Compensation to radio and television companies for private copying

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have spent time here in the chamber from 09.20 this morning – the time is now 14.00 – with the major topic of nuclear power and its financing. It is of course an important topic, but no less important is intellectual property. It is important in a completely different way and is perhaps no headline grabber in election campaigns.

You who have been listening with bated breath since the last debate can continue to do so, because it is very important that people in Sweden understand what intellectual property rights mean. If one does not know what it means, one can look it up.

This report consists of two parts. One part briefly involves that we are to decide on a bill regarding the inclusion of radio and television companies in the compensation scheme for private copying and that the government's right to issue regulations is clarified. The other part collects motions from the general motion period on various parts of intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property is abbreviated as IP, from the English intellectual property, and is divided into copyright and industrial property rights. Copyright provides protection for music, literature and other artistic creations, and industrial protection covers protection for technical solutions through patents, design protection and protection for trademarks and other trade identifiers.

We as private individuals come into contact with intellectual property rights daily, not least when we move in social media. Previously, we sat with our photo albums. Now we post pictures for the whole world. But many do not think about the fact that it is not obvious to publish pictures of others. One needs to get permission to do so. For the most part – perhaps in 98 percent of cases – those who are in the pictures think this is okay if one is in the same room and is asked.

Compensation to radio and television companies for private copying

Looking at the whole, the legislation is about both respect and rights.

Mr. Speaker! People make a living from their art, their music, and their performances. Historically, Sweden has produced fantastic creators: authors such as Selma Lagerlöf and Astrid Lindgren, music creators such as Benny Andersson, and artists such as Carl Larsson. And the list can be long with filmmakers, designers, and inventors. Their works have not only shaped our culture and identity, they have also created economic value, jobs, and inspiration all over the world.

Intellectual property rights can be and are of great economic importance for authors, inventors, and entrepreneurs. Therefore, throughout history, international conventions have been developed, such as the Berne Convention of 1886 for copyright and the Paris Convention of 1883 for industrial property protection and competition.

In 1994, we received the TRIPS Agreement, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. It was established within the framework of the World Trade Organization, WTO. The agreement obliges the contracting countries to maintain the standard that follows from the latest text versions of the Berne and Paris Conventions.

Within the EU, the system is supported by several central objectives. Increased harmonization of the Member States' intellectual property regulations is important to create better competition conditions for the actors within the EU and to promote the international competitiveness of EU companies. This is important legislation both nationally and internationally.

Mr. Speaker! Intellectual property is not just a technical or legal issue. It is also both an economic issue and a democratic issue. We must therefore start early. Already in primary school, children should be allowed to learn about intellectual property. But more was needed. Knowledge of intellectual property must also be a natural part of the teaching at universities and colleges, perhaps especially within technology, design, art, music, law, journalism, and entrepreneurship. That is where the innovators, creators, and entrepreneurs of the future are shaped. However, it needs to permeate the entire university world.

Our industry and our companies need people who are skilled in intellectual property and entrepreneurship who can live off their creations. They need to know how to protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker! An ever larger part of companies' value today lies in their intangible assets: their brands, inventions, technical solutions, design, and digital content. Unfortunately, many small and medium-sized enterprises in Sweden lack knowledge on how to protect these assets. It makes them vulnerable.

The Patent and Registration Office is working on this. They have been out at the universities providing information and now have good contacts with organizations, the business world, and other authorities.

In order for Sweden to be a strong nation, we need to identify, register, and commercialize intellectual property rights in a strategic way. It is therefore pleasing, Mr. Speaker, that the government has taken the initiative to gather and strengthen this area.

A special working group, the IDA group, which is an interdepartmental working group, has been appointed and has commenced its work within the Government Offices. The mission is to coordinate intellectual property rights issues and contribute to the development of a Swedish strategy for the area.

Within our country, industrial, creative, and cultural creation is central to Swedish innovation and competitiveness. We move in a world where societal challenges, rapid technological development, AI, and tough global competition prevail. Therefore, it is important that the initiative the government has now taken leads to a unified approach.

Ten departments are involved. Work is now being done horizontally between the departments to gather knowledge. This concerns the Ministry of Employment, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Everything is gathered under the Ministry of Justice.

The Minister for Justice speaks about the need to move forward the positions for Sweden. The Minister for Energy and Industry emphasizes that it is about maintaining and increasing Sweden's position as an innovation country. And the Minister for Culture calls the cultural and creative industries a new primary industry in Sweden.

It is important that all parts of society are involved. Education, entrepreneurship, research and cultural creation gather around the same goal: that intellectual property shall not be something for the few but something that carries our common future.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against the motions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

We are facing very large challenges right now in the field of intellectual property rights. The global competition is intensifying with every passing day. Therefore, we Social Democrats believe that not only was a unified grip needed, as this government is now speaking of, but also a strategic grip.

I want to be clear that I am not questioning the member's commitment to the issues. What I am questioning concerns the government's level of ambition, especially when we see how other countries are stepping up in this area.

What the business community, academia, and innovators want to see is a national strategy with concrete objectives and sufficient resources. They also want to see a broad political anchoring, which I am completely convinced that we can achieve.

It is not only we Social Democrats who say that it is not enough to appoint a working group within the Government Offices or to invite to yet another round-table discussion, as I read about in the press release that was sent out. Instead, we need a national strategy.

Iva also recently published a preliminary study, where these possibilities have been examined and a roadmap with 23 concrete proposals has been developed. There, the conclusion is clear and distinct: Sweden needs a national strategy so that we can make the best possible use of our knowledge-based assets. Does the member not share that conclusion?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Aida Birinxhiku, for the question! Yes, I share the view that we should have a national strategy. And strategy is, therefore, one of the parts that are included – that is why there are ten departments involved in the issue.

This should happen broadly. We previously had a foreign trade strategy, and that has also been taken advantage of by ensuring that it does not become one silo for one department and another silo for another department. Furthermore, one invites broadly to the round-table discussions that the member expressed a bit disparagingly about, but which I feel are very important so that one gets a broad view on this.

Fast is not always best. I can myself be very frustrated that time is passing, but I think it is important that one takes this approach and includes all these parts in order to do a job as well as possible and get as much input as possible on every area so that this hangs together.

When it comes to this, we often talk about that parts concerning education, business, or something else are missing. To get all these elements, one cannot just do as the Socialdemokraterna do – they had broad sessions there and then, mass meetings, about copyright. Instead, one sits down and meets and communicates – it is not about one-way information.

This is important, and I have great confidence that it will turn out really well.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

It was not my intention to express myself condescendingly about the working group. My intention with my speech and my question to the member, which I have repeated ever since I entered the Committee on Industry and entered into work with these issues, was to find out when this strategy can be in place – when one not only takes a collective grip but also a strategic grip, which we see happening in many other countries that we compete with in the field of intellectual property rights.

Previously, it was about a lack of underlying material. Now that Iva – it happened in April – has presented the preliminary study and submitted a roadmap with 23 concrete proposals, the government has the underlying material and the broad political anchoring. Then the government has the cheers from the business community and academia. I find it difficult to understand what it is that one is waiting for in that case.

But I will nevertheless interpret the member's answer kindly. Since the member wants to see a strategy and it seems that the government is heading towards a strategy, I cannot help but ask if this strategy will be in place before the end of the mandate period, especially against the background that Iva has actually presented this preliminary study, which can constitute a sufficient basis.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

It is exciting with the Social Democrats. When one sits in opposition, one can always do something from one day to the next. One can leave a government in Rosenbad, and the next day everything is supposed to be done that was not done in eight years.

We have pushed the issue – I have personally pushed it in opposition. Now it is moving forward, and this is being done. One takes advantage of Iva's great work with this preliminary study. One ensures that one has all the conversations with them.

When this is to be decided, I cannot give the member an answer, as I do not sit in the government. But I have good hope that this will become really good for Swedish competitiveness and innovative power moving forward, with the Moderate-led government.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Intellectual property issues rarely receive the space they deserve, even though the world economy over the last decades has begun to shift from physical to intangible assets. It is in this reality, in the modern knowledge economy, that Sweden must be at the forefront.

Today, the intellectual property-intensive industries account for over a third of all jobs and almost 40 percent of our GDP. In some industries, intangible assets constitute as much as 80 percent of the companies' value. It is about patents, trademarks, copyright, and design. It is about value creation.

Despite this, Mr. Speaker, the dominant image in Sweden is that intellectual property is only about protection and not so much about strategy. This causes us to miss the entire point. The role of intellectual property today is not just about defending ideas but about building value – through commercialization, export, and innovation.

Sweden is a strong knowledge nation, but we must become better at extracting value from that knowledge and converting it into more jobs, greater export revenues, and solutions to our societal problems, not least when it comes to the climate transition. This is absolutely crucial for our welfare, our prosperity, and our competitiveness in the modern knowledge economy.

Mr. Speaker! It is against the background of just this that we Social Democrats want to see a national innovation strategy, which I mentioned in my previous exchange of remarks, with a broad approach and an effective management of our intellectual property. It is not only we Social Democrats who want this. As I said, the business community, academia, and most recently also Iva want it. In April, Iva presented its preliminary study on the need for a strategy for intellectual property, and the conclusion was clear and distinct: We in Sweden need a national strategy so that we can take advantage of our knowledge-based assets in the best possible way.

Sweden is at the forefront. But the fact is that other countries are now running past us. They are doing it quickly and with a unified strategy in place. The global competition is intensifying. Geopolitical tensions are increasing, and climate change demands new solutions. It is no longer just about low costs, but about who can fastest develop, protect, and disseminate their ideas. Therefore, we need a national strategy for how we can manage our intangible assets, especially in light of the green and digital transition.

Many countries, from the United Kingdom to South Korea, have realized the strategic importance of these assets and therefore have developed national strategies, action plans, and fast tracks. Our neighboring countries have also taken the lead. It is simply a matter of stating: We are falling behind and must become better at extracting value from our capacity for innovation. This, Mr. Speaker, requires a concerted effort.

We Social Democrats have presented several concrete proposals that can be read about in this report and which we would like to see within the framework of such a concerted effort. We want to increase knowledge of intellectual property rights as a strategic asset, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises. It is about creating better conditions for Swedish companies to grow and compete globally.

Equally important is that knowledge increases within the university and college world and that cooperation between academia and companies is strengthened. The lack of knowledge that prevails today leads to that far too great values are lost. Therefore, we Social Democrats also want to see a national knowledge center for intellectual property, according to the Finnish model.

Furthermore, it is high time that we begin to use patent information in a systematic and strategic way.

Just as in Norway, we should conduct in-depth patent analyses every year in order to be able to accelerate innovations, analyze development trends, and simply increase the returns on our innovation initiatives. We Social Democrats also want to investigate a fast track for patents within green technology, especially as we see how the global competition is intensifying and how we need to increase the pace of the green transition.

To meet the rapid developments within AI and digitalization, we need to have a well-functioning regulatory framework in place even in the digital market. Here we see how the cultural and creative sector, which is completely fundamental to our economy and our cultural life, is currently facing major challenges. We need to ensure that the right holders' opportunities to exercise their rights are not eroded.

Finally, I want to address the growing problem of intellectual property rights infringements. Every year, Sweden loses jobs, innovations, and tax revenues due to these infringements. We are talking about billions of kronor flowing straight into organized criminal activity and being circulated illegally.

Mr. Speaker! It is against the background of this development that we Social Democrats want to see a national innovation strategy with concrete objectives, with broad political anchoring and with sufficient resources. In that case, it is not enough for the government to appoint a working group within the Government Offices or invite people to yet another round-table discussion, but we need a common vision for increased competence, competitiveness, and commercialization so that Sweden will be a leading innovation nation even in the future – even in the new geopolitical and technological reality that we find ourselves in.

We must utilize our knowledge-based assets in the best possible way, for the jobs, for the welfare, and for our future prosperity. With those words, I conclude by moving for the approval of our reservation number 13.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and for the rejection of all motions.

The Christian Democrats believe in a society built from the bottom up, by people who take responsibility, who build companies and create ideas, culture, and innovation. That is why we have always protected owners' and authors' rights to the fruits of their work.

Intellectual property rights – the right to one's own invention, one's own song, or one's own trademark – is not just law. It is a matter of freedom, a matter of justice, and a decisive issue for Sweden's capacity for innovation.

The bill on the table today, Compensation to radio and television companies for private copying, concerns a relatively narrow but important change in copyright legislation. It is primarily about fairness.

The Christian Democrats support the proposal and welcome that we are now ensuring that radio and television companies also receive the compensation they are entitled to when their works are copied for private use. It is a long-awaited change and a necessary one.

The background to the bill is clear. According to the EU copyright directive, the so-called Infosoc Directive, member states have the right to introduce exceptions to copyright for private copying, i.e., when individuals make copies of protected works for their own non-commercial use. Such an exception, however, requires that the right holders receive so-called fair compensation.

There has already been a system for private copying compensation in Sweden since the 1990s, where copyright holders such as artists, film producers, and scriptwriters receive compensation via a fee on storage media. But radio and TV companies have until now been excluded from this circle of entitled to compensation, even though their material is in practice just as exposed to private copying as other forms of works. This is a matter of order, Mr. Speaker, but also a matter of principle.

The Christian Democrats have always emphasized the importance of people receiving fair compensation for their work, whether it concerns healthcare staff, small business owners, or, as in this case, producers of content that reaches millions of viewers and listeners. Not to give these actors access to private copying compensation would be to treat them as second-class copyright actors. It is not right, and it is also not compatible with EU law.

This is also a question of equal competitive conditions. Ensuring that all types of rights holders are covered by the same system is crucial for creating predictability and fairness in the media market. We know that the media industry is under pressure, not least from digitalization, global competition, and new consumption patterns. Therefore, the legislation must be clear, consistent, and fair.

At the same time, we strengthen Sweden's compliance with the commitments that follow from the EU's regulatory framework. Increased harmonization of the Member States' intellectual property regulations is important to create better competition conditions for actors within the EU and to promote the international competitiveness of the EU and companies.

We cannot have a situation where national legislation becomes an obstacle to free movement or creates unequal conditions between the member states. By Sweden now correcting this imbalance, we create a more just and EU-compliant system where all copyright holders receive the same opportunities to be compensated when their works are used privately.

Mr. Speaker! Even though today's bill is a welcome step, important challenges remain in the field of intellectual property rights. One of the most acute concerns regards the legal certainty for small and knowledge-intensive companies, researchers, and innovators. As Sweden becomes an increasingly idea-driven and research-driven country, we also see that disputes over patents, trade secrets, and intellectual assets are becoming increasingly common. It is clear that the system is not always equipped to protect the smaller actors who struggle uphill when it comes to protecting their intellectual property rights in practice.

We see how the costs of pursuing a civil case regarding, for example, infringement of a trade secret can be so high that smaller companies simply give up. We see unreasonably long processing times, and we see that the asymmetrical conditions between small and large parties risk silencing legitimate claims. For a startup within life science, for a researcher with new technology, or for a small media company, a single legal conflict can be the difference between continued operations and closure.

The Government is following the developments closely and is prepared to review how civil law processes can become more legally secure and accessible even for small actors.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats want to see a society where work pays off, where justice prevails, and where those who build Sweden – whether it is done with a microphone or a welding torch – receive the recognition they deserve. We therefore support the government's bill and consider it a necessary step towards a more just, competitive, and EU-compliant intellectual property right.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation number 8.

Intellectual property probably appears to many as both boring and complicated, but despite this, we are all surrounded by intangible assets every day, probably without reflecting on it or even knowing about it.

Intellectual property concerns assets that are not physical. It can, for example, be inventions protected via patents, trademarks, logos or company names protected through trademark protection. It can be design and shaping protected through design protection. It can also be literary and artistic works such as books, music and film protected by copyright. All of this is assets that have a value.

The purpose of intellectual property rights is to encourage creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship by giving creators and inventors the exclusive right to decide how their works or ideas shall be used for a certain period of time.

It means that they can receive a reward for the work and the time they have invested in their invention or their brand, and that others cannot steal what belongs to them.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish people are exceptional when it comes to inventions and innovations. Sweden has, over the years, through our inventors, produced global corporations that have been crucial for Sweden's development.

We are, however, facing a challenge today that threatens Sweden's position as a leading innovation nation. Despite our rich heritage of inventions and technological progress, we risk losing ground in the global competition. A central cause of this is the deficiencies in our intellectual property system, particularly regarding the protection and defense of patents.

Part of recreating what we have lost and making Sweden a thriving industrial nation again is to facilitate new inventions, solutions, and innovations and to protect them from intellectual property infringements. Here, politics can and should take on its part.

The Sweden Democrats have highlighted these problems and proposed concrete measures to strengthen Sweden's innovative power. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to navigate the legal jungle. We therefore propose that an agency should be tasked with assisting Swedish entrepreneurs and inventors in cases of intellectual property rights infringements. This could involve advice, support, and guidance to help actors navigate the complex legal system. We also want to investigate how an insurance solution with a state guarantee could offer protection and financial support for those who end up in a dispute over their patent.

Furthermore, the Sweden Democrats propose that a cap on litigation costs in patent disputes should be introduced to help small business owners and inventors defend their rights. This is something that can otherwise cost large sums and can prevent smaller actors from taking their case to court. That is, of course, not how it should be. In 2022, the Committee on Enterprise directed a notification to the government to review processing times and litigation costs, so that even smaller actors are given the opportunity to protect their patents.

These proposals are not only desirable. They are also necessary. In a 2023 study from Chalmers, a large number of trials in 40 countries, including Sweden, were analyzed, where smaller companies participated in various legal disputes. The results showed that the small actors and their advisors lacked both experience and knowledge when it came to intellectual property rights. It is therefore crucial that we create a system where even small and medium-sized companies have the opportunity to defend their rights without risking their entire economy. We must ensure that there is a legal infrastructure that is accessible and fair for all actors, regardless of size.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot allow a lack of protection for intellectual property rights to hinder Sweden's innovative power. We must remove unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape for companies to enable new establishments and innovation. This applies to all companies – new as well as old, small as well as large – in all industries. It should not be so damn complicated.

By taking these measures, we can create a system that promotes innovation, protects inventors and ensures that Sweden remains a leading actor in research and development – from matches and wrenches, through Bluetooth, Spotify and mobile broadband and into the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I was very pleased when Member Lundberg spoke about how important it is for small businesses to be able to receive help – it is about startup companies and innovation systems – and that an agency should be tasked with helping them with this.

There is an agency today called Vinnova, which has this assignment and which, together with innovation hubs all over Sweden, has been the ones who have helped startup companies with matters concerning innovation and, above all, patents. In the hubs, one has been able to take help from other companies that have been in the same situation. One has been able to bring in experts. One has also brought in different types of mentors who have worked with the companies.

I wonder: Why have the Sweden Democrats worked to reduce the appropriations to Vinnova when they are so important in terms of working with the innovation hubs around the country?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the member for the question!

There is a plethora of different types of support from the public sector to the private business sector. There is innovation support, industrial steps, climate steps, and so on. Getting an overview of the systems and the supports, and of what effect they have, is more or less impossible.

We must make investments that actually make a real difference. As long as we do not know where the money ends up, more money is not always the solution. I believe the member and I agree that regulatory simplifications for companies will contribute to increased innovative power and also strengthen the competitiveness of Sweden's companies out in the world.

We have a history in Sweden of applying, for example, EU directives and other things coming from Brussels in a way that perhaps does not always harmonize with what companies want and need and in a way that perhaps is not always necessary either.

I believe that what is important is that we create regulatory simplifications for companies and that we protect intellectual property rights and strengthen the protection for small and medium-sized enterprises when it comes to their intellectual assets.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Angelica Lundberg, for the answer!

There are many different types of support forms. Startup companies know that industrial steps and environmental steps involve completely different sums than what they can afford. For them, it is important that there is a science park, that there is an innovation hub, and that there is an accelerator. This is particularly important in cities out in Sweden.

In Stockholm, there are usually networks that are sufficient. Even here they are important, and they are very strong. But I am thinking of the structures that have been built up over many, many years together with universities, regions and local companies in, for example, Östersund, Kalmar and Skövde. There, the environments that have been built up have become incredibly important for the continued development of these companies. It is precisely those environments that today bear witness to the fact that they have had their grants halved and therefore must remove a very large amount of their activities.

I ask the question again. If we believe that these structures are important, I wonder why the Sverigedemokraterna have chosen to undermine just those structures, which exist out in the country.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It must be remembered that the country that the Tidö parties inherited in the autumn of 2022 was a broken country with an enormous number of major problems.

It is of course important to clear away the problems one by one, and for that, investments are naturally required. We do not have an inexhaustible treasury or a money tree in the government's basement that we can use. We must ensure that the investments we make are important and real and that they have an effect.

Vinnova still has the assignment, and there is still money for it. But I believe there are other parts in this that are more important for the companies, and I believe the issue is too important for us to create a political conflict that might not be necessary. I think we should work together to find the best way for the companies. I believe we can agree on that, the member and I.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have to discuss intellectual property rights, that is to say the protection of intellectual achievements – a strong concept and a very important principle if we are to continue to have innovation in Sweden and in Europe.

Intellectual property is, in fact, to the highest degree international. It is affected by globalization and by technological development. Not least the latter has caused music, books and innovations on a large scale to be able to achieve very great international distribution.

This also applies to every single area – I have, for example, understood that the technique in beach volleyball that led Sweden to Olympic gold has now been trademarked as Swedish Jump Set. That is quite excellent. More should also be rewarded financially for the innovations and technical developments they come up with. This applies in particular to the intellectual achievements that can sometimes be difficult to define and thus also to protect.

The proposal we now have on the table is a way to both encourage and defend inventions, development, and technological innovations. Therefore, it is also quite obvious to me to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now I may have the chance to pay back some speaking time.

The committee proposes that the Riksdag adopt the government's bill on compensation to radio and television companies for private copying. The bills mean that radio and television companies are included in a compensation scheme for private copying and that the government's right to issue regulations is clarified. So far, we are in agreement.

The Committee further proposes that the Riksdag reject all motions regarding various intellectual property law issues. The Committee refers, among other things, to ongoing work, which we heard in an exchange of remarks here.

To see the differences regarding who succeeds in defending their intellectual property rights, one must however have the whole picture in front of them. To strengthen the innovative power, I believe that patents for small businesses, startup companies, and inventors need to be secured. Patent litigation is very expensive, which means that few dare to take the risk of initiating a legal process.

Among others, the European Commission and the UN's intellectual property body World Intellectual Property Organization – or WIPO, as it is abbreviated – have studied these issues. In summary, they have concluded that the rules for legal proceedings are a cornerstone of the patent system, that the distribution of costs has a fundamental significance, that the time duration until the legal outcome has great significance, and that data for comparison between different systems is lacking.

In Sweden, trials take a long time compared to similar trials in other parts of the world. I therefore believe that the government should investigate how patent rights can be strengthened and how the imbalance between the parties can be minimized during trials.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the adoption of reservation 9, which describes exactly this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a knowledge-driven economy. Our future is built on creativity, new thinking, and innovation. Therefore, intellectual property rights, even if the issue may not make the pulse race, is one of the most decisive future issues for a knowledge society – not only as protection but also as an enabler.

Today's report concerns precisely those tools that allow new ideas to become businesses, that art can be disseminated and that companies can grow in the secure knowledge that what they create is not unlawfully taken from them. But it is clear that much of today's system is built for another time. Therefore, Centerpartiet has in this report several reservations that have a common basic idea, namely that we must modernize intellectual property rights, with innovation at the center.

Mr. Speaker! Already at the turn of the millennium 25 years ago – I say this while looking at the young people sitting in the gallery – cassette tapes were practically obsolete as a primary music format in most countries. Today, hardly anyone under 25 knows what a cassette tape is.

We therefore propose that the so-called cassette tape fee, that is, the legacy from a time of just tape recorders and CDs, be abolished. It is time to move on to a system that reflects how culture is actually consumed and disseminated today. Storage media are no longer copying tools but part of a digital everyday life. The current model risks hitting both consumers and innovative companies unreasonably hard.

We also propose that the so-called panorama freedom be expanded. It must be permitted not only to photograph a public work of art but also to share the images digitally. It is not about undermining copyright but about adapting it to a reality where the boundary between the physical and the digital has blurred.

Finally, what several speakers have touched upon today is needed, that is, a unified strategy. Fragmented initiatives, point interventions, or possibly yet another working group are not enough. Sweden needs a clear, unified strategy for intellectual property rights that originates from the perspective of the innovators and creators, which takes into account new business models and which weaves together copyright, patents, data, and AI.

We have become better but are still weak at taking innovations all the way to commercialization and investment. This means that ideas born here at home all too often become companies in another country, which means that the jobs also end up in another country. It is a systemic error that we must correct, and that is where the question of patents is very important.

In order for more of the value from Swedish research and innovation to remain in the country, an innovation system that hangs together is required. The conditions for development, testing, scaling up, and business development need to be improved. It must also become easier for small companies and new innovators to understand how to protect their ideas with clear, accessible information on patents and intellectual property rights. Here, research institutions and incubators play a key role as bridges between academia and the business sector, but it requires a clear mandate, unified governance, and funding.

What we have today is like a half-finished script without a clear plot and without direction. Sweden deserves an intellectual property policy with both direction, action, and faith in the future. Therefore, we want to see a national strategy that brings together universities, the business sector, authorities, and the cultural sector with a clear mandate to take Sweden from protection to enablement, Mr. Speaker. It is not just a matter of justice, but it is also a matter of growth.

Innovation requires security, but innovation also requires movement – that we constantly ensure that legislation and regulatory frameworks keep pace as the world develops. We in Centerpartiet will always defend that balance. We believe in the power of an idea, and we know that the right intellectual property rights can be what transforms just that idea into the next Swedish global company, the next breakthrough in AI, or the next international cultural success.

I move for approval of reservation 12 under point 7.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This debate touches on somewhat different areas, and I would like to say something about copyright and AI.

AI has developed rapidly in recent years, and I am sure that many of us have seen examples of the variety of new web services that have emerged and which make AI technology available to everyone. Besides the fact that AI can write speeches and an infinite number of questions to our ministers, one can also, as a total amateur, tailor their own songs in different genres or remake their holiday photos in different artistic designs, everything from Japanese anime to Pixar-style. It is, of course, very fun, but it has already entailed and will continue to entail enormous changes and challenges, not least for the cultural sector.

In addition to questions about culture's value and function, artistic quality, ethics, and authenticity, copyright legislation is completely central in this regard. AI is trained today on large amounts of existing material, and it is difficult – not to say impossible – for copyright holders to assert their rights to the material. It is therefore about authors, visual artists, composers, musicians, actors, and filmmakers whose works and performances are exploited without them having given their consent and without the economic values created by the AI-generated works accruing to the copyright holders.

The regulatory framework we have from the EU is not sufficient in this area and places requirements on the individual copyright holder's explicit action. Until now, it has often been interpreted as being permissible to train AI on copyright-protected material without a clear no. The copyright issue must therefore be addressed both quickly and separately from other matters. Sweden needs to act, and it is urgent.

I therefore believe that the government should immediately appoint an inquiry with the aim of reviewing the legislation to secure the rights of authors and performing artists in light of the rapid AI development. The work within the EU also needs to be accelerated, and I believe that the government needs to be proactive within the EU for a review of current copyright legislation.

Many are the artists who have spent a lifetime refining their own style. This style can now be copied and spread by someone like myself during a coffee break, for example on Instagram. Hayao Miyazaki, who is behind films such as My Neighbor Totoro and Spirited Away, has said the following about AI-generated images: I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.

Compensation to radio and television companies for private copying

Mr. Speaker! I would therefore like to move for the approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation 3 in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)