google now has offices in more than 60 countries. it maintains more than one vendor 80 internet domains. under eric smith's tenure as ceo, the company launched google news, the local maps, " earth, --google earth. what is to come? and barely a decade it has made itself of global free and between coca-cola and general electric. it has created more for a faster than any company in history. and has become a verb.

eric schmidt says i do not believe society is what is happening when everything is recorded by everyone all the time. tonight's speech is also being strained live on you too. it will be read, listened to, and you'd by many more people than are and this theater and stored on servers and data bases around the world for a long time to come i am very pleased to introduce tonight's lecture work, paek executive chairman of google, the one and only eric schmidt. [applause] >> thank you.

is my microphone on? can you all hear me? yes? hyperioi. thank you. thank you all for coming, all of you. i wanted to start by saying it is great to be in scotland. many people do not know how strong the initiatives are in computer science. there are a number of companies that i am personally invested in, and i think there is every reason to believe there will be quite a renaissance here in a place that you might not have thought. i also wanted to say that's it is quite an honor to be here, especially because in my growing up i have always assumed that there were people from the media and television world and people from the scientific world that

there would be one person that would live in both worlds. i wanted to take a minute to say that i think we have just seen steve jobs step down as ceo of apple to become chairman. he was the only person i have ever known that has ever been able to actually merge the world's completely reject completely. ure that he and the company will continue to weld in the future. from my perspective, that is the perfect example of the union we should see in the future. and from my perspective again, this is the first time the lecture has been given by someone not employed and television broadcasting or production. and i am not sure whether that means the bar has been raised or lowered, but i will do my best

it is an honor to be here. as an outsider james murdoch described himself as a crazy relative everyone is embarrassed by. i wonder what he would say now. [applause] if james is the family outcast, i am not sure what that makes me. and by the cheek in the corner? and my the alien species? and by t ? am ith the android? have google toto look this step up? i am back. [laughter] it is very kind of you to think of me. i am very committed to google.

all that has changed now is that larry has the key. i promise i will stop the doctor who clips. in this case it is perhaps apps. we have a private joke that larry is from the future, which is always exciting i am often indebted to mark thompson did last year's lecture. according to him the recipe boils down to a banker, villains, and possible proposals and insults. i am not sure about the anger, but i will do my best to come up with the rest. marquez identify candidates for demonizing between the bbc and murdoch. i must say how refreshing it is that google is not on the list. i do not kid myself. i know some of you have

suspicions about google. some of you blame us for the havoc wreaked on your business is for the internet. some people accuse us of being unresponsive, and caring, or even worse. today i am going to try to set the record straight on those points and demonstrate why we should and can be optimistic together about television future, which i think we can if we work together and a little bit about might industry. and this lecture is the closest, most television people get going to church. that is what he said. [laughter] i am at tech evangelist from many years back, so i will take any excuse to preach about the internet. in less than 30 years the internet has grown from almost nothing to almost 2 billion new jersey -- users, and iris a we have a ways to go. it is available on mount

everest. half of adults in the european union use it every day. it has become such a profound part of life that for five adults worldwide regarded as a fundamental human rights. and- adultst four of fivce worldwide regard it as a fundamental human right. we thought the internet, a child growing up in a remote village is unlikely to reach their potential with little access to books or learning. without the internet people worldwide could not band together so quickly in a crisis, helping to raise the alarm and support. without the internet, repressive genes can deny their voice, making it far harder to expose corruption and wrongdoing. without the internet, europe

would lose one of the most important, literally the biggest driver of economic growth. we were looking at this. in the uk alone, the internet accounted for 7% of gdp in 2010. 100 billion pounds. big numbers. that will grow to 10% by 2015. companies to use the internet are growing four times faster than those who are not. so in short, the internet is not making inevitable change faster, it has become an engine of change itself. it has recast the way we communicate. it has transformed the way we learn and share knowledge. it is empowering people everywhere, making the world more open and fairer and prosperous. think about how far we have already come i encountered my first computer back in high school.

it reads -- it is enormous and very clunky. my phone literally but in my pocket now. i first became a programmer to relate information. today you can talk to your phone search and things like that. when i started working in computer science, we had big dreams, but the technology could not deliver it. i remember being blown away by the demo in 1968 of the experimental prototype of the mouse. we take these things for granted. it was only invented a little while ago. it was utter science fiction to imagine one day a computer might be able to respond to your facial expression or decipher the nuances of human behavior as we can today. it is literally magic. and while i am optimistic and

computer science and the internet and force is for good, i am not naive. i am an idealist without illusions. there are many challenges that we are still grappling to address. for example, how you make the world more open while respecting privacy? it is an important balance. very important to get that right. how do we should ensure technology rather than devaluing the culture around us? these are hard and important questions. why does this have anything to do with television? in 2010 it u.k. adults made as timewill -- madspend as much watching television as the internet did in one month. television is clearly winning. and on the other hand, all of us

ignore and you ignore the internet at your peril. and it is fundamental to television because it is what people want. ultimately, what people want they will get one way or the other. technologically the internet is a platform for things that traditional television cannot support. you can make it more personal, more pertinent if you will. people are clamoring for it nowhere more so than here. the team behind the bbc by as my most respect. it is now used by more than 10% of the u.k. copulation each week. it is much more advanced than anything else i have seen in the market. they just launched a european version soon to be global and that's an ipad subscription at pier ye.

while i am praising them, please get an android version soon. there are numerous catch up and on demand television services out there, including i tunes. you to now has long formed content, thanks to partners like channel for it in 2009 became the first broadcaster in the world to put their full catch-up service online. and it is the fastest-growing categories both in terms of use and revenues with more than 80 content partners. pretty good. more choice is just the beginning. it can backfire if you are not careful. just remember how it felt when you would go to the video store in the old days of renting videos.

that is what a system for recommending content is so vital. it is what channel schedulers have done since the beginning of television. traditional scheduling is sometimes one size fits all. and on line things can be vastly different. and on line through a combination of algorithms suggestions can be individual crafted to meet your needs. take into the old commit come it would be a perfect television channel -- channel, always exciting and relevant, sometimes serendipitous, surprisingly good with new ideas, but most importantly always worth your time. we have already had a glimpse of this if you take a look at netflix.

around 60% of the rentals are result of algal rhythmically generated recommendations. another example is recommendations like those who bought this also bought this. they are incredibly compelling. delivering on the promise of personalization is tricky. and both technologically and culturally. personalization requires data, and the more data, the better. the more we can compute, a better person lies result for you. as i have learned forced hand -- learned first hand, it will be a magnet for privacy fears. it is vital to strike the right balance of people feel comfortable and in control, not

disconcerted of the erie by the accuracy of suggestions. this is a new territory for your industry, and i do not want you to underestimate the challenge of this. i have talked about how the internet is transforming television choice, but there is also changes and how we watch. i remember the excitement of interactive television a few years ago. all the drama over pushing a red button. remember that? this time it is on your web through your laptop, tablets, or mobile. but most important of all, this

time it is social. for some shows, the on-line commentary that swirls around them, be it through twitter or chat forums or boggs has become are part of the experience. in think about bbc question time. how they're using twitter to engage audience. once all you could do was shout at the television. shout at the politicians. now you can tweak your grant to the entire world. -- tweet your rant to the entire world. adding a social later to television will actually increase, in my view, television viewership. it is interesting. we have data on our side, a new product called google plus. people are beginning to use it. it has been out for about a month. it has a cool feature called

hang out. you can watch a video and hang out sick in such a way that it is like being in the same room.

it can also provide a great incentive for watching it live. i do not expect television viewing to ever completely switch to the on demand. it will always be a cultural pole. i think this is obvious, but i want to say it very clearly, for some shows to watch and real time. the date is quite interesting. -- the data is quite interesting. in 201090% of broadcast television remained alive. i sense that the default mode will shift to more of the dvr type over time. try forcing a six-year-old son or grandson that has grown up on dvr to only watch live television.

it is already in homes with sky plus. it claims 20% of the viewing is time shifted. there are hints of ship if you look behind the headline figures. especially shows that appear to a younger demographic. it said more people watch the hit show online adverse television. i have not seen as high-quality show myself. despite almost every broadcast outlet showing the footage now of the royal wedding, it was lime's streamed 73 million times -- live streamed 73 million times. what are the trends to what? there are three. mobil, local, and social. already mobile search traffic on local surpasses that from desktop on some countries.

globally 4% of google maps usage is mobile. two hours of video art uploaded to you to every minute from mobile devices. soon your typical internet user will be out and about with their mobile phone or their tablet or what have you. in reflecting this, i think john rise of on-line content and services are amazing. it content is king, context is a crown. one of the most contextual signals is location. if you search for a copy from your mobile phone, what are your not looking for a with the pds entry, if you are trying to figure out where the nearest cafe is because you are thirsty. social sicknesses or another powerful driver of behavior. -- social signals are another powerful driver of behavior.

earliestt at the stages of learning how best to use social signals and other taste indicators to provide more specialized content and services. interesting. if you think this is all exciting or frightening, remember that this is just the beginning. at technological terms we are scarcely at the end of the first act of the internet. this represents a big upheaval for your industry, and i do understand that, and i am trying to be respectful of this point, because i know what it feels like. i was very much present at the birth of microcomputing. i did not get social networking as fast as i should have. if an is -- if any industry is poised to rise to the challenge, it is yours. i say this with significant conviction on this point.

your independent producers are entrepot neweir on to pay you zeal.l television has an unparalleled global reputation, including journalism, comedy, and drama. i grew up watching your stuff. i know this to be true. you cannot turn the clock back. even if you could, why would you when you have such interesting strengths. the opportunity is right for the taking. i have lots of examples. sales of digital down loads. apple has reported they have to more than 200 million customers with accounts tied to credit cards. and amazon has not released a similar number, but has to be a

similar number. thanks to the internet is far easier for content owners to sell to a global market. do not forget the u.k. is the per-capita of the e commerce country of the world. we know this very well at google. more generally, think of what -- think about what on demand a means for business models. most television channel seem to practice the drip feed to releasing content. my view is that on demand is outdated. take a look at netflix. in march it outbid the networks to stream the exclusive u.s. version of house of cards. they will do it by making episodes available in clusters rather than once per week. this is experimentation. we will learn something. we will measure it and see how

well it works. consider the way first-run errands have worked -- airings have worked. it is the first time you watch a show, in his first run to you no matter how many times it has been broadcast. you should be able to get a higher rate in that context. as television becomes more personalized, advertisement model should adjust accordingly. this requires new prophecies and affect and this is measured. to that end, google and others are investing in research to better understand how viewers are consuming television and the web across multiple platforms. in the u.k. we recently teamed up with the company to create a research panel to measure whether and television habits. there are big opportunities for

creative process sees as well. i will give you an example. recognize that there is new opportunities for come and freedoms maybe we should say, historic telling. david simon said tv is no longer an appointment, it is a lending library. interesting way of thinking about it. it helped me think it through a little differently. you know long term need to worry about your audience missing episodes, they will watch at their own pace. the content is that riders can -- writers can make more complicated stories. it is for the people who miss an episode. and now they can catch up on their own. and another example. do not underestimate the internet potential for a content

spot. to put it into context, it means video is a bloated in a month than all three major networks broadcast in the united states in 60 years. bribing members. and i am not suggesting the quality is the same i might add admits that avalanche, the next generation of creativity can be and is being found. perhaps most exciting for all are the opportunities to integrate content across multiple screens and devices. we are busy exploring this with some of our experimental applications for mobile. you can use your phone to control videos, what on a bigger screen in receive background information on each video while it plays. a number of people have

commented that more than half of television watching seems to involve having another screen next to you, a phone, computer war what have you. and -- computer or what have you. there are a number of systems that and identify it tv you are watching from an audio fingerprint and make it easy to share with your friends. let's pause and say that his magic. they can listen to the show and figure out what show you were watching. how did they do that? it is magic. another example. i am fascinated by the notion of orchestrated media. that is what they call it. in this case, the show you are watching trekkers material on your tablet or mobile synchronized with the program. you do what all the mackovic. -- you do it automatically.

let me pause and say no matter what i say, and no matter how enthusiastic i am, there will always be some that fear the internet is set to destroy everything. nothing new. almost every invention has been reinvigorated and helped the the media industry when it was first forecast to destroy us. this is very interesting. in 1920's and 1930's, the u.s. newspapers fought a fierce campaign to prevent a radio from news gathering, terrified it would drive them out of business. they lost eventually. it did not matter as newspapers retained their influence and continue to rake in profits. a year later they had a new

target. newspaper editors say i look upon them as parasites. and they should handle their own news instead of catching in -- cashing in on our experience. does that sound familiar? these were not and i google. they are from 1957. -- these were not aimed at google. again, their fears proved unfounded. what about hollywood? in 1982, jack valenti compared the vcr to the boston strangler. [laughter] pretty rough. these guys are pretty rough. the calamity that he predicted never happened. in 2005, dvd sales alone accounted for more than half of studio revenues.

shocking. the boston strangler is profitable. in fact, the dvd sustained through very tough business cycles. sumner redstone later sent home video was the bonanza that saved hollywood from bankruptcy. a decade ago jamie kellner land blasted tivo for skipping advertisements. and is now looking like dvr could be a savior as well by helping broadcast television compete in on demand world. let's take heart from the parallels. if i can say anything in historical context, it is clear to me that history shows in the face of new technology, those who adapt their business models do not just survive, prosper. and it is always a surprise for every generation. the technology advances and no

balls can progress -- preserve markets that have been passed by. just to be a little obnoxious, listen to entrepreneurs, not the lawyers if you want to revitalize your business. listen to the people who invent a new business. they see a new way of building an audience. they see a new way of monetizing, because your customers are moving. as producers and manager we have the responsibility to develop business models that work in the digital age. and as with sumner ner and vcr's i would not be surprised if you look back and say the internet is the best thing that has happened in 20 years' time, rather than the worst. i completely disagree. juppe upas and pointed out that

we are on the cost of a golden age. a vast choice made manageable by a magical guide ensuring there is something wonderful to watch every second of your waking moments. you can watch while you are sleeping, we do not care, just watch. option to lean back and set forward or chat with the community and have a social experience that people really care about -- all of that is possible now because of the invention of the underlying technology that we can all take advantage of. as i said before, i think the u.k. is primed to lead the way. the pioneering formats have gone worldwide and have become global stashes in ways that everyone here is familiar with. the uk as one to one of the most competitive commercial broadcasters, sky. i was looking at the numbers. in 2010 sky invested almost as

much in original content as channel 4 and channel five combined. they're upping the content to up to 600 million pounds in 2014. there is no doubt they were beat up formidable player in on-line revolution. they will do both. itv another example. profits are up 45% in the first half of this year. a tremendous feat. showing his courage and toughness and leadership in responding to challenge in front of them. not only is bbc is the finest public-service broadcaster, but are too weak -- arguably the most innovative and technologically advanced as well. the long-time settlement means -- think of it at the mouth- watering income stream. it is just there.

you could see it in their plan. it has a recognized and admired brands globally. imagine live streaming to that jail -- scale of audience. and it means the world in many ways is bbc's oyster. what could go wrong? everything could go wrong. and if i may be in polite, and here is the insult that mark advise i throw in, your track record is not so good in some of these cases. the u.k. is home of some many media-related inventions. you invented photography, television, computers and concept and practice. the world's first office computer was built in 1951 by lions chains of tea shop. interesting. none of the world's leading players in these fields are from the uk. that is a problem.

how can you avoid the same page for your television innovations? this is a hard question. it requires a lot of serious discussion. there is no simple fix, but i have some suggestions, and with apologies i will bring them forward. i think you need to bring art and science back together. think back to the glory days of the victorian era. it was a time when the same people who wrote poetry also built bridges. lewis carroll did not just write one of the classic heritages of all time, he was a mathematics student at oxford. i bet you did not know that? james maxwell was also a published poet. over the last century the u.k.

has stop nurturing the polygraphs. there has been addressed to the humanitarian. even worse, both sides seem to denigrate the other to use what i am told by my british friends is the local vernacular, you are either a levy or a bostoufon. i hope i did not offend one group or the other. and [laughter] to change that, you need to start with education. we need to create a children's passion for mathematics and science. in the 1980's the bbc not only broadcast for programming -- not broadcast programming for children, but put them in the homes. i was flabbergasted.

i have been working on the question about math and science education globally. how do western world compete with asia? i was flabbergasted to where that today computer science is not, as standard and u.k. schools. -- is not taught as a standard in u.k. schools. this risks throwing away your great computing heritage. at the college level u.k. needs to provide more encouragement and opportunity for people to study engineering. in the united states president obama announced a program to train 10,000 more engineers every year. i saw the other day on the apprentice's that alan sugar said engineers are no good for business. and [laughter]

okay. shall we checked a few facts here? really? i do not think we have done so badly. i just could not resist. and if the u.k. has created industries and want to drive in the joint digital future, you need people who understand all facets of it integrated in from the very beginning. take the lead from the victorians. brain engineers and your company at every level, occasionally including into the top. second, -- that was complete number one. number two, get better at growing big companies. the u.k., and this is a very well-established thing, it does

a great job at backing industries. your the world leader at it, but there is little point in getting 1000 seeds to sprout if they are left to whether or get transplanted overseas. u.k. businesses need championing to help them grow into a global powerhouse is without having to sell out. they are literally forced to sell out to foreign companies. including google i might add. if you do not address this, the u.k. will continue to be where inventions are born and not bred for a long-term success. thank you for your innovation, thank you for your bill yet ideas. you are not fully taking advantage of them on a global stage. and i would say you have to figure out a way to get smarter about the divide between the public and commercial sectors to get the most out of your public- sector innovations. i talk to you earlier about the oiplayer.

it is a great product. there was a project called project kindle route to do this, which looked great. despite several valiant attempts, clever lobbying resulted in it being blocked, seemingly on the basis it would be too successful. [laughter] it does not make sense. why don't we start from the principle that we will have really successful products, right? there is a product that is coming along that goes by the name you view, which looks good to me, but even if it meets the revised table of 2012, you will love still thrown away several years while -- while the u.k. could happen and believe. that is a lifetime. a complete life time in my world. since we are in a critical mood, a lease for this moment, it is

is as good a time to look at the criticisms leveled by google. that would be us. one that i faced a lot is we're big, scary, and try to take over the world. it takes many forms. i love these. in january, luke johnson claimed "just as rockefeller's standard oil was an oppressive and a price that became so powerful and had to be broken up for the public good, so i believe that google must be seriously tackled in the natural interest." we're currently the subject of anti-trust investments in the united states and europe. obviously i do not share these views, that should be clear, and i respect their should be a debate about it and so forth, it is only natural with success comes from t. that said, it is hard not to

perceive an undercurrent of protectionism in some of these attacks. here is the other side. john singleton put it "while lots of people have talked less about harm to competitors, nobody has articulated to less harm to consumers, and that is the key." i would argue to use that consumers are the one they're in the driver's seat. all we're doing is hitching a ride in the door is open to anyone. i think the internet brings the consumer to the floor in a way we have not seen in industries before. online, as you know, competition is a click away. it is very easy for people to come, sample, and move. if you do not get it right, they move a very fast. who knows where the new start- ups will join the fray. what we are doing is we have a

survival strategy, which is to place big bets on technology trends. it does sound risky, that -- but given the rate of change, we think it is the only logical result. when we were small, we did not have the capital to place big bets. and out of access to more capital and we need to place bigger bets to a anticipate what consumers really want over the next few years. not every but will succeed, but it is safer to aim to-two low. to aim for game-gauging progress than to pedal at the margins. it is better to fail fast than to learn from -- and learn from mistakes then spend years in planning and end up a mile off the pace. imagine working in a company where everything changes every day, and indeed they are. it is possible with a focus our

brown continued innovation to drive change at that speed. unfortunately, one of the down sides of this approach is it can be quite destructive. at times we have inadvertently made things worse by sharing our delight in of -- and innovations without appreciating the discomfort we are caused, and for that, i apologize. we could have handled those things better, and i am really sorry about it. i do not think we will ever stop at some level ruffling feathers. i think it is a product of innovation. i do think we are sufficiently engaged in conversations today and tomorrow to be sensitive to everyone's concerns and be more responsive -- be more responsive and a fundamental way i was thinking of an example, and google t b is an example. this past year we launched it in the u.s.

everyone feared we work competing with brought past content. our intent was opposite. we were providing an open platform for the next generation of tv to evolves in the same way that just as smartphones sparked a new era of innovation, we think that google television can do the same thing for television, creating value for all. it is a platform that's combines the brown the and web world with deep, wonderful things that broadcast can already do. we expect this to launch in erakat next year and the u.k. will be within our top priority list for obvious reasons let me take you to the second criticism that is thrown at us. we sometimes are accused of

living on the back of others content, from michael gray to rupert murdoch, and the duncan. they have said, "google takes more ad revenue out of the makes. -- u.k. than itv it is not put back into the companies in the uk." some suggest that google should invest directly to content. that reflects a misunderstanding of what googlers, who we are, and what we're capable of. we provided a platform for people to engage in contact automated software. we show add that they have chosen to put up, but we have neither the ambition or the know-how to produce content in a large scale. can you imagine what would imagine a to put us in charge of programming? strange looking viroid videos,

we're looking callable things. what you do is hard and we are not good at it. let us be clear. there's no confusion. we are not good at this. we are good at other things. instead, what we want to do is help to fund content. we shared more than $6 billion with publishing partners worldwide and we have been investing in deep relationships with channels four and five to provide these services on youtube. what is happening instead is that we have a growing audience and online revenue, and these enhance rather than cannibalize existing viewers. we also won best in a variety of other ways that also benefit television, and the industry. this is an aside, but it is worth noting. over the years, we have invested billions of dollars with a

direct benefit to the content owners to. when a u.k. user clicks for access, we do not force their isp to send it here and back. we have built datacenter is to help them catch content locally and we help things happen faster. in a world where speed is everything, that gives your content and edge. do not underestimate the money and brain power that goes into creating and maintaining our software -- are software platforms. we employ thousands of the world's best engineers. search is one of the great intellectual challenges of our time. last year, we passed it over 20,000 improvements and launched -- even we do not get it right. we do testing, testing and testing. the most disturbing tstatistic

is that 15% of the query's begins each day we have never seen before. at our scale and around the globe, that shows you how hard this is. we have an army of spammers trying to gain results for one way or another. google r&d spending last year and a group larger than any other company worldwide. who benefits from this? users get a better search tool and content owners have website sutter better able to be found. there are some exceptions. we do also found groundbreaking content and i am proud of these examples. sometimes, you have to build and people have to see it for themselves. one example is life in a day, a unique experiment in social filmmaking in the goal was to

show a potential of youtuber as a commission in platform by a creating an entire feature- length fell and we had 80,000 contributors sharing powers of the footage into a two hour film. it was premiered at sundance in january to rave reviews in got picked for a theatrical release. it can work. we're trying to show the way. is an experiment and it is entirely different to do this professionally on a scale of. we will never be in your league with commissioning and crating content. it is not in our skill set or business. we do care about great content. our strength is in developing platforms, and we are under no illusion that great content makes them useful. we want to support content industries as they embrace

online media. we want to have prototypes, which is one way we can help. more broadly, and we are investing in initiatives to equip the next-generation to push digital boundaries. that had one contest promise of youtube talent training and seed funding. in a similar vein, i am delighted to announce we are partnering with the u.k. national film and television school to help the young filmmakers never eworld a view to. is la the world's most successful film schools, and i expect a few of you are graduates from these programs as well as in hollywood couple. starting in january, we will be investing to support an on-line module as a part of that curriculum, so we are always on the lookout for more of these

ideas, but ultimately, the bulk of our investment should focus not on creating content but rather on the platforms. you guys to the content and we will figure not a way to jointly make money and have distribution. for us, a platform that has distribution of 2 billion people free of charge is a pretty good goal. that is where our strength supply and we can make the biggest contribution to the television industry's future. i want to talk finally about context with the issue that has generated some of the most vitriolic criticism of google and in general which has to do with copyright, which we care about. viacom sued us over the seat few years ago and they alleged that "google made a deliberate calculated business decision to benefit from a copyright infringement. and disney said a serving of

pirate sites is something that we find unacceptable. i want to respond very clearly by saying the and we respect copyrighted we have taken steps to prevents, for example, searching on a complete which leads to copyright infringing links. we have made it easier for them to report violations and we are rolling out a system to act on a credible take down requests to remove sites for more index within 24 hours which is faster than any other web service in uk. the good news is that our our response time for its removal is four hours. pretty good given the scale we have things coming out bad. i would hazard a guess that by now most of you have used youtube as a promotional tool. the power is well proven not the

least by viacom who founded so helpful that they could not stop loading clips while they were suing us. it's important to understand, youtube is a platform. it isn't practically possible for us to exercise editorial control in the way a tv channel can. if youtube had to pre-vet every new video -- 48 hours every minute -- it simply couldn't exist. much of what you see on the internet would not be able to exist. we have thought about this for awhile. so instead, we've worked hard to find technology solutions to give rights holders control over their content, including ways of making money from it. the centerpiece of this is the content id system, which cost $30 million and took more than 50,000 engineering hours to develop. not a trivial amount of

investment on our part. the way content id works is simple. you send us a copy of the video content you own and want to protect. our system then sifts through the giant pile of videos on youtube looking for anything that shares the same fingerprint. if a match is found we take whatever action you choose. a few companies want violations taken down immediately, but most prefer to leave it up and sell ads against it. hundreds of content owners are now making substantial sums from their share of ad revenues on youtube. speaking of revenue leads me to

another accusation, that google wants all content to be free. that's not the case. we're agnostic when it comes to whether free or paid content models are best. it's up to content owners to decide if they want to charge, and it's up to users to decide if they want to pay. all we want is for content to be accessible to as many people as possible, but that does not mean it has to be free. this isn't just rhetoric. we've built a range of tools to help businesses control and earn money from their content online. earlier this year we launched one pass, a tool that helps

publishers erect a paywall for their content. we're experimenting with pay- per-view and other transactional models on youtube, such as "click to buy" links. and of course, google advertising is the ultimate tool for content owners to monetise their work. that's enough about google. i hope i've made my point clear. we're not your enemy, and we want to help. we don't have all the answers, but we do have insights into where things are headed. we want to work together and support you in the transition. by now you're probably wondering who i'm going to single out as the bogeyman. for me, no-one has yet filled that role, although i suggest you keep a close eye on your regulators. the uk's creative and

broadcasting industries have done remarkably well so far, punching way above their weight. home audiences seem broadly happy with what they're getting. innovation in content and delivery is strong. whether this has happened because -- or in spite of -- the uk's broadcasting regulation i'll leave for you to judge. but the world is changing. tv is no longer purely a domestic affair. online, any broadcaster can have global reach. playing to this wider audience needs a new mindset, particularly when it comes to laws and regulation. overall, british television is subject to far more stringent regulation than its counterpart in the us. this means less flexibility and scope for uk companies seeking to compete on the global stage. even though much of europe is worse off still, that's

irrelevant because your main tv competition -- through shared language and similarities in culture, is from across the atlantic. i'm not suggesting the uk should mirror us-style regulation. us tv has problems of its own! and i know it may sound counterintuitive to call for lighter regulation when the uk has just been through the hacking scandal, but hear me out. it's no exaggeration to say decisions made in the next year will determine the long-term health of your broadcasting and content industries for decades to come. if economic growth is the priority of the government your regulators need to be cautious when making new laws in this space, or risk stifling the growth of your content businesses. if you want my opinion, here are some suggestions.

first, the government should put innovation front and centre of their regulatory strategy. tv is going global and transforming in form. this new era, where innovation and speed are paramount, has parallels to the internet. to compete on the world stage, your content businesses need the freedom and legal framework to behave more like internet companies. the starting point for every new piece of legislation should not be "how do we regulate thi"" but "how do we protect the space needed for innovation." again, listen to the entrepreneurs, not the lawyers, if you want innovation to thrive.

the recent hargreaves review of copyright law in the uk is a good example of how you could make some relatively small changes to create the space for new innovation. putting a little more flexibility into copyright law -- without undermining the business of content creators or giving away people's content -- would enable new businesses to spring up, adding an estimated 8 billion pounds to the uk economy. as a direct corollary, i'd urge you to cut back on the micro- regulation that broadcasters face. i appreciate that runs counter to the public mood, but there is nothing more stifling to innovation than having to jump through endless hoops. just imagine if facebook had to endure regulation like you face in tv. there'd have to be separate facebooks for each region. staff would need to be spread out. salford would be an engineering hub. there'd be rulings to enforce diversity of wall posts, with quotas for religion and

education. and you could forget about poking before the watershed. i could go on, but i think you get the point. one of the most egregious areas is the micro-regulation around tv advertising. your advertising industry is world leading. it is the lifeblood of the broadcasting industry -- except the bbc -- and yet doesn't get championed by policy makers. in fact, the opposite. take the investigation into tv ad trading. in today's tough climate, with ever more competition for each marketing dollar, it seems the right time to make things easier for ad-funded broadcasters by, for example, removing market- distorting constraints like the crr rules that so straight jacket itv. a similar principle applies when it comes to the use of

data, both in advertising and content distribution. sensible data protection rules are needed that reflect the realities of the digital age. of course, there are lots of issues around privacy which must be taken into account. user concerns need to be respected and addressed. but it's important not to overreact and prevent those who wish to share data and receive a personalized service from doing so. by the way, this applies not just at the uk level. europe as a whole needs sensible data protection laws to ensure, when people willingly share their data, that it can be shared across national boundaries. right now, it's the internet sector at the forefront of the data debate, but as tv spreads its wings online, it won't be

long before you'll join us in the fray. we have a lot of experience in this so far. based on our experience so far, i believe the key to any solution is to be transparent with people about what data is collected and why, and give them the tools to control it. they are, after all, the customer. on a broader note, it's vital we keep the internet open. openness is a prerequisite for innovation. no-one should have to ask permission to launch a new product online. the more attempts to curtail the internet's openness, the harder it is for tomorrow's larry and sergeys to become a success. it is good for google, a to think about it, because we are

already online. it is not good for the ecosystem. if the ecosystem makes us stronger, the adoption of this new technology, all of the new content and innovation, at all requires openness. to be clear, i'm not suggesting a completely laissez faire approach is appropriate. alongside the internet's benefits, there is content and behavior none of us want to encourage. from copyright infringement to phishing scams to sexual abuse imagery, none of this is good. we obviously do not endorse it, but when legislators try to figure out how to minimize the harm of online content, technology solutions rather than laws should be their first thought. give us an opportunity, as we did with content side beat -- id, to come up with an idea. stifling the internet, whether by filtering or blocking or just plain turning the off switch, appeals to policy makers the world over.

that nasty internet. ill just turn that off. i don't blame them for wanting to apply what seems, in theory, the simplest solution. the problem is things are far more complicated in practice. for every isp filter there's a work-around. for every blacklist there's a proxy server. and for every well-meaning attempt to limit the bad stuff there is good stuff that gets knocked out, too. instead, policy makers should work with the grain of the internet rather than against it. harness the huge levels of user engagement we have online to find solutions. encourage online innovators to find new ways for parents to protect their kids. work with the internet rather than against it. it makes sense, right? a good example is youtube's community guidelines, setting

rules for youtube content that go further than the law and enable users themselves to identify content that's inappropriate and have it taken down. working with the grain of the internet rather than against it. allowing the sharing of online data. and ensuring laws allow innovation to flourish. three big principles that -- i think -- could help the uk's television industry to succeed globally. to conclude, let me thank you once again for the opportunity to speak today. if you'd told me 10 years ago that an engineer like me would one day deliver the uk's highest tv industry lecture, i'd have never believed it. perhaps there's a lesson in that. the computing and creative industries are both on remarkable journeys. sometimes our paths will intertwine where you least expect. sometimes there'll be potholes and false starts. sometimes -- i hope -- there'll be stunning shared success. to be clear, in this journey google seeks to be your partner, we are trying to invent

and we are not your foe. the opportunities are vast, and british television is uniquely well-placed to take them, if we work together. so think big, think global, and think beyond the tv box. don't hold back from the journey. thank you for listening, and i hope we bump into each other more often as we travel ahead. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> eric schmidt, ladies and gentlemen. the white house briefing in just over half an hour. live coverage on c-span. looking at the challenges of securing the u.s. it infrastructure system in the final part of our system on cyber security. you can watch "booktv" in prime- time all this week. henry kissinger will talk about his book "on china." looking at the first world war and the debate between pacifists and supporters. and then microsoft co-founder paul allen on his recent book,

"idea man." "booktv" in prime time. >> he but political reporters are saying and track the latest contributions with c-span's web site for 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter peace and facebook updates, can it biographies, and the latest polling data. all on c-span.org/campaign2012. >> today's white house briefing in about 30 minutes at 2:00 p.m. eastern. until then, a discussion on social issues in the 2012 campaign from today's "washington journal." host: janice crouse is with the concerned women of america. good morning. good morning,:

bby. we are the largest women's public policy organization. we represent more than 500,000 women across the united states, and we have leaders in 43 states, and we have wom who are part of action teams in every single state. we are very much of a grass- roots organization, very concerned about the issues that face this country. that is who we are. we have headquarters in the u.s., the state capital, the nation's capital, at the corner of 15th and k. host: and you are a conservative organization. guest: we are conservative,ro- life, pro-marriage, pro-family. host: how do you pick issues and which side to get on? guest: we have the six core issues that govern what we address, because we cannot address everything. those are the things we focus

on. as i said, we are grass-roots organization, and that is kind of unusual, actually, for washington, d.c. so many organizations just have a national headquarters here, and that staff handles everything. as i said, we have the state leaders unfair action teams in every single state. -- and fair action team had every single state. we think our strength is as an organization, because they are at the local level and they care very deeply about the issues. they meet together, they pray, and they anct. they adopt a legislative or and they work on petitions, they call legislative hours, state governoment, and if we ask them to, they can shut down phones at the state capitol and the white house. host: you mentioned the six issues. guest: education, sanctity of

life, pornograp, sovereignty. those are broad categories, but it is safe to say we are pro- life, definitely pro-family, pro-marriage. host: here are the nbers to call if you would like to speak with janice crouse. which of the presideial candidates in the emerging field at this point is most in line with your values? guest: we don't endorse, generally. we've never endorsed a presidential candidate. we do have a pac and that group does indoors local candidates and state leaders as well as federal lands. but in general, we don't. we will see if we do this year. there are some very good candidates. we do talk about the issues, though, and we talk about them in the context of the various

people who are running for ofce -- host: can you give us a sense of who has values you feel comfortable with? gues i number of them do it almost all of them have some aspect of our issues that they emphasize. it is a very good pac. we are very pleased with the candidates who are running this year. we obviously are very evangelical. we are bible-based. we are very concerned about the personal faith of the candidates. we are very concerned about how that works out in their lives, if that is an authentic faith or just eight rhetorical or political faith. those are things we are concerned about, those are things we evaluate. obviously, we are not fans of barack obama because of his policies that he has put into place. we very much opposed obamacare. we are very opposed to the expansion of government that has happened during the short term that he served.

we are very concerned about all of the debt and deficit. those are issues that will be very much at the forefront as we face 2012. host: as aoman's organization, is it significant to see women candidates? is there a week or party you would give to someone like representative michele bachmann or former governors sarah palin because they are women? guest: no, we are the wome's organization that like cement. the are very thrilled to see rah palin and -- thathe women's organization that likes men. obviously, we are very thrilled to see sarah palin and michelle bachmann. it is very exciting to see two women who are conservative, people who embrace our values, our front runner candidates this year. of course, sarah palin has not declared, i am aware o that, but she is amongst the candidates. we are very pleased. host: do you think she is going

to get in the race? guest: it seems to me that it has been a long time. she has let a lot of people get a lot of ground on her at this point. but i cannot imagine her sitting it out, actually. she has done so many things that are typical of a candid it, that you say, why is she doing that if she is not going to be a candidate? but she has a lot of other things going for, a lot of personal things going on in her life, so we shall see to it that is what i really like about sarah palin and michele bachmann. they are women who face the same kinds of things you an idea. they have a personal life and personal responsibilities -- that you and i do. they have a personal life and responsibilities that they need to balance with their career, they have done a good job doing that, maintaining their femininity and charm at the same time assuming difficult responsibilities. host: canton, ohio. nancy is an independent caller.

caller: oh, hi. i am very critical of the concerned women of america. ho: how come? caller: they have a bigoted views on to their religion. anti-mormon and anti-catholic. cayou be honest about this? guest: hi, nancy. thank you for calling. is concerned women for america. it is interesting that you fraser question that way. we are very strong evangelical christians, and we have a number of catholics who are among our constituency. even some of our leaders are catholic. that is just an erroneous critism. when you say we are against things, we have not spoken out against any other faith. we have taken our faith very seriously and we tried to be authentic with our faith but we're not about criticizing other faiths.

we are very strong biblically and we take that seriously and we take that stance very strongly. we are not aboutunning down other people and other people's religions. we are about standing for our own. that is what america iall about. we believe in freedom of religion, and that is one of our six core values, religious berty. obviously, other faiths have the opportunity to express their views and that is their responsibility. it is not our responsibility to defend them. we work with mormons on the issue of family at the u.n. and other arenas. we are very cooperative with other faiths. but we do stand very firmly in our own corner and for our own faith and let that speak for itself. host: ruth is a democratic caller and madison, ohio. caller: i wanted also ask the

same question. she sounds like a very religious group. they sound as though they are definitely interested in promoting religion. i am very interested to know what their political affiliation is, because everything she has said has been a very conservative and sounds very much like it would be a republican party agenda. host: all right, let's get a response t. caller: hi, ruth. my mother's name is ruth so i like your name. we are a strong religious group. we are unapologetically biblical in our views. when it comes to political affiliation, we are not a political organization. obviously, we deal with political issues, but we deal with them from the perspective that everybody in america has an opinion about issues, and we fight for the issues that we are concerned about and that are part of our mission. that is what america's all about, as i said with the

previous caller. when you have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, we exercise those freedoms in standing for the issues thaare the mission of our organization. and we do that unapologetically, because we have that right and that is who we are, that is what ou constituents belong to. but we are not partisan organization. we work with democrats and republicans onhe hill, we lobby those who agree with us and those who oppose us. we have a reputation for honesty and straightforwardness on the hill, even amongst those who disagree with us. some of our best friends on the hill are people who disagree with us, becse they no they can trust the data at we have. we have in our whole history, since i've been there 12 years, never had to any statement we made -- never had

to retract any atement we made. we are proud of th work we do, and the people who work with us are very comfortable working with us because they know who we are and they know who we -- where we come from. we are unapologetic about that, but we work with everybody and we feel very straightforwardly and honestly with our issues. you know where we stand and that is not better question. host: question on twitter. guest: president obama says he's a question and we don't believe that questioning what people say about their beliefs -- says he's a christian and we all believe in questioning what ople say about their belief -- spiritdon't -- don't believe in questioning what people say about their beliefs. we believe i am looking at people's lives and see if they're putting action behind the words and whether their

attitudes and values reflect their beliefs. those are the things that we use as criteria. but we don't judge people. that is god's provin, not our province. we stand for what we believe and let the chips fall where they may in other instances. host: janice crouse is with the concerned women for america. she also served as president of crouse communications and was associate vice president of academic affairs at taylor university. she was a speechwriter during the bush administration, official delegate to the united nations during 2002 and 2003, and also an author. her books include "let's go to , independent line. caller: your group was

conservative and pro-family. the ideas the to those tt are conservative are against family -- this rhetoric disingenuous. can you explain it? >> we are per-family. we are stating who we are and what our priorities are. we work strongly to strengthen the family. we believe the family is the unit indicative of a strong society. you cannot have a strong democracy without a strong family. we enable communities to be strong. that is a poor -- a core value for us we believe i the family and work to strengthen the family. our position is very clear. the best way to raise children is a mom and dad family.

any other according to the urban institute falls very short in significant ways. there are predictable risks that comer from raising children in any other family type. we are unapologetically -- with the stance that we take. i do not see that as being biased or contradictory. we are very clear about who we are. we have a very solid social science data behind the scenes as we take. host: can you give us an example of an ganization or religious group that has different priorities that have a different belief in christianity or religion? can you relate to them on that level?

guest: i cannot thinkf one off of the top of my head. there are plenty of wonderful organizations tt are centered onecular values. those values are very admirable. they happen to be based in judeo-christian ethics. many of those that are secular organizations are also basing their values on that same judeo- christian foundation. even though they do not necessarily believe the bible or believe in the same way that we do, they base their values on the same principles that we do. host: so much of the discussion is take a stun the economy. what about economic and social issues that your group is very ?ncerned about the ta

? guest: we have had many articles about this. the debt and deficits racked up during this administration. we did a paper on the president's health-care plan and on the debt and deficit. these are reports that are on our website. your listeners can go to them and find them. we are very involved, because we believe the economic situation that we face as a nation right now is undermining the family and all of the things that we as an organization feel that are part and parcel. we look at why the united states

is looked at as a leader in democracy and freedom from all around the world. host: carl from north caroline, a, welcome. caller: i have a suggestion for your core values. how about we elect one senator and one congressman per state? it would force them to work together. it would force by partisanship. we need to get rid of the mental waste, eliminated by 50%. what is your opinion on that and how would your organization feel about something like that? guest: we totally agree with you about the waste into the governnt expansion. it is something we have been addressing for the last few months. it is a top priority for us.

we have been working very strenuously, that issue. we believe that it does undermine the very basic foundation of this country. we cannot continue with the levels of debt in the government expansion that we haven't the current time. it is a burden that we cannot pass along. morally, it is reprehensible to pass that kind of burden on to our kids and grandkids. this is outrageous. our organization has been very involved with that issue and we have lobbied on capitol hill. we will continue to do so. we have hearings on capitol hill where we have release papers critical on the debt and deficit. i encourage you to go to our web site and a look at those papers. it gives an overview of the problem and some solutions we think he would be -- you would approve of. host: next call from louisiana.

caller: two qstions. initially there is an organization that the justice women, but the more you speak, it sounds more political. you say you are against abortion. there areany that are against abortion. what do you do to support that stand, other than tell the mother to just say no? the other question. he speak very clearly about your support about president obama and the amount of debt that he has incurred, but the country has incurred during this time. you were with bush, i am not sure if it is one or two. he got the country into two

wars. could you addre the debt at that time? guest: we addressed the debt in terms of government expansion. we did not oppose the wars. we felt as did the democrats in congress that it was an effort that the whole country should unite behind. in terms of abortion, we have been one of the groups at the forefront if not the group at the forefront of fighting abortion. we fight it not only on the political level at the nation's capital, but that is who we are. we are an organization here in the nation's capital to have impact politically on the issues that are concerning the women at the grass-roots level. we are unapologetic about going to capol hill and the lobbying about the issues we are concerned about. we have them at the forefront in making sure the laws are as

favorable to deserving life as we can possibly make them. we dohat by looking at the language. we steady every single bill that has anything to do with abortion, to make sure that we make as much progress as we can in preseing life not just at the federal level but at the state lel as well. that is our top priority, when it comes to those six core issues that i mentioned earlier. life is at the top of those. it brings peace to the laws that we endorse. ont: let's get to statistics abortion in united states. 750,000 when roe vs. wade was passed. 1.4 million. it grows over the next decade and then started to disk -- decrease.

now at 1.2 million in 2008. why have the number of abortions in the teen pregnancies have been decreasing? guest: i think technology has a lot to do with it. so many young people have seen sonograms. you really can see that that is a baby that is to be born. there is no way that people looking at those sonograms on facebook in the private pictures that people sent via e-mail. everybody has seen them. i think that has changed public opinion dramatically. a second thing that i think really has had an impact on young people in particular is so many young girls have seen what has happened to their friends. they have seen girls that felt they were in love with some guy, who, the minute they got pregnant, the guy was forcing them to have an abortion. they have seen the heartbreak, the physical problems that some

have after abortions. it is a very traumatic experience for many of the young nurse -- young girls today and at the college level. i think that has had a dramatic impact on changing young people's views. yen people today are f more conservative than the parents are. we are seeing the attitude change has taken place. i would like to think that we have been a part of that as well. we have helped to pass laws to require parental appval or notification. we have helped to expose instances where schools have been willing to drive kids to get an abortion when parents did not know it. being diligent about those kinds of things i think has made a difference as well. many young people have abortions from fear or coercion more than a desire to not have that baby.

thoselet's look at numbers on teen birth rates. we get this data from the center for disease control. back in 1991, 62 per 1000 women. in 2007, 43 per 1000 women. the following year, 42. in 2009, down 39 per 1000 men. guest: it is amazing in so gratifying. that is one of the encouraging things when you look at culture today. are down.nancies and c i think they are wising up and learning from what is in the culture, some of the bill -- biblical principals really do work as parameters for life. i think a lot of teams are

getting a long-range view of life, not just in the pleasure right now, but to pursed own pleasure and a look at -- postpone pleasure and a look at what they have in the future. to have a long-term view of their future and prepare for that future, instead of wasting time on things that really destroy their potential and limited their future. host: daughter of sarah palin has been a paid spokesperson encouraging teenage abstinence. she has said that abstinence is not necessaly realistic for all teenagers. guest: that is one opinion. host: is there more need for education on contraception? gut: i do not know a single teenager that does not know about contraception. there are birth control clinics

on almost every corner. that is not the problem. i think teenagers need to hear a clear message that if they want a bright future, they needed to delay sexual activity until they are married, not just until they are older. they need a clear message that this short circuits their future. they need to learn self control. they respond when you tell them you are not a victim of your hormones. many say they are driven by their hormones. they need to learn self discipline just like you and i need to learn self discipline. it is not impossible. there are thousands of young people that have been abstinent until marriage. it benefited them. we have such wonderful examples of people that have exercise self control and have a focused on training for the future. they are some of our most productive citizens and some of

our happiest citizens. host: mississippi, republican line. caller: a ninth -- i am kind of nervous so bear with me. i am a republican, but i lived in a state that is under the civil rights voting act. i have to announce whether i am a democrat or republican. it eliminates me for voting for conservative democrats. when i am looking atolitics, i am looking at their view on abortion first, then on gay rights, and then down the line. to me, you cannot be a christian and a support abortion or be a christian and support all of the stuff on gay-rights. can it is clear in the bible about all of them. the bible, if you will read it,

responsibility and on up. i also truly believe anybody that believes in evolution cannot be a christian. guest: thanks fo the call and your firm convictions. one of the things i really li is to see people who know where they stand and tak that stand unapologetically. thank you for that. at concerned women for america, we take strong positions on issues and let the chips fall. we do not condemn other people. we walked a fine line for fighting for what we believe in and working to make sure that the things we believe should be in the laws of this country. we lobby for them on capitol hill. we think that is our

responsibility as citizens and christians. we stand a very firm on the issues that you talked about. we tried to do that without trying to condemn other people and without taking stances that would be fensive. we try to walk t fine line and be strong about our own personal beliefs and be unwavering on those beliefs. thank you for calling. we stand with you on those issues. host: on twitter, you are asked to comment on the statement of beingle be bachmann submissive to her husband. guest: i agree with her. the bible is very clear.

women are to be submissive to their husband. it does not say that women should be submissive to oer men. i do not see this as a problem for her. this is her belief and my belief and that of most christian women. one thing most people forget is that the bible is very clear that a man should be willing to die for his wife. the command is for both the has been in the wife. the husband is to be submissive to the wife as well. a lot of people seem to forget that. submission is not a painful and. when you love each other and you are committed to each other, it means to be willing to sacrifice for that other person and work with that other person to find a common solution that is best for your family, and before you as a couple. submission is not a big burden

that so many people think of it as. it is a way a couple can become one together and start to think alike and work together to raise their children. people who have seen children play one parent against another, know what submission is all about. you have to stand united as a couple. there are certain circumstances where the wives opinion should prevail. if she has better judgment than her husband on a certain issue -- but the argument from the bible is about attitude. it is about willingness to be subservient or a willingness to will to another person. it is very ugly when you say a woman or a man that is dictatorial or oppressive of another person. the bible very clear about that.

submission does not an dictatorial. host: bachmann jokingly talked about the hurricane and the earthquake as an act of god. it is as displeasure for what washington is doing. what did the make of that? guest: i did not see it. i heard one person from north carolina that said jokingly that this is god is a way of cleaning of the earth. know what michele meant by her statement. i do not like people blaming god for acts of nature. he is all powerful and he could

choose to stop it. i think it is counterproductive to second-guess these kinds of things. i would not agree that it is an act of god. wherelet's go to new york nick is on our independent line. caller: bear with me. thanks for c-span. it is fascinating how your guests is able to pervert the english language. terms like pro-life, pro- marriage, prade family. pro-family. how can they be this when you would deny to women the right to control their own right to marry or what to do with their own body.

do deny contraception in africa, which is what a lot of our foign aid goes to. i respect the audacity of her organization to choose whether or not a woman should have an abortion or not without knowledge. i have more to say, but i want to keep it short. guest: it is a two way street. we have a very strong views. we are very for life, marriage, family. obviously, you are not. you view that in a different way. we respect your right to do that. i hope you respect our right to take our stance just as strongly as you do. as you do.