Response to interpellation 2025/26:234 on modern and purposeful legislation on duty material
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the need for a modernized mandatory material legislation to adapt the collection of published material to digital developments 1. L argues that a new, legally secure, and long-term regulatory framework is of great importance for research, democracy, and cultural heritage 1. L emphasizes that the issue is legally and technically complex, particularly regarding generative AI and copyright, which requires careful analysis 2 3. L is convinced that a unified approach is better than splitting the legislation to avoid future problems 3. S argues that the current legislation is outdated, causes high costs, and that the delay harms research 4 5. S suggests splitting the legislation to be able to resolve certain parts more quickly 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Gymnasie-, högskole- och forskningsministern Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! Ewa Pihl Krabbe has asked me if I intend to work towards ensuring that a modern and purposeful duty material legislation is established in the near future.
An effective provision of published material and a modernized duty of collection – which is fully adapted to digital development and the changed media landscape – is of great importance both for Swedish research and for democracy. The collected material also constitutes part of our common cultural heritage and is a resource for the public. It is therefore urgent to have a new, legally secure and long-term sustainable regulatory framework.
The report Papers, podcasts and … Mandatory material legislation for a secured source material (SOU 2021:32) has submitted proposals on how the mandatory collection of material can be designed so that it becomes media, technology, and format independent.
This is a legally and technically complex matter, where different interests and aspects must be weighed. The issue is being prepared within the Government Offices.
Ewa Pihl Krabbe (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer.
The list of upcoming bills arrived this week. I must admit that I was disappointed once again when there was also no mention this year of a revised mandatory legislation.
Mandatory legislation means that publishers, printing houses and other publishers are obliged to deliver copies of printed and digital material and that the material shall be preserved as part of the national cultural heritage. The Royal Library, our national library, is a recipient of this, as are certain university libraries which receive deliveries of printed material.
The purpose is to ensure that what is published in society is not lost and to enable research and knowledge building. Freedom of expression and public access are also protected by preserving the material long-term.
The current mandatory legislation is from 1993, and there is also an additional law on mandatory copies of electronic material from 2012. Normally, this is not at all any outdated legislation. But just in this case, the legislation is very outdated and completely unadapted to the digital development that has occurred and to the constantly changing media landscape, and it has been that way for a good while.
The media development and the major changes in how publishing occurs led to directives for an investigation with the mandate to produce new and purposeful legislation in 2019. Prior to that, the Royal Library had been commissioned by the government at the time to conduct an investigation, which subsequently resulted in a report titled Plikten under lupp, where KB warned of what happens if the collected material does not meet the standard.
Then came the commissioned investigation "Papers, podcasts and … Mandatory material legislation for a secured source material 2021", that is, almost five years ago. It submitted a solid proposal there on how the mandatory collection of material can be designed so that it becomes media, technology, and format independent.
One could briefly say that the proposal implies a significant expansion regarding what should be collected, preserved, and made available as mandatory copies. The mandatory copy investigation also proposes that the purpose of the mandatory copy legislation should appear in the law's introductory provision.
The Royal Library is Sweden's national library and has collections that stretch more than a thousand years back in time and grow every day. It collects, preserves, and makes accessible everything that is published in Sweden – from manuscripts, books, and newspapers to music, TV programs, and images.
The task for KB is to collect and preserve in principle everything that is published in the country every single day based on current legislation. As has been said before, this legislation has been outdated for many years and causes large costs and a lot of working time for the authority, which continuously has to digitize new daily newspapers that instead could be collected in digital form from the supplier. The Royal Library must spend a very large amount of time interpreting the legislation that exists. It costs many extra millions.
Another and perhaps greater problem is that the agency's task to support research cannot be maintained either if, under the current mandatory legislation, it is not given the opportunity to collect relevant media forms. It is serious for democracy.
I have said it before, and I say it now: It feels impoverished that there are no visions regarding the progress of the work. Legislation should naturally not be some haphazard work, but reasonably there must be some plan for the progress of the work.
I would like to ask the Minister: Is there any plan for when a proposal will be submitted regarding a new and purpose-appropriate mandatory legislation?
Gymnasie-, högskole- och forskningsministern Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! I fully share Ewa Pihl Krabbe's commitment to this issue. It is important that we achieve new legislation in this area. Just as Ewa Pihl Krabbe says, the development had already been moving very fast even before the investigation was initiated in 2019. The problem is that the development has since moved even faster. This means that when we work on this legislation, we must ensure that it also takes into account the development that has occurred since the investigation presented its proposal.
The investigation proposed a unified mandatory licensing law covering all media forms. The purpose is for it to be technology- and format-independent. But a question that has arisen since then is the question of generative AI and how the material can then be used, for example, for research. In that case, this legislation must interact with the regulatory framework surrounding copyright, for example, to ensure the balance between the rights holder, the person who, for example, writes a book or an article or whatever it is, and society's need to preserve what has been produced in the long term.
That balancing act is very difficult, and the development is moving very fast.
The investigator's mandate did not cover the copyright legislation. That means we now have to conduct a careful analysis of how a new mandatory legislation should relate to, among other things, these issues. It is absolutely not a lack of interest in the matter. It is precisely because the development is moving so fast that we must ensure that a new legislation truly takes into account all these problems, which are not entirely easy to solve.
Ewa Pihl Krabbe (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
I am aware that this issue is, so to speak, doubled almost all the time, but one could perhaps imagine dividing the legislation in some way into the parts that one can manage right now.
As I said earlier, KB's collection mandate stems primarily from the statutory deposit legislation. The Royal Library wrote, among other things, in its budget submission last year that it emphasizes the importance of the government taking a position on the investigation Statutory Deposit Legislation for a Secured Source Material from 2021. They also informed in the budget submission about the negative consequences that will result from a delay in new statutory deposit legislation.
It is written, among other things, that the need for ongoing and future digitalization of submitted physical mandatory copies of daily newspapers, books, etc. remains if KB does not receive legal support for the collection of digital copies. Failure to adapt the mandatory legislation based on the possibilities of digitalization results in KB being burdened with extensive and unnecessary costs. I believe it is around 10 million or something like that.
It is also pointed out, in this writing, that KB's task to support research cannot be maintained if the mandatory legislation does not support the collection of relevant media forms and robot collection of Swedish websites.
I want to say that by digital copies, it is meant here print files for, among other things, the daily newspapers and books that are continuously received by KB in physical format – every single day. If KB can get access to digital print files, a future digitalization process that is both costly and unnecessary regarding books, journals, and daily prints can be avoided. Instead, one can concentrate on the digitalization of the historical material. The overall effect will be that significantly more material can be made available to the Royal Library's users in digital form.
Gymnasie-, högskole- och forskningsministern Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! I share, as I have said, Ewa Pihl Krabbe's views on this issue. But I believe it is also important to include the part concerning the copyright legislation, as it was not included in the original investigation. The reason it is important is that the Royal Library today works very much with generative AI. They train so-called language models. In that case, this issue has become more and more relevant. Since it was not included in the original investigation, some additional investigation is required in order to be able to achieve modern legislation in this area.
I think the idea of dividing the legislation – to try to take the simple part, so to speak, first – as Ewa Pihl Krabbe describes is interesting. I am prepared to take that idea with me, but at the same time, I am quite convinced that it is better to take a unified approach. Otherwise, one might first create new legislation, and then it turns out that it leads to increased problems in this area. That is something we really do not want.
Just as Ewa Pihl Krabbe says, this is incredibly important legislation. It is old, and it has meant incredibly much for Sweden. It is precisely about collecting a copy of everything that is printed in Sweden, and it is an enormous asset for research. It is a fantastic asset for those of us who do genealogy, for the general public, for people who are interested in various issues.
We must solve this. But I am a bit worried that if we hurry now, it might happen that we have to redo everything in a couple of years, and I actually think that would be foolish.
Ewa Pihl Krabbe (S)
Madam Speaker! I have asked the same question to both of the Minister's representatives in recent years, and I have received approximately the same answers. I understand the issues very well. I just want to point out that it might be possible to do something, but I also understand that you want it to be coherent.
It costs a lot of money and energy for the Royal Library for it to look like this. It is money that we could use in a better way, I think.
I would like to thank you for the answer. I understand very well how the situation looks, but I still hope that the Minister will expedite the legislative work as far as possible.
Gymnasie-, högskole- och forskningsministern Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! I believe that we must hurry at a moderate pace in this matter. It is truly not a lack of interest that has prevented the issue from moving forward. It is about the fact that this is incredibly complicated and that we must be careful with the legislation and ensure that it becomes good – precisely because the technological development is moving so incredibly fast.
I will take the idea with me and see if it is possible to divide the legislation in some way, even though I am fundamentally a bit skeptical as to whether it can work.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.