Concluding remarks on private copying: "What to do when legislation becomes obsolete?"

Private copying has virtually ceased, and technological developments have made current legislation obsolete. But this is not touched upon by Copyswede, write Klas Elm and Pär Nygårds in a final response in SvD.

When we draw attention in a debate article to the fact that the Swedish Parliament is not doing anything about the outdated private copying levy this year either, Copyswede responds a few days later. But not a word is said about what is obvious to everyone else: technological developments have made the current legislation hopelessly outdated.

The private copying levy was created as a fair compensation for an exception in Swedish copyright law that allowed consumers to copy purchased films and music for home use. At the time, this applied to cassette tapes. Then came CDs and MP3 players.

The legislator tried to adapt to technological developments, describing in general terms a device as 'specially adapted' for copying and playback. But it was still a cassette tape paradigm: flat fees on products to which consumers could be expected to copy music and movies.

Of course, the legislator could not foresee smartphones, tablets or the servitization of the media market. But there was a paradigm shift. With Spotify and Netflix, the consumption of music, films and TV series became a service instead of a purchase of copies. The need to make copies disappeared.

In just a few years, consumption patterns for music, TV and movies have completely changed due to new services replacing the sale of copies. The Swedish music industry, for example, reports that 85-90% of revenues are from streaming services. A similar development is taking place for television and film.

Private copying has thus virtually ceased. Not least because of new music and movie services that today generate large revenues for Copyswede's members. As everyone knows, we now listen to and watch music and films using smart phones, tablets and computers. These are products for which, paradoxically, Copyswede believes that consumers should pay a special copying fee even though no copying takes place.

The main legal objection we have to the Swedish system is that, under EU law, it is the copyright holders who have to prove that they have suffered harm from private copying. Since it has in principle ceased, it would be a difficult task to prove any harm. The representatives of Copyswede carefully avoid this central issue in their reply.

EU law is also clear in another area: since it is consumers who make private copies, they are also the ones who must pay the remuneration. Copyswede tries to paint a contradictory picture between the business community and cultural creators. A more accurate picture is that they themselves are taxing consumers based on a consumption pattern that no longer exists.

Private copying has stopped. Consumers should not have to pay for something they do not do. That is our message to Parliament and the government. Copyswede should also support a review, out of respect for both copyright and consumers.

Pär Nygårds, Industry Policy Expert, IT&Telecom Industries

Klas Elm, CEO, ElektronikBranschen