What is needed for a digital economy?

Reply to debate article in Dagens Industri, 110219, "Why does the IT Minister only listen to the telecom lobby?", signed by representatives of the content producers. We are in a phase of strong change in society. Physical goods are becoming services; products that can be touched are instead being electronically transmitted and stored; the distinction between original and copy is blurring. This means that old distribution channels, old business models, are changing - sometimes quite dramatically. The world is moving into a 'digital economy'.

Against this background, the debate article in Dagens Industri on 19 February raises interesting questions about what is needed to govern and regulate the digital economy. Utopians have sometimes spoken as if no regulation is needed. This is of course not the case. All societies must have norms, laws and rules. But it is not a given that today's norms, laws and rules are the most suitable for tomorrow's society.

There are plenty of examples of how digitalization is making old legislation obsolete. Take the signature requirement. In the digital world, with electronic services, it is replaced by e-signatures (or PINs). Contracts and laws need to change.

Similarly, contracts and laws on remuneration need to be reviewed to ensure that those who have actually created something receive their rightful compensation, while the regulatory framework does not lock society into old structures. Imagine if we were to continue to require signatures - it would make efficient services impossible. Should today's physical distribution channels be protected by old laws and contracts?

Authors, composers and others who contribute to artistic creation should be able to make a living from their work, their talent. Just because it is digitally distributed does not mean that it is free to use without compensation. But legislation, digital agendas and government policies for the 'digital economy' cannot be designed to ensure that film rental companies, cinema owners, publishers or others have guaranteed protection for continued operations.

The authors of the article seem to believe that the telecom industry is trying to get fiber into the ground quickly, so that it will then be free to send digital material without compensation to the creators. Of course, this is not the case. In its conversations with the government, the industry, like the authors of the article, raises the full range of issues that affect how the digital society should be regulated.

We are keen to discuss how society's regulatory framework should change. These are complex issues, and no one party has the whole answer. We - meaning government, industry and many other parties - need to discuss how to approach concepts such as privacy and copyright in relation to the changing society we live in today. We welcome the authors of the article to engage constructively, to seek in dialog the answers and approaches we all seek, rather than angrily claiming that no one wants to talk to them.

Anne-Marie Fransson
Director
IT&Telecom companies within Almega