Private copying levy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns private copying compensation and how the system should be adapted to the digital reality. SD wants that authors receive reasonable compensation without consumers paying multiple times for the same content 1. S wants the compensation to be broader for more rights holders and requests a national strategy 2. M wants legally secure legislation that promotes innovation and protects creative work 3. V wants photographic images to be included and that the compensation is not lowered 4. KD wants a technology-neutral model that balances rights 5. C considers the system to be an extra tax that hinders innovation 6. L considers compensation to be fundamental for cultural prosperity 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Angelica Lundberg (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are now considering the Committee on Industry's report NU23 on private copying compensation. What, then, is private copying compensation? Not everyone surely knows that we already today pay a fee for this when purchasing mobile phones and other storage devices.
The fee is usually called the cassette tape fee. We who belong to one of the generations that used cassette tapes, and later CDs, know that one bought empty cassette tapes and discs to record, for example, music on. One sat by the radio and waited for that song that one liked, and then pressed the two buttons for recording – and hoped that the presenter would not interrupt so that one would miss the last seconds of the song.
Those of you who remember might also remember the feeling when you received a mixtape with well-selected songs by someone you liked, or when you recorded a film from TV on VHS and took the tape to your best friend to watch it there. The quality varied somewhat, admittedly, but it was fantastic – wasn't it? Well, times change, and nowadays most storage happens digitally. Today, the youth's mixtape is instead a shared playlist on Spotify.
Madam Speaker! Normally, the person who has created a work has the exclusive right to decide how it may be used and copied. There are, however, certain limitations in copyright, and one such limitation is the right for private individuals to copy, for example, music, films, texts, and works of art for private use. According to EU law, member states may introduce this type of limitation in copyright provided that authors and other right holders receive reasonable compensation.
Private copying compensation is therefore the compensation paid to composers, artists and other rights holders whose works are copied legally for private use. The fee is paid by us consumers when we purchase storage media, such as mobile phones, USB sticks and tablets.
In the proposition, the government proposes several changes. The right to compensation is modernized so that it is linked to digital storage instead of older audio and video recording technology. It is clarified that only works made available for acquisition purposes are covered by the system. Additionally, a cap per product is introduced and a possibility for mediation is established if the parties do not reach an agreement. Taken together, the proposals aim to create a more modern and legally secure order where the interests of both rights holders and consumers are taken into account.
The Sweden Democrats share the view that authors should receive reasonable compensation for their work. At the same time, the costs for consumers must be kept at a reasonable level.
In a previous follow-up motion, we pointed out that the government should have awaited the European Court of Justice's ruling regarding offline copies in streaming services. During the Riksdag's processing, the judgment arrived, and the European Court of Justice established that such offline copies – that is, if I make a song from my playlist or a film from my play service available offline – should not be regarded as private copying. Against this background, we have chosen not to fulfill the proposal that was put forward in the motion.
Madam Speaker! The old cassette tape fee was created in a completely different era, when people copied CDs, cassette tapes, and DVD movies at home. Today, a very large part of consumption occurs via licensed streaming services where the user already pays for the content. At the same time, fees are imposed on electronic products such as mobile phones, computers, and storage media.
The Sweden Democrats have for a long time been driving for a reform of the system. It was also following an initiative from us that the Riksdag previously issued a notice to the government to review the private copying compensation and specifically examine the possibility of letting the state take an overall responsibility for the financing. Even though the government has now implemented several necessary modernizations, they have not chosen the solution that we advocated at that time.
When Swedish consumers are expected to bear these costs, it is important that the compensation system is well-balanced and adapted to our changed consumption patterns. We do not want a situation where people pay several times – first through subscriptions to streaming services, then through various license and platform fees, and thereafter an additional time through private copying compensation on the technology itself. Therefore, legislation of this type must be continuously reviewed so that the compensation systems function as intended.
In summary, Madam Speaker: Copyright holders shall receive reasonable compensation for their work, and Sweden shall continue to be a state that safeguards strong intellectual property rights. But the legislation must be based on today's reality, not yesterday's technology. The compensation system shall be legally secure, proportionate, and predictable without imposing unnecessary costs on either consumers or companies. For this reason, the Sweden Democrats will continue to follow the developments in this area.
With that said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
Daniel Vencu Öhrlund Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all the Social Democrats' reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of the Left Party and the Social Democrats' joint reservation 4.
It is important that intangible assets are protected. In a time where more and more of our economy is shifting from physical products and goods to intangible ones, the systems need to be designed to promote innovation, development, and creation. It is about reasonable compensation for, among other things, cultural creators when their works are copied. It is about the compensation needing to become broader so that more rightsholders are covered and can share in the compensation. It is also about us having order and clarity in the market and safeguarding the creators' rights but at the same time ensuring that the fees do not become unreasonable for consumers.
That is also why the bill on private copying compensation is important. It is a step towards modernizing a system that for a long time has not fully kept pace with technological developments. When people's consumption of culture changes, the compensation systems must also change. For the Social Democrats, it is fundamental that those who create music, film, literature, and other culture should also receive reasonable compensation when the works are used.
Madam Speaker! The debate also concerns intellectual property rights in general. We face great challenges – and growing ones – given the new technological shifts that are emerging, and several times during the parliamentary term we have debated precisely the importance of intellectual property for Sweden. Therefore, the Social Democrats have on several occasions requested a unified strategy for how we can better utilize our intellectual property. It is also a central part of a committee motion that the Social Democrats raised earlier this year.
We Social Democrats believe that Sweden needs a more strategic approach when it comes to intellectual property rights. In today's knowledge economy, a large part of our prosperity is created through ideas, innovations, and creativity. Music, film, design, patents, and trademarks are not only cultural assets but also engines for jobs, entrepreneurship, and growth. The intellectual property-intensive industries account for more than every third job and nearly 40 percent of Sweden's GDP. Therefore, a national strategy needs to have a broad approach that ensures we safeguard our knowledge-based assets in the best possible way.
Knowledge of intellectual property as a strategic asset needs to increase, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises as well as within universities and colleges. Smaller innovators often lack basic knowledge of how and when innovations need to be protected. Many good ideas therefore risk never reaching the market or being exploited by other actors.
Madam Speaker! Even public procurement needs to be characterized by higher competence in the management of intellectual property. Against this background, we want to review the conditions for establishing a national competence center according to the Finnish model. Such a center could function as a knowledge hub that not only strengthens the quality of our research and innovation efforts but also raises the competence in society as a whole.
It is also high time that we in Sweden begin to use patent information in a more systematic and strategic way to increase the returns on our innovation initiatives. Through better use of patent information, we can avoid unnecessary duplicate research, accelerate the development of important innovations, and analyze global development trends. This is particularly important in many of the industries where Sweden stands strong strategically, not least in the green transition. By using patent information in research and decision-making, we can more clearly identify where Sweden has the greatest opportunity to compete and contribute with new climate-smart solutions.
In this context, Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight a good example from one of our Nordic neighboring countries. Norway can be seen as a role model. There, in-depth patent analyses are carried out which are used to direct research funds to where they do the most good and where the innovation potential is greatest.
The development within AI and digitalization is moving very fast, Madam Speaker. The intellectual property legal framework risks falling behind. The new technical reality means that the existing challenges linked to intellectual property rights become even greater. This applies in particular to issues regarding copyright, ownership of data, and how AI systems use protected material. If Sweden is to continue to be a leading innovation nation, the legal frameworks must be modernized and harmonized so that they can keep pace with the technological development.
Small and medium-sized enterprises also often have limited opportunities to defend their patents as a result of high court costs. Therefore, it was important to carry out the court reform that we Social Democrats pushed through during the previous parliamentary term in order to increase predictability and lower the costs for the companies.
Madam Speaker! It is obvious that Sweden faces great challenges both in the field of intellectual property rights and in many other areas within the Trade Committee's remit. We are a trade-dependent country and perhaps one of the world's most export-oriented economies. Therefore, it is crucial that our business sector can stand strong in international competition.
To succeed with that, we must create better conditions for our intangible assets to be utilized. We need to strengthen knowledge about patents, copyright, and innovation. We need to modernize the systems so that they function in the digital economy. We also need to ensure that both creators, innovators, and companies receive reasonable conditions to develop. That is how we strengthen Sweden's competitiveness, innovation capacity, and future prosperity.
Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)
Madam Speaker! Sweden belongs to the world's most innovative countries. We are at the absolute top in global innovation indices and are the most innovative country in the EU, according to the European Innovation Scoreboard 2025.
This is not a coincidence, but rather the result of a society built on knowledge, entrepreneurship, and respect for those who create value. However, it places demands on politics – in an economy where more and more value is created through ideas, creativity, and digital development, the legislation must be legally secure, intelligible, and keep pace.
It is in light of this that we shall see today's report on private copying compensation. It is fundamentally about a simple principle: those who create culture shall receive reasonable compensation when their works are used. But it is also about something larger, namely how we adapt regulatory frameworks to a digital reality that has changed fundamentally.
The private copying levy is, as we have already heard, a system that emerged in a different era. Back then, music and film were copied onto cassette tapes or CDs – that is, on physical storage media. Today, the reality looks completely different. We live in a digital economy where culture is consumed via streaming, where content is distributed globally in seconds, and where storage takes place in cloud services and on digital platforms.
When reality changes, the legislation must keep up – otherwise we risk getting systems that become difficult to understand, difficult to apply, and difficult to maintain.
Madam Speaker! For the Moderates, three things are crucial.
The first is the modernization of the legislation. Rules must reflect the reality that people actually live in, not the reality we once left behind.
The second is legal certainty and predictability. Companies in Sweden must know which rules apply; it is the basis for investments and growth.
The third is balance. We shall not set technology against culture. We shall create systems where both can grow, side by side.
This is not an isolated issue. It is about Sweden's long-term competitiveness. We are a knowledge nation, and our strength lies in research, innovation, technology, and cultural creation. Therefore, intellectual property rights are a fundamental part of the Swedish economy.
This government has, during the mandate period, taken a collective grip on intellectual property rights. In the budget bill for 2026, resources to the Patent and Registration Office and Vinnova were strengthened. The purpose is clear: to strengthen knowledge of intellectual assets and improve the opportunities to commercialize innovations.
It is not just about resources, however. The Swedish Intellectual Property Office and Vinnova have received a long-term mandate until 2029. It covers the entire chain, from research to innovation and entrepreneurship. It is about knowledge, about advice, about better use of patent information, and about more ideas being able to contribute to jobs and growth in Sweden.
Other parts of society are also covered. The Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Arts Council have been tasked with strengthening knowledge of intellectual property rights within their fields. The Government has also recently developed a unified national direction for intellectual property policy. This provides better coordination and a clearer direction.
Madam Speaker! At the same time, the government is acting where problems exist. One example is the work regarding illegal IP-TV. An investigation has now been issued for consultation. We see that this crime strikes directly against Swedish culture and against media companies, erodes revenues for those who create content, and weakens the entire ecosystem for Swedish film, music, and digital production.
It is fundamentally about one thing: respect for creative work. Without protection for intellectual property rights, the incentives to invest in culture and innovation are weakened, and without investments, there is no development.
This knowledge is very important. It is gratifying to sit on the oversight board for the Patent and Registration Office when one notices that something is happening out there. Intellectual property ranks quite high on the list, even though there is still a long way to go. One of the companies' organizations wrote to its members and other entrepreneurs about the importance of intellectual property.
Against this background, the conclusion is clear: This issue is climbing upwards and becoming of ever greater importance. It is also exactly how it should be. Authorities have been updated. Resources have been reinforced. A national direction is in place, and the work is underway.
Madam Speaker! That which is requested in the reservations – new structures and further investigations – is largely already addressed. We are on our way. We do not need more documents, but we need mobility forward. It is about implementation. We strengthen Sweden's competitiveness and innovative power. That is how we ensure that the one who creates value also receives a share of the value.
With this, I wish to conclude my final speech in the Swedish Riksdag and move for the approval of the committee's proposal.
Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)
Madam Speaker! The private copying levy enables private individuals to produce one or a few copies of published works for private use, while authors receive compensation for the fact that their works can be copied. It is reasonable that authors and performing artists receive compensation, while at the same time it is reasonable that one can save a podcast or music to listen to later.
Since the rules regarding the compensation were last reviewed in 2005, much has happened. Today we have new ways of consuming copyright-protected material such as books, music and film, and there has been a major technological development in the area. Vänsterpartiet is therefore positive towards a review of the regulatory framework to adapt it to a new era, and we stand behind large parts of the proposals.
We mean, however, that manufacturers of photographic images should also continue to be covered by the compensation model. Many referral bodies point out that the impact analysis of removing photographic images is deficient, and we agree with that.
We also consider that the government's proposal on compensations only enables reductions of the compensation and not increases. This can have major consequences for rights holders over time and therefore needs to be adjusted.
In the other scale is the consumer perspective. For us, it is important to also monitor that new technology is available to a large part of the population, but we believe that other levels are required. Therefore, we have submitted a motion for other and higher ceiling levels.
In the proposal, the possibility of appointing mediators is suggested. We agree with that proposal and believe it is good. However, there are no reasons to deviate in this case from the principles of compensation that exist in other mediation procedures, i.e., that the party who applies for mediation is also the one who bears the cost unless otherwise agreed.
Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Left Party's reservations but move for approval only to reservation 2, the contents of which I have explained.
Lili André (KD)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating private copying compensation. It is about how we ensure fair conditions for our cultural creators while simultaneously protecting consumers and companies in a rapidly changing digital economy.
I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal and to reject all reservations.
The government now proposes a modernized and more technology-neutral system for private copying compensation. The aim is to ensure reasonable compensation to those who create music, film, literature and other works while the rules become more predictable for companies and more reasonable for consumers. The current order was introduced in a completely different time, before smartphones, streaming services and AI. Since then, both technology and people's behaviors have changed.
Madam Speaker! I want to highlight three important arguments. The first argument is that authors, i.e., those who create a work, should have the right to reasonable compensation when their work is used. It is a fundamental principle regarding respect for work, creativity, and ownership.
Private copying means that we as consumers are given the opportunity to copy protected material for private use. But compensation must also be ensured to those who create the value.
At the same time, we cannot have a system that becomes unreasonably burdensome for consumers or hinders technological development and competition. Therefore, it is positive that the proposal contains clear ceilings and a more predictable model. It is about a balance between cultural creators, consumers, and the business sector.
The second argument concerns modernization. The current system was introduced in 1999 and was last reviewed in 2005. Since then, technological developments have changed our entire way of consuming culture. We are now adapting the regulatory framework to today's reality through a modern and technology-neutral system.
Previously, the compensation has been linked to certain types of products, but today we use the same devices – mobile phones, computers, and tablets – for virtually everything. Therefore, it is reasonable that the regulatory framework is adapted to reality. The regulatory framework becomes simpler and more predictable, which benefits both companies and users.
The third argument concerns Sweden's competitiveness and cultural strength. Sweden is a country that lives off innovation, ideas, and creativity. Our cultural and creative industries are not some small niche separate from the economy. They are part of the economy. They contribute to jobs, exports, and international attractiveness.
When the government strengthens the protection for intellectual property rights, it also sends a signal that Sweden shall be a country where it pays to create, invest in, and develop new ideas. This applies in particular in a time when digitalization and AI are fundamentally changing the conditions for copyright.
Madam Speaker! The private copying levy is not a marginal issue. It is an important source of income for our cultural and creative industries. It concerns musicians, authors, and filmmakers, that is, people who contribute to our society both economically and culturally. In a time when digitalization is changing business models and revenue streams, we need to protect these compensation systems but also modernize them.
Madam Speaker! In summary, this is about strengthening the rightsholders' right to compensation, modernizing the system in step with technological development, protecting consumers through clear caps, and creating better predictability for companies.
Madam Speaker! I move for the committee's proposal to be approved and for the reservations to be rejected.
Anders Ådahl (C)
"He came like a whirlwind on an April evening and had a large mug in a leather strap around his neck. Clara and Lotten were inside with the children to fetch him at Dalarö pier; but it took ages before they came in the boat."
According to the aforementioned Olof Lagercrantz, Strindberg wrote Hemsöborna to earn money and for the stated purpose of regaining his popularity in Sweden – the significance of copyright dressed in the attire of 1887.
Now we are debating cassette tapes. The Government has submitted a proposal to the Riksdag regarding updating the cassette tape fee. At the same time, music, movies, memes, and reels are streamed, and information is searched for on the internet using AI bots. Very little of what we want to protect is linked to any physical private place to store things. The era of cassette tapes is simply over.
Madam Speaker! Let us dig a little into what this is really about. A vibrant cultural life and an innovative economy require that property rights be protected. That was the case in Strindberg's time, and so it is now.
For us in Centerpartiet, it is an entirely self-evident starting point to protect creators with well-designed copyright legislation. It is not only about the obvious fact that the ownership of one's own production must be protected, not least because of the economic claims that creators reasonably make for their works. It is equally much about that we as a society want a creative sector that flourishes and that is capable of challenging, provoking, and providing extraordinary experiences to all of us consumers.
But we must also add that we need a copyright with traceability so that we know who or who are the creators or senders. Now that AI technology is breaking through, we can under no circumstances be careless with copyright.
Madam Speaker! This system-transforming AI technology deluge is washing over us like a downpour on Midsummer, and we don't know whether it is warm or cold. All we know is that it is raining.
It is now, in the middle of the rain, that the government chooses not to take a new grip on private copying but instead chooses an update of the legislation, when it is actually a reformed legislation that is needed.
I mean that the government's conclusion that one should try to repair a system with fundamental flaws is the wrong way to go. The system is not a fit-for-purpose tool, in light of the development that is now occurring within digitalization and AI. We need instead a system that ensures that copyright holders receive reasonable compensation from the platforms and services where their works are consumed.
Madam Speaker! We in the Center Party believe that the private copying levy, as it currently stands and as it is proposed to be, functions as an extra tax on technical equipment that is necessary for everything other than just private copying for both private individuals and companies.
The private copying levy makes products more expensive for Swedish consumers and companies, which ultimately hinders both innovation and digital development. Furthermore, the levy distorts competition, as Swedish retailers need to take the levy into account in their pricing while consumers can purchase equivalent products from foreign e-retailers without a corresponding cost surcharge.
Madam Speaker! Furthermore, which is almost our entire point, copyright today faces entirely new and significantly more complex challenges through the development of artificial intelligence. For example, generative AI models are trained on enormous amounts of copyrighted material, often without consent or compensation to the original creators. This raises fundamental questions about value creation, compensation, and the protection of creative professions.
We mean that the government should focus on developing, both within the EU and nationally, a modern and sustainable legislation that addresses the real challenges that copyright faces due to artificial intelligence. This involves, for example, ensuring transparency in training data and creating functioning licensing models that guarantee that creators are paid when their works are used to build commercial AI services.
Madam Speaker! The remuneration models should be based on the platforms and services where the works are actually consumed instead of on private copying and storage space. A modern copyright legislation must focus on where the value is created and consumed. Therefore, it is our view that the government should abolish the system of private copying remuneration and return with a proposal that in a transparent and fair way ensures that copyright holders receive reasonable compensation directly from the platforms and services where their works are consumed, as well as that the legislation fully integrates the consequences of the AI breakthrough.
Madam Speaker! We need to be in step with the times. No to the government's bill! Yes to modern legislation! I move for approval of reservation 1.
Louise Eklund (L)
Madam Speaker! I am last here and shall be brief.
The proposal we have now discussed is fundamentally about us establishing a system with compensation for rights holders as well as simpler, more predictable and competition-neutral rules for companies, while simultaneously ensuring that the burden on consumers does not become too great.
It is, of course, absolutely excellent, not least the proposal that everyone who has seen the works they have created become commercially distributed and made available for an expressed acquisition purpose shall have the right to compensation. It is absolutely fundamental. It is also good that it is established that corresponding rights shall apply for performing artists, producers of sound or image recordings, as well as radio and TV companies.
That one can today create a work, regardless of which industry one operates in, without the rightsholder receiving any compensation is extremely concerning. In addition to the feeling of having been robbed of something one has created, it can also lead to quite large economic losses.
I will not repeat what my colleagues from all parties have said here about why intellectual property rights and the right to protect property rights are so important even within these industries. It is enough to say that if we do not establish a protection, we will not see any innovation or development. Consequently, we will not have any particularly exciting cultural sector and, ultimately, neither much cultural prosperity in Sweden.
I therefore think it is good that the legislative changes now proposed should enter into force as early as this year. It is actually not a day too early.
I remain and vote in favor of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.