More control online is the wrong way to go

Reply to debate article: Representatives of a number of organizations write on Brännpunkt 1/12 that other EU countries have more far-reaching laws than Sweden regarding operators' responsibility for what individuals do on the internet. The authors of the article are roughly the same people who called for far-reaching sanctions in the government's industry talks on illegal file sharing in 2008.

Their claim is essentially unfounded. More importantly, it misrepresents the view of EU Member States as well as the European Court of Justice on the division of responsibilities online.

As far as we know, only France in the EU has laws in place that go even further than the IPRED Directive. The so-called Hadopi law, which allows French citizens to be banned from participating online if they have repeatedly infringed copyright, has been the subject of very harsh criticism. And rightly so.

Politicians are passive and internet operators "maximally obstructive", write the signatories. What they propose, however, is that individual traders, in what they call a 'private sector initiative', take the law into their own hands and act outside the framework set by our elected representatives and our courts.

But what they miss is that our elected representatives, the courts and we in the internet industry understand the importance of and take into account the balance between different rights. If copyright is to be guaranteed unlimited protection online, other rights will be compromised, including internet users' legal right to privacy.

This balance is central to creating and maintaining trust in our digital communications - which is a critical function of society and fundamental to everything from everyday life to growth. Ignoring the need for balance in order to protect a specific right is one-sided, bordering on irresponsible.

The fact that the discussion has not progressed further after more than ten years seems most tragic. Everyone - consumers, copyright holders and distributors - has so much to gain from adapting to online cultural consumption. Unfortunately, these opportunities are limited by the fact that some interests would rather see repressive measures than a continued and joint effort to develop new business models.

What we should all ask ourselves is whether the current copyright models really work in our digital society. Could it be that consumers have seen what is possible with digital cultural consumption. But that the conditions for developing new, exciting services that respond to this customer need are directly thwarted by current copyright structures and practices?

In the UK and Ireland, governments have recognized this and have asked prominent academics to develop proposals on how intellectual property law can be modernized to be functional in the digital society.

Our common view is that Sweden must make the same journey. Otherwise, this debate will continue in the same tone for another ten years. To the benefit of no one.

Pär Nygårds, Industry Policy Expert, IT&Telecom Industries

Jesper Hedblom, Marketing Manager, Bredbandsbolaget

Stefan Trampus, Head of Broadband Services Sweden, TeliaSonera

Christer Kinch, Head of Strategy and Public Affairs, Com Hem