enterprises.

Finally, we are reflecting on solutions which involve all the relevant actors in the internet distribution chains.

I am thinking in particular of advertisement and payment providers, according to a ’follow-the-money’ approach.

I know that there have been different initiatives in this regard in the Member States, including in Germany and that some of them have encountered legal difficulties.

In our internal discussions, we will certainly take these problems into account.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This year, the Frankfurt Book Fair has set up the discussion forum "The European Digital Agenda of Content".

Here, we have the opportunity to discover the latest developments at the crossroads of IT and publishing. We have the opportunity to discuss risks and opportunities involved with these developments.

At every discussion, I would appeal to you bear in mind this question: do we Europeans make the best of our creativity?

As a member of the European Commission, I have this question in the back of my mind when I discuss with you our copyright modernisation.

I want to contribute to make sure that we have the best regulatory conditions so that the book business can flourish, that authors get a fair remuneration for their creativity and that all those who use copyright protected content can access it on a fair basis.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The creation of a Digital Single Market does not mean that the European Commission is aiming at weakening copyright.

On the contrary, we want to make sure that copyright can preserve its functions also in the digital world of today.

I hope that you will continue working with me to achieve this goal and wish you a pleasant and fruitful stay at the 2015 Frankfurt Book Fair.

Anmerkungen

[1] kann mir mal jemand erklären, warum der Vornahme mit einem „ü“ nicht mit einem „ue“ geschreiben wird, im Gegensatz zu seinem Nachnamen, der Konsquent nicht mit einem „ö“ angekündigt wird?

[3] An: ’profuturist.roman.retzbach@future-university.org’
Text: Werter Roman Retzbach,
da mir heute am Vormittag der Zugang zu Ihrer Veranstaltung am Eingang zum LitAG-Forum verweigert wurde, übersende ich Ihnen hiermit meine Kontaktdaten, um nunmehr alle protokollarischen Voraussetzungen zu erfüllen – so wie gerade am Telefon besprochen.
Ich werde um 15 Uhr da sein.
Mit freundlichen Grüssen! [...]

[4] Und das nur wenige Stunden nach dem noch zur mit dem Veranstalter geführten Telefonat (sic!)

9772 Zeichen