As I said, I think we have to be very modest in our belief that copyright is the tool to ensure adequate remuneration for artists. We have tried it for 300 years. We keep trying again and again, and still we're not there yet. When you start thinking about it systematically, maybe there are reasons we are not there yet and reasons that copyright makes things even worse for the creators while benefiting other sides of the industry.
There is no silver bullet here. There are certain things. Part of it for creators is that when industry is more competitive and publishers have to compete in order to attract authors, they tend to pay more for authors. When the industry on the publisher or producer side is less competitive, they have much more market power vis-à-vis the authors. We have seen a huge increase in concentration in a lot of creative industries to a really high level. That's something that, again, if you're serious about that, we might be able to do.
There's also a great book by economist Joel Waldfogel that just came out. He's an economist from Minnesota. He describes how we actually are experiencing a golden age of creativity. There is much more production going on all across all areas of creative output. We are seeing more work and better work. In his explanation, that's first the result of how digitization reduced the cost of creation in many areas, but it also opened up new markets and created many more avenues to distribute and to exploit works, which also created many more entrants in the market. There's more competition. It affects the established content producers, the established big media companies. More competition is not good for them, but it actually tends to be very good for authors and writers and screenwriters, because they have many more opportunities to contract than they had before.
We see a lot of lobbying against that from the incumbent telcos and so on, because they want to preserve their existing hold on the market, but that's not necessarily helping creators—quite the contrary.