Copyright in the digital single market

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are finally here after many years of work to try to implement the DSM Directive into Swedish law. I would like to dedicate this speech to all the authors in our country - everyone who ensures that works are published, everyone who writes text, everyone who publishes newspapers, everyone who creates music, creates visual art, takes photographs, and so on. This speech is to you who do everything that we love. For you, these are vital legal changes that I know many of you have truly been looking forward to.

Copyright in the digital single market

Mr. Speaker! It has, as said, been a long journey. For my part, it began in 2018. I will not soon forget the spring of 2019, when things became completely crazy in connection with the EU election campaign. Many claimed then that the internet would die if this directive were implemented. Even colleagues here in the chamber of the Riksdag went bananas and stopped listening to facts, but finally, it now looks like we will be able to implement the directive. I am extremely happy about that.

I am also proud that we Social Democrats have constantly stood up for the fact that copyright needs to be regulated, even digitally. All forms of copyright infringement are theft, and it must obviously also apply online. That is clear to us. When all other parties voted no to the directive in the EU committee, we Social Democrats stood up on behalf of all copyright holders. That is something I am immensely proud of.

Mr. Speaker! This directive means that across the entire EU and the entire internal market, we will have the same opportunity to use material for three different purposes. It is about text and data mining, about facilitating licensing, and about improving access to content on the European market. Decisions will also be made on provisions aimed at creating a well-functioning market for copyright, and that is certainly needed.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to alert the Chamber and the listeners that this has been developed in a historical manner. Given that the debate became so polarized in 2019, when all kinds of arguments and nonsense were flying in the air, the Government Offices decided to apply something that we have called legislation in large groups.

As far as I know, this has not been done before at the Ministry of Justice, but in order for different sides and sometimes conflicting interests to be able to listen to each other and learn from each other, the Ministry has invited all organizations that wished to do so – over 100 of them – to workshops. Various articles in the directive have been turned over and examined, and we have heard each other's arguments and opinions and in that way also actually coordinated. When one understands each other's perspectives, it is usually easier to find a good balance. And that is what I mean, Mr. Speaker, that we have done now as we implement this directive. We are grateful for that.

We also see in the report that the directive is being implemented too late, and we are fully aware of that. It has taken time because we have waited for guidance from the Commission and for a landmark judgment from the Court of Justice of the EU regarding Article 17. The historical legislation in the large group has also taken time. But now we are finally here, and the new provisions will come into effect on January 1. It is not a day too early.

Mr. Speaker! The ambition from the Social Democrats' side has constantly been to maintain the Swedish model. It is the parties in the labor market and the parties in the contractual areas who best find solutions. As the Social Democrats always do, we have also wanted to stand up for the weaker party. When the Swedish proposition was drafted, it was important to ensure that the weaker contractual party, who is most often the author, is strengthened.

We also, of course, want to promote Swedish competitiveness and ensure that cultural life is vibrant and that people can live off their works. We also want to ensure that new music, new films, new TV programs, and so on are constantly being produced and released. It is a matter of finding the balance. The one who has created something shall be paid for it, but it must also be reasonable and possible to use it and make it accessible to all consumers in different ways.

Last but not least, it is also about safeguarding the individual's - the private person's - right to express themselves, publish things online, make memes and satire and so on. We have been very careful to ensure that this also appears when the directive is now implemented.

Mr. Speaker! During all these years since 2018, my message to all the different actors I have met in various contexts has been that my ambition is for everyone to be somewhat adequately satisfied when the directive is now implemented – or somewhat adequately dissatisfied, if you will. When interests stand against each other, I believe it is important to land in just that balance. Everyone should be somewhat adequately satisfied, so that the pendulum does not swing too far in one direction or the other. In that case, there will either not be authors who can live off what they do, or not so much new text, image, music, and art will be created as we wish. I mean that there is a good balance between different interests now.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I will release these very interesting intellectual property issues and copyright issues. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the Committee on Industry, who have allowed me to take this baby into the goal. It feels good.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report and against the motions. I would also like to thank everyone who ensures that things are created and published so that we can all enjoy them. It is needed in a strong and flourishing democracy.

(Applause)

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! Quite a long time has passed, and there has even been a pandemic, since an EU directive on copyright and related rights in the digital single market was adopted in 2019. It is now to be implemented here in Sweden.

As the Left Party, we have primarily monitored the possibilities for museums, libraries, and schools to use copyright-protected material in a simple way. Today, we have a system of collective licenses that has worked very well. We have also had the opportunity to strengthen the position of cultural creators against the internet giants by having the internet giants take greater responsibility and pay for licenses. We have wanted to avoid filter solutions that risk sorting out satire and other permitted material.

Why then is a strong copyright important? Copyright protects artistic creation such as music, film and literature. Copyright ensures the right to income for many within the industries concerned. It sets the framework for who may use the creation and how and when. Copyright also secures society's creative creation and ensures that we get a more sustainable and content-rich culture.

By ensuring that the copyright ecosystem works, we secure more creativity, more culture, and accessibility to it for everyone. It is incredibly important for all of us.

Today, it is a more uncertain situation for many journalists and cultural workers. We have seen how more and more are forced to stand on their own feet before, for example, large media houses and what that does for the people who create but also for how the material is used. The power dynamic also means that one does not get the freedom that cultural creation requires. To this, we can add the increasing power that the internet giants have gained over musicians, journalists, publishers, and so on.

The industries have changed with the arrival of the internet giants. What used to mean, for example, printing an article meant exactly that—printing an article. But with today's digitalization, it can mean that the article is reproduced several times without providing revenue to the copyright holders, or very low revenue, and without them having control over or information about where it is published.

The internet giants have held a privileged position for quite some time. Their platforms are filled with content without them taking proper responsibility for doing right by the creators. The success of their platforms is built on copyright-protected material, but without them paying for it. At the same time, they earn quite a lot of money from, for example, advertising revenue.

Vänsterpartiet's starting point is to safeguard the possibility of different expressions on the internet. Solutions to this problem must not mean that such as satire and other permitted material risk being sorted out. In the first instance, the platforms need to sign licenses in order to be able to continue their operations as they do today and in that way pay for the content on their pages.

But copyright is more than that. It is also about getting information on where and how a work is used. Did the work reach many? Has it been used in the right way? Has the copyright holder received sufficient or correct information to be able to determine if the compensation is reasonable, appropriate, and proportionate? Do the agreements need to be revised? Has the work had more impact than one had thought?

Vänsterpartiet is generally positive towards the proposal but still has a number of reservations - otherwise, we would not be a left-wing party. It is about us wanting to ensure that cultural workers receive reasonable, appropriate, and proportionate compensation, that the service providers provide the information needed to know who has shared things and where and how. When sub-licensees have acquired rights, the information about this should not occur at the expense of copyright holders, that is to say, they should be able to obtain the information in a simple way and not be forced to contact several different sub-licensees.

We also consider that the legal text can be clarified when it comes to the rights holder's interest and the users' freedom of information and expression. Here, we must demand that the service providers, that is, the tech giants, have done what they could to make available specific works that the rights holders have provided the service with relevant and necessary information about, while at the same time not using filters that hinder the users.

To ensure that the agreements respect Swedish law, we support MP's motion that choice of law clauses should be investigated.

Our reservations actually meet the original intention of the EU directive, and we are trying to meet it with our proposals. Sweden should at least implement the directive as it is. Since this is a law that will affect many copyright holders, companies within culture and media, and not least the users, we see a need to continuously evaluate the implementation of the law.

I also, like the previous speaker, would like to take the opportunity to thank all the cultural organizations and industry organizations that have met with us over the years. They have stepped up to both educate us and discuss the proposal. We have spent quite a few hours together. Thanks to you and your work, we get to dance to wonderful music, read interesting books, and cry at drama. The truth is: How dull would life be without your contribution?

I vote in favor of reservation 6.

(Applause)

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

Anette Rangdag (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want, in line with the rest of the majority, to move that the Riksdag stands behind the government's bill Copyright in the digital single market in its entirety. The bill was presented to the Riksdag during the previous parliamentary term by the previous government but is supported by the newly appointed one.

The proposals in the bill are based on an EU directive and contain new rules aimed at adapting copyright to technological developments. Thanks to this bill, teaching and research are facilitated, while cultural heritage can be preserved and older artworks can be reproduced more easily. The bill also contains proposals so that publishers of press publications can be granted new exclusive rights to their publications to simplify compensation when material is used online.

It is partly questions of a technical nature, but it is our, the government base's and the previous government's view that this will in practice result in improved conditions for those whom it affects. With that said, I have full understanding that there are different perspectives on these issues. That they are radically different perspectives can still be acknowledged considering the different stakeholders who have approached us Members of Parliament in the matter. All interests cannot be accommodated, but it is our view that this is a good middle ground.

Mr. Speaker! If I am allowed to speak somewhat broadly about the Sweden Democrats' policy in the field of intellectual property rights, I would like to emphasize that our starting point is that intellectual property values, in line with technological development and the maturation of the information society, have come to become an increasingly significant part of the economy.

At the same time, the development has meant that technology and information are spread, consumed, and exhausted faster than before. Digital technology and the internet have come to take the place as the primary platform for both democratic debate and the dissemination of information and news, as well as for the consumption of cultural works and entertainment. Despite this, the copyright regulatory framework is still largely built on the order that arose when printing press technology was the prevailing platform for information dissemination.

A modernization of copyright is necessary for it to be able to function in an increasingly digitized society, which is now partially happening. I and the Sverigedemokraterna therefore welcome that EU-common rules with such a purpose are now being introduced into Swedish law. I and the majority want to emphasize, however, the importance of the new rules being purposefully designed and leading to copyright functioning in a better way on the digital internal market. The Riksdag should therefore adopt the legislative changes proposed in the bill.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I am sure a large number of people and industry organizations following this debate are thinking. The reason for that is that today we are to decide on the implementation of the so-called copyright directive. Already in 2019, the European Parliament's and the Council's directive was adopted, and on 7 June 2021, the member states were supposed to have implemented the directive. But we are only getting there now.

What is copyright then? Well, if someone creates something, they automatically receive the copyright to what they have created. As you have heard earlier today, copyright is included in intellectual property rights. Other things included are patents, trademarks, designs, company names, and circuit patterns – to mention something that is current in Europe right now regarding details for car manufacturing.

Intellectual property is important and constitutes one of the greatest assets for entrepreneurs and companies, and here a change has occurred along the way in our Swedish society and in the world.

Copyright is significant for literature, art, technical drawings, strategic plans, consultancy reports, professional texts, and design, which means it has great practical significance for virtually the entire corporate world and the business sector. Computer programs are also protected by copyright, which is particularly important in the digital world.

We live in a knowledge economy with globalization where AI, that is artificial intelligence, actualizes copyright. Some questions are not yet solved, such as copyright when a robot and not a human is the one who has created, and we do not know today what tomorrow's questions will be. In this changing world, the legislation must keep up.

It is now 14 years since a company created a service to stream music. For those of us who grew up with vinyl records, cassette tapes, and a world following a given pattern, CDs and DVDs meant a bit of a revolution - and now we lease music services. The world is changing.

Social media has opened up new opportunities but at the same time created a concern among entrepreneurs within the creative industries regarding what will happen with their works and the payment for the same.

That is why it is fun that books have started to be presented and discussed on TikTok, which means that young people - perhaps you who are sitting in the stands today - have started to go to the bookstore and buy books. The booksellers, in turn, sell the books from TikTok, and in that way, the old and new worlds meet. How many books will be sold in the future we do not know, but it is exciting when boundaries change.

Copyright has some of its roots in the 15th-century printing press. Modern copyright, however, emerged in the 18th century and later transitioned into intellectual property rights, which, as mentioned, means exclusive rights to what one has created, for example an invention. This means that one can specify conditions for use or completely say no to someone else using one's creation. It also provides the possibility to sell the rights further.

Today's committee report concerns copyright in the digital single market, and more on this can be read in the report Copyright's Role for Creation – The Foundation for a Creative Society.

The previous government, whose bill we now have on the table, chose, as previously mentioned, to hold meetings with a hundred industry organizations where everyone was given the opportunity to make submissions.

I know that the government at the time believed that we Moderates, along with several others, would stick to the position we had before the directive was adopted in Brussels. So that is not the case, and therefore this was a bit surprising to me. But a course correction has been made after a legal process was awaited and in an attempt to align the parties in the Swedish Riksdag to achieve broad support, which is good.

Today, most probably, most consider that the proposal is much better than it was at the beginning and that it is now necessary to get it in place.

It would have been desirable for all countries to implement the directive straight away so that we would all have the same basis. It would have created the best conditions for companies in the internal market regarding compliance with a set of regulations. Then, what is protected in Holland or Belgium would also be protected in Sweden, and what is permitted there would also be permitted here. This is the path forward we must take.

So that is not how it has turned out, but as someone said, it is about a balance between different values. More work will be needed ahead; we do not stop here. This is not the final product, even though it is being hammered through today to enter into force on 1 January 2023. The Moderates agree that it is important to get this in place.

In that case, a Swedish company that wants to operate in Denmark or Finland will also need legal assistance there, so it will thus involve more steps than desired. Therefore, competition rules and the common market are in focus for the Moderaterna.

Mr. Speaker! Old systems should be adapted to new times and new technology, and Europe needs well-functioning copyright rules for the digital age. Therefore, we move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservations.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party supports the committee's proposal on copyright in the digital single market.

When we say ownership, most of us probably think of land, forests and real estate. But just as important are the intangible property rights. These rights in the form of patents, trademarks, designs and, as we are dealing with today, copyright have been and are very important for individuals but also for the development and success of many Swedish companies. That one can protect one's creation, to have the control, is many times decisive for one to dare to invest in research and development.

The Swedish copyright law is, as many have noted, to some extent outdated, and an update is therefore important and necessary. A new system needs to both guarantee that the copyright holders receive compensation for their works and be acceptable to the public. People who make films, write books or program video games must be paid for what they have created.

It is important that copyright is technology-neutral and clearly sets the framework for all actors, and we will continue to follow the developments here. We are also keen that Swedish researchers are given the same opportunity to share research results based on text and data mining as researchers have in other European countries. At the same time, educational institutions' right to use copyrighted works must be strong.

Mr. Speaker! For us in the Center Party, however, it is crucial that the individual's right to express themselves freely is preserved. The internet and its various platforms have brought about a revolution for the possibilities of free creation and free expression. It has been important that this is both defended and strengthened now that the directive becomes Swedish law. We believe, however, that these issues have been given a reasonable balance, not least because the European Court of Justice has clarified that hindering legal expressions is not permitted under any circumstances. It is important and reassuring that this remains.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! On behalf of the Christian Democrats, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

The government proposes new rules in the copyright area aimed at adapting copyright to the latest technological developments. It is with pleasure that I hear there is broad support behind this, and we Christian Democrats also say: Finally!

Initially, I would like to emphasize that a modernization of copyright is necessary for it to function in an increasingly digitized society, and therefore we welcome that EU-wide rules with such a purpose are now being implemented in Swedish law. We Christian Democrats also maintain that the new rules are purposefully designed and lead to copyright now functioning in a better way on the digital internal market. More harmonized rules create conditions for more cultural workers to have a reasonable chance to make a living.

The great social change that digitalization has brought about has structurally had both positive and negative consequences for actors in the digital market. Among the positive can be counted that it has become easier and cheaper to disseminate information about the works being presented. For example, exhibitions and work samples can be marketed more easily and also more effectively. The negative consequences have, however, been more tangible, such as the possibility of obtaining income from the use of works.

Mr. Speaker! Even though technological development in itself has been a leading and dominant factor over the last 20-plus years, digitalization does not live its own life but interacts with other phenomena in society. The development regarding poorer income opportunities has come step by step and often as a result of the impact that digitalization has had on other actors that copyright holders are dependent on as suppliers of their work. The economic rights imply a right to dispose of the work.

The proposal of the bill, as well as the underlying directive, we in the Christian Democrats see as aiming to create a better balance between the parties in the copyright contract market. It provides a fairer distribution of the revenues generated by creative content, not least on the internet. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is of great importance that a directive has now been adopted which aims to improve and also restore the position of the authors and recognizes the copyright law's function to protect and ensure a continued production of high-quality culture.

We Christian Democrats want to safeguard two fundamental values, partly property rights, partly openness in the digital world. It is a balancing act that must be handled with deliberation. We support the government's bill and argue that it contributes to a stable foundation that handles both aspects in a sufficiently accurate way. But we must also be open to the fact that it is a process that does not end with today's decision, and we can continue to follow the issue over time.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! Artists in all genres today have difficulty getting paid for what they create. Despite many having a long education and student debts in their baggage, they have difficulty supporting themselves through their artistry. This is not a new problem, but it has accelerated with the increased digitalization which has made it very easy to distribute, for example, music, film, and images. It is also nothing new that large companies become rich on individual authors' works. Bad record contracts and greedy film companies we have heard about before.

What is the new development in recent years is that the artistic content creates great value that ends up somewhere other than with the author without there being a contract, agreement, or consent. It is also new that works can be spread so easily and quickly. This is, of course, positive in many ways. For us culture lovers, it is fantastic that we can so easily get hold of interesting music from all over the world or be reached by works of art we did not know about. For the individual author, there is an enormous potential to reach a large audience with the digital solutions. What has been missing has been a regulation to ensure that those who use and earn money from the works in the digital environments also pay the authors a reasonable compensation.

Without all creative content, there would be no business model for the large online platforms, which allow people to upload material themselves and can then attract advertising revenue when there is a large number of users that the companies can reach. It is perfectly reasonable that licenses are signed, and my party colleague Lorena Delgado has already accounted for that. The basic idea is that the companies pay for themselves, not that copyrighted material should have to disappear from the internet, as it has sometimes sounded like in the debate.

Another trend that the legislation has not captured well previously is when rights are sold on in multiple stages in the digital environment. As an artist, you have a contract with a company to release your music, but then the rights are sold on to a streaming service. As an author, you have a contract with a book publisher regarding the publication of your book, but when your work then ends up on a streaming platform, you only receive a fraction of the compensation you would have received upon the sale of a physical book. As an individual cultural creator, you have a very weak bargaining position, and therefore a strong legal protection is required where the rights for authors are clearly established.

I heard the previous post here from the Social Democrat Åsa Eriksson, who pointed out how the contracting parties in normal cases are allowed to negotiate freely, but it is actually a very unequal relationship between the individual cultural creator and the large companies. A strong legal protection was needed here, and I believe we are in agreement on that here in this chamber.

Madam Speaker! From the Left Party, we have worked hard to familiarize ourselves with the consequences of the various articles since the work began at the EU level with the copyright directive. We have seen it as very important to find a balance between the public's access to information and freedom of expression and copyright holders' right to compensation when their works are shared on the internet. It has not been entirely simple to foresee the effects of the directive, but since Sweden is a few years behind some other countries in the implementation of the directive, we can draw lessons from the outcome elsewhere within the union.

The proposal that we are to take a position on today has been improved considerably during the process, but there are still a number of points that we think would need to be clarified so that the new legal texts strengthen the position of copyright holders in a fully satisfactory way. I regret that so few parties have taken on board the critical views that have come from the legal experts within the cultural sector. When Sweden now deviates from the EU directive's formulations on several points, we risk ending up in a situation where the Swedish application differs from other EU countries. This makes it difficult for interest organizations and copyright holders to organize together with colleagues in other countries to gain more weight against the large global internet platforms. It also makes it difficult for companies operating in several different countries and who need to comply with different legislations.

Such a deviation exists in the translation of the concept best efforts. That point is about that companies that handle copyrighted material should be able to show that one has truly made an effort to conclude agreements and do right.

The previous government has proposed that this concept should be translated as "done what can reasonably be required". From Vänsterpartiet, we want it to be replaced with "done what they have been able to". That is the meaning that other countries have used. It may sound like hair-splitting. But if you think about it, there is a quite large difference in practice between doing what can reasonably be required and doing what one has been able to.

The majority in the Culture Committee actually present the same position as the Left Party on this issue when they have expressed themselves to the Trade Committee. They actually say straight out that they would actually like to see such an amendment in the bill. But then no parties other than the Left Party and the Green Party have stood behind this now that it is almost time for a sharp vote here.

This is a simple change that I had hoped there would be a majority in the Riksdag to get moving on.

Madam Speaker! What also worries me is that the previous government took out a part of the directive concerning so-called non-waivable compensation rights, which could have solved the problem that arises when rights are sold in multiple stages, as I explained earlier. That issue was to be resolved in a separate investigation. But unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

I hope that the new government takes this issue seriously and ensures that this piece of the puzzle also falls into place. Otherwise, the new framework that we are creating today risks becoming toothless for a large part of the digital market, and copyright holders will not receive the strengthened position that they need and also deserve.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to highlight the positive aspect that several types of cultural heritage institutions are exempted from this legislation. Museums, archives, film institutions, and audio institutions that have a mandate to disseminate knowledge and culture to the public without a profit motive need their simple regulatory frameworks in order to be able to continue with this very important activity.

I naturally stand behind all of the Left Party's reservations, but I wish to move for approval of reservation 5.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! Actually, it feels a bit strange to request a reply to Vasiliki Tsouplakis's speech, because we fundamentally have a very similar view on how we need to strengthen the rights of authors.

But by reason of Tsouplakis' statement, I must nevertheless ask a question regarding what both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have motioned for, namely that we should change the wording in the legal text to "done what they have been able to," which is a more direct translation of the directive's text. Does Vasiliki Tsouplakis have any examples of legislation in Sweden where that formulation exists? As far as I know, that is not how we express ourselves in Swedish law. The term that is currently used is the accepted formulation that we use according to Swedish legal tradition and which the department considers in every way fulfills the requirements and the level that the directive stipulates. There is therefore no lower level of protection in the Swedish formulation.

My question to Vasiliki Tsouplaki is: In which part of Swedish law do you mean that we use the expression "done what they could"?

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Åsa Eriksson for the question. Naturally, I do not know the Swedish laws by heart and therefore cannot list any examples on the spot. I trust, of course, the wording that exists in the bill that this is the common way of expressing oneself in Swedish legislation. I have no other opinion on that part. But here we have to deal with an EU directive where one has exactly this wording.

The concern that exists is that there actually becomes a difference depending on how one phrases things. Comparisons are made with other countries. This concern from the cultural sector is based on having many years of experience of companies trying to find loopholes in the law to avoid doing the right thing and compensating copyright holders. If it then becomes up to these companies to show that they have done what can reasonably be required, that is something else. Then it becomes a matter for the courts to decide whether this is reasonable and whether the companies have done what can reasonably be required of them.

If one were to instead ask whether the companies have done what they could, would it become more of a burden of proof that falls on the companies. That is how the organizations we have met perceive this difference, i.e., that it becomes a heavier burden of proof to show that they have actually really done what they could to conclude agreements in order to do the right thing. It is this difference that is perceived and that has been seen in history and that is also seen in other countries. That is why we have landed in this conclusion.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Vasiliki Tsouplaki for the clarification. I believe the reason why the member cannot mention other places in Swedish law where this wording appears is that it does not exist.

For us Social Democrats, it is extremely important that when we implement EU directives, we do so in a way that is compatible with Swedish legal tradition and that it becomes clear to the courts how they should make their assessments. And as I said earlier, we believe that we have landed close to the directive in this wording, and the lawyers at the Ministry of Justice claim that this in no way implies any lower requirements than those stipulated by the directive. It is important for us.

Just as the member himself said in his speech, and as I emphasized in my speech, it is extremely important that we safeguard the copyright holders' opportunities to get paid for their works, follow how they are used, and control the use. That is what I mean we do with the proposed implementation of the directive.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to ask a question to the Left Party and Member Tsouplaki: Is it the Left Party's intention that, just when it concerns copyright, we should deviate from Swedish legal tradition and apply some new type of formulation?

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the follow-up question. Of course, it is not the case that Vänsterpartiet has a group of its own lawyers trying to sit and ponder this, but we have listened to the expertise that exists within the copyright organizations and the cultural organizations who argue that this could become a problem for us, that we differ from the other countries.

I hope it is as Åsa Eriksson says, that this wording in practice will mean that we do exactly as the other countries do during the implementation. But as I understood it, there is a certain difference, and that is where the concern lies. If a company is to ask whether it has done what is reasonable or if it has done everything in its power to reach an agreement, other questions can arise: Is it reasonable if it involves very large costs for the company? Is it reasonable if it means that one needs to find new technical solutions? Is it reasonable if one needs to make large investments? Is it reasonable to have to hire three extra people at a company to conclude an agreement?

It is there that we do not want to end up, that is, that it becomes an assessment of whether it is reasonable for the companies to make these efforts. We want it to be clear that one should do everything one can to also do right by oneself in this contractual situation with a copyright holder. That is what we want to achieve, and that is what we have also perceived that the EU directive wants us to do in the Swedish legislation. Therefore, we are concerned that we are deviating here and that it will not be as sharp as it could be for the best of the copyright holders.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Actually, I pressed the button for a reply for the same reason. We were given the question, or the assertion, that we have de facto done nothing. You say that it is only you who have listened to the organizations. We have listened to them. They have told us, and they have sent the same underlying documents to all of us to look at.

Why then have we not landed on sending the matter back and doing it again? Now, Vänsterpartiet has not really said that, since it is now being said that it needs to be carried out urgently. But just as Åsa Eriksson from Socialdemokraterna previously stated, the lawyers at the ministry argue that this should not be a problem, but that it is how one expresses oneself in Swedish law.

My thoughts are the same as Åsa Eriksson's: This is how it looks when one writes. There are also a couple of other ways of phrasing this that one could use and still arrive at the same conclusion.

What was not mentioned last time, but which I intended to bring up, is the proportionality. That is also what should be best effort in this when one looks at it. I am not a lawyer myself, and member Vasiliki Tsouplaki has stated that she is not either. And not everyone can be! But during the time this has been developed, lawyers have said – if not in this specific case, but in other matters – that this is very difficult even for lawyers. But in this case, there is still a practice where one must guaranteed follow EU law. So there should be no problems.

I understand that the member is looking for a step earlier, where one is to interpret the whole without arriving at any legal action. But I can take that up after I have received my answer.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite catch what the question was, but I can continue a bit on the same track we were on earlier.

It is very enjoyable to be here and discuss with the Committee on Industry. But what I see, and what I also presented in my speech, is that in the Committee on Culture, where I am a member, it was clear that all parties stood behind that we should have had the formulation with the second translation of best effort, which is more in line with the directive, i.e., that one has done what one could.

This was clear in the statement that the Culture Committee submitted, and therefore I was very surprised that more parties did not back it when it became a sharp situation and time to motion. There was a motion proposal from us that one could support.

I have understood that the Moderaterna's position is that there is a concern that this could drag on. We have, however, seen it as that while we have indeed dragged on over time and should have already implemented this, the issue is so thoroughly investigated. We also look at the application in other countries. It would therefore not need to complicate or delay the implementation in a way that is unreasonable. Since it concerns a regulatory framework that people have been waiting for for a long time, it is also important that it becomes as good as possible already now.

We see that a very large amount of work has been required within the EU to come forward with the proposal. There are many countries, many stakeholders and many interests that must be weighed against each other. Therefore, it will probably be a long time before we look at this legislation again, and therefore we are keen to make it as sharp as possible now that it is time to make decisions here in the Riksdag today.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Vasiliki Tsouplaki, for the answer! Now we know what has been discussed in the Culture Committee.

I would like to say that the Moderaterna are not making this trade-off solely because we are worried that it will take too long. When one speaks with the lawyers at the department, one also hears them say that all states have an obligation to implement this loyally, that is to say, one must follow what applies in the EU requirements. There, we all have a commitment to fulfill.

It is therefore legally possible to write it this way, according to lawyers, and achieve the same goal that Vasiliki Tsouplaki is keen to raise for the sake of the organizations. That is why we have landed on this, while at the same time having the other part about that this should be introduced. When one has to follow the legal principle that we follow in Sweden and which shall then be synced with EU law, there should be no problems. Therefore, it has been chosen to take the step fully. That is what lies behind it, and all actors know that too.

We will follow the matter closely. It does not end today. It will not be delayed, because there are already working groups looking at the content. Reconciliations shall be made along the way, so that one can stay involved in the process, see what is happening, and follow it. I have not seen that there will be any problems because it has been stated from the legal side that this works well.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I hope that Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson is right in her hopes.

We would rather have taken the sure thing for the uncertain and sharpened the regulatory framework already now. We also have a motion for a follow-up that one could support in order to really have a grip on the issue.

I also want to once again highlight what I said earlier and which I hope that Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson can take with her to her party colleagues in the new government, namely that the investigation that landed here some weeks ago concerning the non-waivable right to compensation needs to be implemented.

The cultural sector has truly been disappointed by the outcome of the investigation, where there are no sharp proposals regarding the right to compensation in later stages when it comes to rights in multiple stages. I hope that the Moderaterna and the other government parties look more closely at this and ensure that we get somewhat sharper proposals in that part. Otherwise, we in Vänsterpartiet are concerned that the entire approach that has existed from all parties, that the copyright holders should have a strong position in the contract market against the large global giants, will not turn out as well as we all hope. I really want to send along to the new government that I hope you look further into the issue.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has strong cultural industries with well-known musicians, producers, authors, filmmakers and visual artists who contribute both to a rich and vibrant cultural life here in Sweden and to a strong export and industry. This is a strong contribution and important for giving a positive image of Sweden internationally. It also benefits the entire Swedish business community, and it is naturally also completely fundamental for a society's democratic and human development.

Madam Speaker! In order for these industries to continue to be vital, for new practitioners to be able to seek out these industries and for artists to be able to create under reasonable conditions, it is central that we have regulatory frameworks in place that ensure that authors receive compensation for the values they create and produce. For free artistic creation, much is required – it is required that we have good and high-quality regulatory frameworks, it is required that we have security systems that function and it is required that there are systems that make it possible to receive compensation for the values and the works that one produces and sells. In that case, copyright is naturally completely central.

For Miljöpartiet, it has been important throughout this entire process to safeguard users' freedom on the internet, to ensure that satire shall be possible, and to ensure that non-profit activities shall be able to operate without being hit by unnecessary obstacles along the way. When the copyright directive landed on the Riksdag's and the government's desks, our focus was that it is important that it is implemented in a way that benefits artists and cultural creators.

I would also like to take this opportunity from the rostrum to thank everyone who has been involved in the preparation of the bill. This applies to civil servants at the ministries, Members of Parliament who have worked on the issue both from the Committee on Industry and the Committee on Culture, and not least all actors who have contributed knowledge along the way.

I also want to highlight what has already been said from the rostrum, namely that the process has been extremely solid with many meetings and dialogues. And I believe I speak for many here in the chamber when I say that we have increased our knowledge of these very complex issues. This is not the end of the journey, but this is a work that continues. We have more questions concerning copyright on our table. We also have a proposition that is now to be adopted by the Riksdag and which it is then of the utmost importance to continuously follow up. In that case, it is important to have laid a foundation for the entire process work.

It is very important that we now get the bill and the implementation of the copyright directive in place. It means a modernization. It means several steps that strengthen the authors' ability to actually receive compensation for the works they create.

It is a difficult balance in some cases. It is a tricky journey. I think that the government, which has presented the proposal, and the new majority, which has also stood behind it in principle, have landed correctly when it comes to that balance, in a first step. Then I and Miljöpartiet – we have also submitted some amendment proposals to the bill – wish that the balance had been somewhat more weighted towards the rights of authors and artists. The important thing is perhaps not exactly in which parts, but the total balance would have been somewhat more weighted.

When one talks about all parties in such a broad process being somewhat satisfied or dissatisfied, it is nevertheless important to remember that there is often a weaker party when such agreements are to be reached. It is often the individual artist, the individual author, and through that, Miljöpartiet believes the balance could have leaned a bit more in favor of this party.

Madam Speaker! We have submitted some concrete motions. I will only very briefly account for them and for our motives for submitting them.

One thing is about strengthening the position of authors in relation to online services. A debate has just been held on exactly that question, where Vasiliki Tsouplaki very well described what the Green Party also believes regarding the wording in Section 52, which comes from the copyright directive, where it is stated that an online service shall have "done what they could" to obtain a license. In the bill, it is expressed as "done what can reasonably be required." Here, we have also concluded that it would have been better to follow the wording used in the copyright directive.

I do, however, have great respect for the lawyers at the Ministry of Justice, and it is very pleasing to hear from the rostrum that there is a belief that this does not entail a weakening. My message to all of us here is then: Let us follow this and have a close dialogue with the authors and their organizations to ensure that it actually becomes so. I also hope that there is a readiness here in the chamber to, if we have actually landed incorrectly in a number of such formulations, be prepared to bring this legislation back to the chamber again.

I know that there is a concern within the sector that these rules, as we now put them in place, will not be flexible for quite a long time to come. It is clear that there must be a forward-looking perspective. These are regulations that must be implemented in very many organizations, and we should not have any abruptness. But if we notice that it has resulted in direct inaccuracies—I see nodding in the chamber, and that makes me happy—we in Miljöpartiet are, of course, prepared to assist in work to adjust those types of inaccuracies.

The second motion we have concerns the new paragraph 29 a §. Here are provisions regarding the right to information that an author who has transferred their rights has. The paragraph contains wording that limits the author's right to information with regard to, for example, the conditions in the relevant sector, costs, and in the case where the information requirement is deemed disproportionate. These are naturally relevant limitations to some extent, but at the same time, we fear that these limitations are too far-reaching and perhaps will also be interpreted as too far-reaching when this is subsequently implemented. If insight into how the works are used in both the second and third parties is not guaranteed, it will of course be impossible to assess whether the rights holder's compensation is reasonable. How this regulatory framework is applied in practice will therefore be decisive.

That is why we have, in our follow-up motion, proposed that the government should further investigate how rights holders should be given sufficient access to adequate information on how their works are used even in the third link. This request, which we have made together with Vänsterpartiet, does not seem to receive support here, but we naturally want to see it as a message to the government in the continued work on copyright issues.

We also think that the need for mandatory choice of law rules or other measures should be investigated to ensure that the rules on the transfer of copyright are not bypassed. Article 18 of the copyright directive prescribes that authors shall be entitled to appropriate and proportionate remuneration, and this is proposed to be implemented through Section 29. However, this mandatory provision can be bypassed by foreign companies claiming that Swedish law cannot be applied to the agreements. This is a concern that we take seriously. We believe that this should be able to be investigated further, even after we have adopted the bill.

Just like the Left Party, we also have a motion that the evaluation of the Swedish implementation should be carried out continuously. I assume, since no motion for approval has been submitted for it, that it is something that is planned to be done from the government's side.

This is important. Court rulings have already been issued, and more are expected to follow. We see how other countries have chosen to implement this legislation, and as I said, we will receive more cases on our table concerning copyright – for example, the issue of non-waivable right to remuneration, which Vasiliki Tsouplaki just mentioned from the rostrum.

In conclusion, I would like to turn again to the country's artists and authors. During the pandemic, it was a very difficult period for the country's cultural life. When it comes to the implementation of the copyright directive, it can constitute a piece of the puzzle that actually strengthens the possibility of revenue and thus also the possibility of a strong and rich cultural life in Sweden. Therefore, it is important that we move forward with the issue. Miljöpartiet also wants to see some changes. But above all, it is important that we closely follow the implementation moving forward and are prepared to make adjustments if so required. For artists and cultural creators to be able to work under reasonable conditions, for us to be able to have the rich art life we have, and for culture to be able to be the strong export industry it is, we need a regulatory framework in place that ensures that sufficient compensation returns to the one who has created works for the joy of the Swedish people and the whole world.

Copyright in the digital single market

I move for approval of reservation 4, which concerns our motion proposal 3. In other respects, I naturally stand behind all of the Miljöpartiets reservations.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

A higher subsistence requirement for labor migrants

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