Government legislative proposals

The plan does not address private copying compensation. The closest principles are that cultural policy shall give culture creators good economic conditions and that tech giants' power position shall be met consciously, which speaks for the demand that compensation instead be paid by the platforms and services where works are consumed. The conclusion is uncertain, since the plan at the same time wants to build digital commons with free access to knowledge and culture.

• conditions for culture creatorsdecisive»Kulturpolitiken behöver skapa goda ekonomiska villkor för såväl« (party programme ↗)“Cultural policy needs to create good economic conditions for both”
• counter-power against platform giants»techjättarna tvärtom försöker göra sig oundgängliga.« (party programme ↗)“tech giants on the contrary try to make themselves indispensable.”
• culture's independence»Vänsterpartiet försvarar den oberoende kulturen.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The Left Party defends independent culture.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan's decisive commitment is that artistic professionals shall have copyright and fair compensation. Rejecting the legislation would leave an outdated compensation system in place without any platform-based alternative, which weakens compensation rather than strengthens it. The plan certainly wants clear democratic rules for digital platforms, but that does not justify refusing modernisation.

• fair compensation for authorsdecisive»Upphovsrätt, trygga villkor och skälig ersättning för konstnärliga yrkesutövare.« (party programme ↗)“Copyright, secure conditions and fair compensation for artistic professionals.”
• regulation of digital platforms»Brutna oligopol och demokratiska spelregler för digital kommunikation och artificiell« (party programme ↗)“Broken oligopolies and democratic rules for digital communication and artificial”
• regulated digital market»Väl fungerande digital inre marknad i EU, med tydlig reglering av artificiell intelligens« (party programme ↗)“Well-functioning digital internal market in the EU, with clear regulation of artificial intelligence”

The plan wants to modernise copyright so that creators' rights are valued and sees it as a democratic problem that a few global tech companies control the platforms where content is consumed. The counter-proposal's requirement for a system where rights holders receive reasonable compensation directly from the platforms follows from that line, whereas a legislative repair of an outdated system does not.

• modernised copyrightdecisive»förbättra kulturskaparnas ekonomiska och sociala villkor och modernisera upphovsrätten så att kulturskaparnas rättigheter värnas.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“improve creators' economic and social conditions and modernise copyright so that creators' rights are valued.”
• platform power»Det är ett demokratiskt problem att några få globala tech-företag kontrollerar plattformar som blivit viktiga för samhällsdebatt, informationsspridning och direktkommunikation.« (party programme ↗)“It is a democratic problem that a few global tech companies control platforms that have become important for public debate, information dissemination and direct communication.”
• against power concentration»Vi vill motverka att den ekonomiska ojämlikheten ökar genom en ökad kapital- och maktkoncentration hos ett fåtal privata vinstdrivande aktörer.« (party programme ↗)“We want to prevent economic inequality from increasing through increased capital and power concentration among a few private profit-driven actors.”
• reasonable conditions for creators»Professionella konstnärer och kulturskapare ska kunna arbeta under rimliga villkor i hela landet.« (party programme ↗)“Professional artists and creators shall be able to work under reasonable conditions throughout the country.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The party programme notes that digitalisation challenges the traditional view of copyright and that it must be developed to the new conditions, while the rights of creators to compensation are ensured. The counter-proposal's objection that a fee on electronic products repairs a system that is not fit for purpose, and that compensation should instead come from the platforms where works are consumed, is closer to that principle than modernising the old model. However, the evidence is weak.

• copyright must developdecisive»Digitaliseringen utmanar den traditionella synen på upphovsrätten.« (party programme ↗)“Digitalisation challenges the traditional view of copyright.”
• compensation to creators»upphovsmännens rätt att få ersättning för sitt arbete måste säkras« (party programme ↗)“the rights of creators to receive compensation for their work must be secured”
• room for new business models»riskerar det att förhindra entreprenörskap, innovation och nya affärsmodeller.« (party programme ↗)“risks preventing entrepreneurship, innovation and new business models.”

The plan demands that copyright be adapted to new technology and new forms of distribution, not that an old system be patched. The counter-proposal's substantive demand – a system where rights holders are compensated directly by the platforms and services where works are actually consumed – is precisely such an adaptation. The plan, however, gives no indication that a modernizing legislative proposal should be rejected in waiting for this.

• copyright adapted to new technologydecisive»Upphovsrätten måste dock anpassas till ny teknik och nya distributionsformer.« (party programme ↗)“Copyright must, however, be adapted to new technology and new forms of distribution.”
• new technology and accessibility»Den nya tekniken ökar tillgängligheten till kultur.« (party programme ↗)“The new technology increases access to culture.”
• copyright's position»Kulturskaparnas rätt att bestämma över sina verk är en förutsättning för kulturens frihet.« (party programme ↗)“Cultural creators' right to control their works is a prerequisite for culture's freedom.”
• remove obstacles for technological development»Politikens uppgift måste vara att snabbt undanröja hinder för att underlätta för företag och människor att ta vara på de möjligheter som den tekniska utvecklingen skapar.« (party programme ↗)“Policy's task must be to quickly remove obstacles to make it easier for companies and people to take advantage of the opportunities that technological development creates.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The counter-proposal wants to reject the bill and await a completely new compensation system. The plan emphasizes that rights holders' property rights shall be protected and that the rules the state sets up shall be long-term, which speaks for modernizing outdated regulations rather than leaving them unchanged. The documents do not address platform-based compensation, so the conclusion rests on general principles.

• protection for intellectual property rightsdecisive»mänskligheten är möjligheten att skydda äganderätten till uppfinningar. Det handlar om« (party programme ↗)“humanity is the possibility to protect property rights in inventions. It is about”
• long-term rules»Det är viktigt att de regler staten ställer upp för företagen är långsiktiga.« (party programme ↗)“It is important that the rules the state sets up for businesses are long-term.”
• good conditions for cultural creators»Det offentliga har ansvar för att konstarterna får goda villkor att verka.« (party programme ↗)“The public has responsibility for artists to have good conditions to work.”

The plan does not take a position on the construction of private copy compensation. It does, however, value property rights and business freedom and wants to remove regulatory burden, which speaks for a modernised and predictable arrangement rather than rejecting the proposal and allowing an outdated system to continue whilst waiting for a completely new model. The requirement for rejection is therefore rejected, with low certainty.

• strong property rightsdecisive»Äganderätten och näringsfriheten ska ha ett starkt skydd i« (party programme ↗)“Property rights and business freedom shall have strong protection in”
• reduced regulatory burden»Ta bort en tredjedel av företagens administrationskostnader och en tredjedel av regelkrånglet« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Remove one-third of companies' administrative costs and one-third of regulatory burden”
• market economy and contract freedom»Grunden för Sveriges välstånd är en marknadsekonomi baserad« (party programme ↗)“The foundation for Sweden's prosperity is a market economy based”

The plan states that outdated copyright rules should be adapted to how people consume and create content in the digital society. The counter-proposal's demand for a system where rights holders receive compensation directly from the platforms and services where works are consumed is precisely such an adaptation, while the bill repairs a fee on electronic products. The plan also wants to strengthen users' position against the platforms.

• copyright adapted to digital usedecisive»Föråldrade regler om upphovsrätt behöver också anpassas efter hur människor konsumerar och skapar innehåll i det digitala samhället.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Outdated copyright rules also need to be adapted to how people consume and create content in the digital society.”
• platforms' responsibility»Öka användarnas ställning i förhållande till sociala plattformar« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Increase users' position in relation to social platforms”
• cost-effective rules»Nya regler ska vara kostnadseffektiva och befintliga regler behöver ses över.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“New rules should be cost-effective and existing rules need to be reviewed.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.