Tag Archives: Collective management

Replay TV: catching up with advertising revenues

Replay TV (also known as time-shift or catch-up TV) offers consumers the option of watching television broadcasts on a time-shifted basis instead of at the regular scheduled time. This function, which is very popular with viewers, is now jeopardised by an ongoing legal and political dispute. Text by Vincent Salvadé

Replay TV: catching up with advertising revenues

Replay TV: Thanks to digital technology, viewers can go back in time up to seven days and catch up on any programmes they may have missed. (Photo: Getty Images / Steve Lawrence)

Broadcasting companies, i.e. TV channels, are demanding veto rights on the time-shifted use of their programmes. What is at stake? Their advertising revenues. After all, who will watch commercials if you can skip them in replay? This dispute is of significance for SUISA and for musical rightholders too.

Current status

In past decisions, the Federal Arbitration Commission for copyright and neighbouring rights has equated subscription to a replay TV service with copying for private use, which is permitted by Article 19(2) FCA. In exchange, rightholders (including, in this case, broadcasting companies) are entitled to remuneration in accordance with Article 20(2) FCA, levied by the collecting societies in accordance with Common Tariff 12 (CT 12).

This has been the status since 2013, and broadcasters have not disputed it before the civil courts. This situation has several advantages: the distributors of the broadcasting programmes (Swisscom TV, UPC, Sunrise, etc) can offer their customers attractive services in exchange for a fee. And the collecting societies collect the fees and pass them on to the copyright and neighbouring rights rightholders.

However, in February 2018, the Federal Arbitration Commission responsible for reviewing the tariffs of the collecting societies approved the new CT 12, which provides for a slight increase in these fees, for the period 2017 to 2020. On 21 March 2018, 23 broadcasting companies appealed this decision before the Federal Administration Court. They argued that replay TV was not governed by the legal regime for private copying, and should be subject to their consent. On 12 September 2018, the Court ruled that the broadcasting companies were not entitled to appeal.

In parallel, however, turning to account the ongoing revision of the Telecommunications Act (TCA), the broadcasting companies had also demanded veto rights for replay TV in that context. In July 2018, the Transport and Telecommunications Committee of the National Council (TTC-N) followed their reasoning and introduced Article 12e TCA. This triggered a number of reactions from stakeholders opposed to the new provision. Finally, the Committee backed down and proposed that the issue be resolved in the framework of the copyright law revision.

The issue

SUISA appreciates that broadcasting companies should seek to safeguard their advertising income. This is also in the interest of the holders of musical rights, since the tariffs governing broadcasting rights (tariff A for the SSR and Common Tariff S for private broadcasters) are based on broadcasters’ revenues.

By way of reminder: based on tariff A and CT S, SUISA collected about CHF 16.8 million in remuneration from Swiss TV broadcasters in 2017, plus an additional CHF 1.3 million from the Swiss advertising windows of foreign broadcasters. By comparison, TC 12 generated slightly over CHF 3 million for musical rightholders. We should be careful not to lop off the branch on which musical rights are sitting.

Solutions

However, granting veto rights to broadcasting companies on replay TV seems unjustified. By refusing their consent, broadcasters would limit the offer available to consumers and, as a result, reduce CT 12 revenues for rightholders. By limiting private copying options, which is now regularly the case on the cloud, we would be sounding the death knell for a system that is the envy of our neighbours and has contributed to developing innovative digital services.

We feel that existing copyright law provides for a well-balanced system: under Articles 59 and 60 FCA, remuneration under CT 12 must be fair. That means on the one hand, that distributors must compensate the broadcasting companies commensurately with the significant revenues generated by replay TV. On the other hand, Articles 59 and 60 FCA are worded in sufficiently flexible terms to take into account, at least partially, the same distributors’ loss in earnings.

At the same time, the law could require distributors to obtain the broadcaster’s consent, not to their offering replay TV services to their customers, but to enabling their customers to skip the commercials. This means distributors would have to take the necessary technical measures to prevent viewers from skipping commercials when the broadcaster withholds its consent. Consumers may at first be reluctant to accept such solutions. But such measures would be the lesser evil compared with a broadcaster veto liable to significantly limit the current offer. And, for a number of stakeholders, it is a win-win solution:

  • providers who distribute the programmes could continue offering full replay TV, while consumers could continue subscribing to that option;
  • distribution companies would be able to preserve or increase their advertising revenues since they would have an additional audience of viewers who are unable to tune into programmes at the scheduled times;
  • other rightholders would continue to collect significant broadcasting distribution revenues (tariff A and CT S in the case of musical rights) while taking advantage of the booming revenue flows from CT 12.

Switzerland always favours balanced solutions. The legal regime for replay TV should be no exception to the rule; the interests of all stakeholders must be taken into account.

Related articles
Copyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committeesCopyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committees On 22 November 2017, the Federal Council presented its Message on the revision of the Federal Copyright Act (FCA), and referred the copyright bill (FCA-B) to the two houses of Parliament. The bill reflects the compromise reached by the AGUR12 II working group at the beginning of March 2017. Parliament has started working on the bill, and SUISA was invited to present its point of view on 12 April 2018 at a hearing organised by the Science, Education and Culture Committee of the National Council. SUISA also had the opportunity to state its views before the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council, first in writing and then orally on 18 May 2018. Read more
Changes in relation to the distribution of Tariff CT 1 and CT 2 collectionsChanges in relation to the distribution of Tariff CT 1 and CT 2 collections In the last few years, cable network providers switched their offerings from analogue to digital. In order to take these changes into consideration, the distribution of the collections arising from Tariffs CT 1 (cable networks), CT 2a (retransmitters) and CT 2b (IP based networks) was aligned. In item 5.5.1 of the distribution rules the calculation basis of the reference parameter “number of subscribers” was changed to “daily reach”. Read more
Copyright Act Review: Authors and publishers must benefit more from the online exploitation of their worksCopyright Act Review: Authors and publishers must benefit more from the online exploitation of their works The Federal Council has adopted a dispatch on the new Copyright Act. SUISA is in principle content with the current version of the law. The solutions achieved in the working group for the Copyright Act (AGUR12 II) were implemented. In order for authors, performers, publishers and producers to benefit better from the digitisation, it is necessary to adopt important additions. Read more
Collapse article

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

Replay TV (also known as time-shift or catch-up TV) offers consumers the option of watching television broadcasts on a time-shifted basis instead of at the regular scheduled time. This function, which is very popular with viewers, is now jeopardised by an ongoing legal and political dispute. Text by Vincent Salvadé

Replay TV: catching up with advertising revenues

Replay TV: Thanks to digital technology, viewers can go back in time up to seven days and catch up on any programmes they may have missed. (Photo: Getty Images / Steve Lawrence)

Broadcasting companies, i.e. TV channels, are demanding veto rights on the time-shifted use of their programmes. What is at stake? Their advertising revenues. After all, who will watch commercials if you can skip them in replay? This dispute is of significance for SUISA and for musical rightholders too.

Current status

In past decisions,...read more

No adequate share for audiovisual artists regarding video on demand and streaming success

Film director Ursula Meier is speeding from one success to the next, both in Switzerland as well as abroad. She elaborates why it is necessary to enhance the value of the position of film makers and actors in the video on demand (VOD) sector in the course of the copyright law review. Text/Interview by guest author Jürg Ruchti, CEO, SSA

No adequate share for audiovisual artists regarding video on demand and streaming success

Ursula Meier is a film director and a member of SSA. SSA is a sister society of SUISA and manages copyright for stage and audiovisual works. (Photo: Claude Dussez)

Ursula Meier, you are a member of the Société Suisse des Auteurs (SSA) – why?
Well, first and foremost because SSA looks after my copyright in an efficient manner. It also provides me with additional services: SSA is a cooperative society which is based on mutuality and solidarity and defends the interests of creators of audiovisual and stage works.

Creatives are asking for an implementation of new provisions regarding the video on demand (VOD) into the Swiss Copyright Act.
Yes, that’s very important. Thanks to the internet, our works are being consumed as often as never before but creatives are not paid to the extent that they would deserve. Digital economy players claim the income which have arisen from the consumption of our works but reject any obligations above and beyond that.

But isn’t it the case that authors negotiate their rights with the producer when they create a film?
Yes, but the contractual chains for the exploitation of the works are so complex and sometimes opaque that the income does actually not reach the artist or creator. There is a multitude of contracting parties. The digital economy leaves producers in an unprecedented state of uncertainty. They don’t know whether they’ll ever get their investment back. There are several reasons for that. This affects the levels of remuneration which they can grant artists during the contractual negotiations prior to the completion of a film. Our conditions have thus got worse.

Why should VOD platforms be obliged to remunerate authors via their collective management organisations?
Because if that were the case, authors would get a fair share of the success of their work, since their collective management organisations would get involved with the last player in the value chain i.e. the party which is in direct contact with the consumer. In the TV sector in Switzerland, this model has been established for quite some time and it works to our satisfaction. The current law does actually provide an obligation to pay for the rental of video tapes or DVDs. Since VOD has now taken over this market segment, the law should be adapted to this development.

The suggested new provision does, however, not seem to be beyond all doubt.
No, since it contains two contentious issues: First, it also affects music which does not want this provision since its system already works well in all countries. This is not the case for scriptwriters, directors and actors. A collective management of their rights only exists in few countries and the platforms often operate from other countries. The second issue which is problematic relates to works which are commissioned by TV broadcasters: The legislative draft provides for them to be excluded from the new mandatory remuneration for artists.

What exactly is the problem in the case of commissioned work?
These works are the most sought after works on this new market, for example series. The circle of principals has grown: In future, VOD platforms join TV broadcasters. There is no reason to treat the former in any other way than the latter. Works do follow a path. Sooner or later they can be consumed on a multitude of platforms. If commissioned works are being excluded from this new VOD right, authors do not receive any remuneration for their online exploitation. Their situation would therefore hardly improve. Here’s an example: A new series, commissioned by the RTS, which subsequently is made available via a streaming service such as Amazon would be exempt from the new legislation. This exclusion undermines the meaning of the new law and its general intention consequently misses the mark. The argument which forms the basis to this legal article does not reflect reality and I hope that this will be resolved in the course of the debates in the respective sessions.

About Ursula Meier
Ursula Meier is an internationally renowned film director. “Home” (with Isabelle Huppert) was among the nominated films at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival and received numerous international awards. In 2012, “L’enfant d’en haut” (with Léa Seydoux and Kacey Mottet Klein) was awarded the special prize Silberner Bär [Silver Bear] at the Berlinale [Berlin Film Festival]. Just like “Home”, in 2010, the film was given three Swiss film awards, among them the award for the best film, and it also represented Switzerland at the Oscars. At the beginning of 2018, Ursula Meier completed “Journal de ma tête”, a TV film with Fanny Ardant and Kacey Mottet Klein. The film was nominated for the Berlinale. Ursula Meier was the president of the jury for the Caméra d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival this year.
About the remuneration right for video on demand
Online platforms that make available feature films (cinema and TV) have replaced DVD rental. Whereas, under Article 13 FCA, authors and artists used to receive a share of DVD rental revenues, this is no longer the case for online availability. The revised legislation must ensure that authors and performing artists, as the primary creators of value, participate in this new economic model. Swisscopyright welcomed the introduction of a right to remuneration in Articles 13a and 35a FCA-B in principle. The collecting societies, however, underscored that the right to remuneration must be supplemental to the fees paid to the creators by producers (for the commissioning of works, the performances therein and the corresponding rights). The FCʼs proposal is not clear in this respect. Swisscopyright argues that the parliamentary debates must make it clear that the right to receive remuneration is supplemental to, and not in lieu of, such fees.
“The composers and publishers of film music entrust their rights to collective rights management societies like SUISA which act directly vis à vis the VoD platforms. The contractual system for music assures composers more favourable financial conditions than they would have under a statutory remuneration right.”
Moreover, the exclusion of music works from the new right to remuneration was an essential element of the AGUR 12 II compromise; regrettably, the FC has not included this exclusion in its proposal. Since the voluntary collective management model functions well in the music sector, we should come back to the solution advocated by AGUR12 II. The music and the audiovisual sector diverge significantly in this respect “The composers and publishers of film music entrust their rights to collective rights management societies like SUISA which act directly vis à vis the VoD platforms (alongside the aggregators who handle all other rights in the film). The contractual system for music assures composers more favourable financial conditions than they would have under a statutory remuneration right.
In the field of music, however, it is necessary to ensure that the revenues distributed by collecting societies are properly apportioned between the composer and the publisher. The composer must in any event receive an equitable share. Article 49(3) FCA already guarantees this for concerts, radio broadcasts and CD productions. But this rule only applies to areas under federal regulation, and therefore not to VoD. As a result, Swisscopyright proposes rewording paragraph 5 of Article 13a FCA-B to stipulate the composerʼs right to a fair share of the voluntary collective management revenues, in line with SUISAʼs current practice.
Excerpt from the SUISAblog-Article: “Copyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committees” by Vincent Salvadé.

The interview with Ursula Meier was conducted for the “Sessionsbrief” (session letter) (PDF, in German) of Swisscopyright, published in September 2018. Swisscopyright is the joint umbrella of the five Swiss collective management organisations ProLitteris, SSA, SUISA, Suissimage and Swissperform. With the “Sessionsbrief”, the societies inform interested parties from within the political scene as well as the public on subjects affecting copyright.

Swisscopyright Website

Related articles
Copyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committeesCopyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committees On 22 November 2017, the Federal Council presented its Message on the revision of the Federal Copyright Act (FCA), and referred the copyright bill (FCA-B) to the two houses of Parliament. The bill reflects the compromise reached by the AGUR12 II working group at the beginning of March 2017. Parliament has started working on the bill, and SUISA was invited to present its point of view on 12 April 2018 at a hearing organised by the Science, Education and Culture Committee of the National Council. SUISA also had the opportunity to state its views before the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council, first in writing and then orally on 18 May 2018. Read more
Changes to the distribution of collections for internet useChanges to the distribution of collections for internet use New distribution keys will be used for the distribution of collections for internet use (audio and video on demand offers). For downloads, a new key of 25% for performing rights and 75% for reproduction rights shall be applied. For streaming, the split shall consist of 75% performing rights and 25% reproduction rights. Read more
Peter Reber: “Without an organisation like SUISA many songs would never have been created”“Without an organisation like SUISA many songs would never have been created” The famous and popular musician Peter Reber has been a SUISA member since 1971. In a written interview, the composer, lyricist, artist and publisher explains, why his collective management organisation is important for him and why – from his point of view – it is not necessary that collective management organisations should be subject to a stricter supervision. Read more
Collapse article

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

Film director Ursula Meier is speeding from one success to the next, both in Switzerland as well as abroad. She elaborates why it is necessary to enhance the value of the position of film makers and actors in the video on demand (VOD) sector in the course of the copyright law review. Text/Interview by guest author Jürg Ruchti, CEO, SSA

No adequate share for audiovisual artists regarding video on demand and streaming success

Ursula Meier is a film director and a member of SSA. SSA is a sister society of SUISA and manages copyright for stage and audiovisual works. (Photo: Claude Dussez)

Ursula Meier, you are a member of the Société Suisse des Auteurs (SSA) – why?
Well, first and foremost because SSA looks after my copyright in an efficient manner. It also provides me with additional services: SSA is a cooperative society which is based on...read more

Strong together

22 June 2018: it’s that time of the year again. As a member of the Cooperative Society SUISA entitled to vote you will be able to decide on the future of your copyright society and to take stock with respect to the past business year at the General Assembly in the Bierhüebli in Bern. By Andreas Wegelin, CEO

Strong together

Voting at SUISA’s General Assembly: The umbrella of the co-operative joins the collective weight of authors’ and publishers’ votes. (Photo: Juerg Isler, isler-fotografie.ch)

Cooperative societies are usually alliances of persons or institutions who have the same or similar goals and interests. The idea behind such associations is as simple as it is effective: Together, we are strong! Economic, social or cultural issues that are presented in a unified manner often gain more momentum and impact than just the voice of an individual.

As your Cooperative Society for authors and publishers of music, we can support your interests. The main objective is to generate fair conditions and guarantee a fair remuneration for music creators. Collective management of rights has become an ever more significant aspect: These days, SUISA negotiates with some corporations which act globally. The market power of such negotiation partners may only be faced with the support and strength of a unified community.

Under such circumstances, it is even more positive that 2017 has been the best year in SUISA’s history from a financial perspective. An overall amount of CHF 131.4m in copyright remuneration can be paid out to rightsholders and sister societies. That is more than ever before.

SUISA annual results: online usage of music exceeds physical formats for first timeSUISA annual results: online usage of music exceeds physical formats for first time
Authors and publishers of music will receive CHF 131.4 million from SUISA this year. Last year the collecting society received CHF 150 million in copyright from domestic and international sources – CHF 2.9 million more than the previous year. In particular, reimbursements from private copying and the online sector contributed to this growth. For the first time, revenues from online music recordings exceeded those from sales of physical formats. But there is still a pressing need for action in the area of streaming. The internet platforms continue to benefit almost exclusively from this growth market, rather than composers, lyricists and publishers of music. Read more

During the coming GA, a revision of SUISA’s Articles of Association is planned for ratification. This has become necessary because a Directive at EU level has been passed with new provisions, especially regarding the transparency of our work. And this is something that affects SUISA, too: SUISA is responsible for Liechtenstein and operates for online usages on an European market level.

Exploitation rights in the EU and review of SUISA’s Articles of AssociationExploitation rights in the EU and review of SUISA’s Articles of Association
Liechtenstein has been – other than Switzerland – a member of the European Economic Area since 1995 and must, as such, accept a major proportion of the European Union legal provisions. What do EU exploitation rights have to do with the revision of the SUISA Articles of Association? Read more

During the GA, you are also going to have the oppoertunity to meet the President of Swissperform. She is going to report on the cooperation among the Swiss collective management organisations.

Why SUISA members should also consider joining SWISSPERFORMWhy SUISA members should also consider joining SWISSPERFORM
Composers and lyricists who are SUISA members and are also active as artists and/or producers and whose performances are broadcast by Swiss or foreign radio and TV channels are entitled to receive a remuneration from SWISSPERFORM. For all those authors-composers-artists/producers, a membership with SWISSPERFORM is thus a necessary addition to their SUISA affiliation in order to safeguard their rights and the full remuneration they are entitled to. Read more

FONDATION SUISA also has got some news on its support activities, and its foundation Director is going to elaborate on that. Finally, the ongoing copyright law revision is expected to be a topic for discussion, since hearings took place among the parliamentary committees last April and May.

New support strategy: “We want to look ahead”New support strategy: “We want to look ahead”
FONDATION SUISA reinforces its activities regarding the support of music in Switzerland and the Principality of Liechtenstein: Each year, four music projects shall be launched under the motto “Get Going!”, and every other year, a bigger amount shall be allocated to works under the slogan “Carte Blanche”. Read more
Copyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committeesCopyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committees
On 22 November 2017, the Federal Council presented its Message on the revision of the Federal Copyright Act (FCA), and referred the copyright bill (FCA-B) to the two houses of Parliament. The bill reflects the compromise reached by the AGUR12 II working group at the beginning of March 2017. Parliament has started working on the bill, and SUISA was invited to present its point of view on 12 April 2018 at a hearing organised by the Science, Education and Culture Committee of the National Council. SUISA also had the opportunity to state its views before the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council, first in writing and then orally on 18 May 2018. Read more

All of these topics will be covered by our SUISAblog and SUISAinfo, one of which you are currently reading. Of course, you’ll find out more information and more details if you travel to the GA in Bern. I look forward to welcoming as many of you as possible in person then.

Related articles
SUISA General Assembly 2018: Your opinion counts!SUISA General Assembly 2018: Your opinion counts! SUISA’s ordinary General Assembly takes place on 22 June 2018 in the Bierhübeli in Bern. It will be opened with a music performance by the ad hoc formation Swiss Ländlermix in line with the theme; “Folk music – Switzerland crossways”. Important business items on the agenda are the review of the Articles of Association, the new Complaints Committee and an election of a substitute for the Distribution and Works Committee. Danièle Wüthrich-Meyer, President of Swissperform will attend as guest speaker. Read more
131.4m Swiss Francs for composers, lyricists and publishers131.4m Swiss Francs for composers, lyricists and publishers It was with satisfaction that members of the SUISA Board approved the results of the previous year during their meeting at the end of March 2017. The total turnover was 3.2% higher than that of the previous year. An overall amount of CHF 131.4m can be paid out to rights holders. The Board has, in addition, decided that a supplementary distribution of 7% shall be carried out on top of all regular distributions in 2018. Read more
Copyright Act Review: Authors and publishers must benefit more from the online exploitation of their worksCopyright Act Review: Authors and publishers must benefit more from the online exploitation of their works The Federal Council has adopted a dispatch on the new Copyright Act. SUISA is in principle content with the current version of the law. The solutions achieved in the working group for the Copyright Act (AGUR12 II) were implemented. In order for authors, performers, publishers and producers to benefit better from the digitisation, it is necessary to adopt important additions. Read more
Collapse article

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

22 June 2018: it’s that time of the year again. As a member of the Cooperative Society SUISA entitled to vote you will be able to decide on the future of your copyright society and to take stock with respect to the past business year at the General Assembly in the Bierhüebli in Bern. By Andreas Wegelin, CEO

Strong together

Voting at SUISA’s General Assembly: The umbrella of the co-operative joins the collective weight of authors’ and publishers’ votes. (Photo: Juerg Isler, isler-fotografie.ch)

Cooperative societies are usually alliances of persons or institutions who have the same or similar goals and interests. The idea behind such associations is as simple as it is effective: Together, we are strong! Economic, social or cultural issues that are presented in a unified manner often gain more momentum and impact...read more

Exploitation rights in the EU and review of SUISA’s Articles of Association

Liechtenstein has been – other than Switzerland – a member of the European Economic Area since 1995 and must, as such, accept a major proportion of the European Union legal provisions. What do EU exploitation rights have to do with the revision of the SUISA Articles of Association? Text by Bernhard Wittweiler

Exploitation rights in the EU and review of SUISA’s Articles of Association

Copyright developments in Europe are of importance for Switzerland’s SUISA, too: The image shows CISAC President Jean-Michel Jarre on 06 March 2018 handing a petition to the European Parliament. It had been signed by 14,000 authors and composers requesting fair rules in the digital marketplace in order to stop the “transfer of value” on the internet. (Photo: CISAC / Iris Haidau)

The European Union (EU) had, for quite some time, established rules for the collective management of copyright and neighbouring rights via the collective management organisations. Initially, individual decisions were passed by the EU Commission and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which were derived from EU Competition Laws. The EU bodies thus managed to break up the strict territorial demarcation between the collective management organisations (CMO) and the exclusivity of the rights assignment, to facilitate rightsholders’ switching to another CMO and to create more competition between the CMOs in general.

In the nascent age of online exploitation of music, the EU Commission set another milestone with its Recommendation of October 2005. It wanted to achieve the biggest possible competition between the CMOs regarding online rights management as well as improve transparency and equal treatment of all rights holders in the CMOs. The Recommendation resulted in the complete freedom of rightsholders to choose which CMO in Europe they wish to entrust with their online rights, in the creation of one-stop-shops for online licences and multi-territorial online licences.

Rules for collective management

But it didn’t stop there. Over the years, the needs grew for a comprehensive and standardised regulation of the collective management organisations’ activities in the EU and for a harmonised internal market as the basis for collective management. Thus, on 26 February 2014, the Directive on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market (CRM Directive) was issued. Directives are paramount to laws in significance, but do not take direct effect; instead, they have to be implemented by individual EU member states into their national laws.

The CRM Directive has the aim to set minimal standards regarding an orderly mode of operation of collective management organisations (corporate governance), their finance management, transparency and accountability vis-a-vis members, sister societies and the public, the right of co-determination of members, equal treatment and non-discrimination of rights holders, sister societies and users, settlement of disputes, management and licensing of online rights as well as the supervision of CMOs by the authorities.

EU Directive authoritative for Liechtenstein

The CRM Directive of the EU was declared to be authoritative for the States of the European Economic Area (EEA), and thus also Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein therefore had to adopt the Directive and implement it into its national laws. For this purpose, a new, distinct law was created, the Liechtenstein Collecting Societies Act (VGG), which was passed on 29 March 2018 by the Landtag (Parliament). Previous provisions for the collective management in the copyright laws of Liechtenstein were taken over into the VGG.

SUISA has been active in the Principality of Liechtenstein for decades, since 1999 with its own state licence and under the supervision of the respective authority, the Office of Economic Affairs in Liechtenstein, as the supervisory authority. Authors and publishers from Liechtenstein are SUISA members, SUISA collects licence fees for copyright in Liechtenstein based on its tariffs for the music usages that take place there. Just like in Switzerland, the tariffs and the distribution rules valid for Liechtenstein require a state licence and SUISA has to be accountable to Liechtenstein’s supervisory authority each year regarding its business activities.

Adaptation of SUISA Articles of Association

With its activities and licence to operate in Liechtenstein, SUISA is subject to the provisions in Liechtenstein regarding collective management. We are therefore obliged to fulfil the specifications and requirements of the new VGG – and thus also the CRM Directive of the EU. The new provisions do not entail no earth-shattering or major innovations, we already adhere to the majority of the provisions which have been a matter of course for us for a long time. Nevertheless, there are still some areas that require adaptation.

The necessary changes of the SUISA Articles of Association will be presented to the General Assembly on 22 June 2018 for ratification so that they may enter into force from 01 January 2019.

The most important of the proposed changes to the Articles of Association are the following:

  • SUISA membership is no longer dependent on nationality, residence or any other link to Switzerland or Liechtenstein (authors) respectively a presence in Switzerland or Liechtenstein (publishers) (item 5.1);
  • extension of the competence of the General Assembly (item 9.2.2);
  • preparation and publication of a transparency report which shows various information and key figures in addition to the annual report (item 9.2.3);
  • facilitation of electronic participation at the GA, provided that the statutory provisions (in the Swiss OR, the Swiss Federal Code of Obligations) allow us to do so (item 9.2.10, new);
  • declarations by the Board and Management to the GA regarding conflicts of interest (items 9.3.11 and 9.6.4, new);
  • creation of a Complaints Committee (item 9.5, new).

Revision of the Articles of Association for online business

One important strategic business sector of SUISA that depends on the revision of the Articles of Association is the following: SUISA has been licensing music of SUISA members at pan-European level since 2013 in the online sector, partially even far beyond Europe’s borders. Pursuant to the EU Directive, collective management organisations must meet certain standards in order to be able to carry out cross-border licensing within the European Union.

So that SUISA may continue its pan-European licensing in the online sector, the provisions of the EU Directive must be adhered to. The online business is a focus of SUISA’s strategy for the immediate future. By way of revising the Articles of Association, the conditions will be met that SUISA can directly negotiate with and collect from online providers such as iTunes or Spotify regarding exploitations outside Switzerland and Liechtenstein, too.

Related articles
SUISA General Assembly 2018: Your opinion counts!SUISA General Assembly 2018: Your opinion counts! SUISA’s ordinary General Assembly takes place on 22 June 2018 in the Bierhübeli in Bern. It will be opened with a music performance by the ad hoc formation Swiss Ländlermix in line with the theme; “Folk music – Switzerland crossways”. Important business items on the agenda are the review of the Articles of Association, the new Complaints Committee and an election of a substitute for the Distribution and Works Committee. Danièle Wüthrich-Meyer, President of Swissperform will attend as guest speaker. Read more
Copyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committeesCopyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committees On 22 November 2017, the Federal Council presented its Message on the revision of the Federal Copyright Act (FCA), and referred the copyright bill (FCA-B) to the two houses of Parliament. The bill reflects the compromise reached by the AGUR12 II working group at the beginning of March 2017. Parliament has started working on the bill, and SUISA was invited to present its point of view on 12 April 2018 at a hearing organised by the Science, Education and Culture Committee of the National Council. SUISA also had the opportunity to state its views before the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council, first in writing and then orally on 18 May 2018. Read more
Publishers’ participation at SUISA not at riskPublishers’ participation at SUISA not at risk A decision by the European Court of Justice dating back to 2015 and two German court decisions made last year have challenged the basic principle of a participation of publishers with respect to remuneration paid out by collective management organisations. Here are the reasons why what happened at Gema cannot repeat itself at SUISA. Read more
Collapse article

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

Liechtenstein has been – other than Switzerland – a member of the European Economic Area since 1995 and must, as such, accept a major proportion of the European Union legal provisions. What do EU exploitation rights have to do with the revision of the SUISA Articles of Association? Text by Bernhard Wittweiler

Exploitation rights in the EU and review of SUISA’s Articles of Association

Copyright developments in Europe are of importance for Switzerland’s SUISA, too: The image shows CISAC President Jean-Michel Jarre on 06 March 2018 handing a petition to the European Parliament. It had been signed by 14,000 authors and composers requesting fair rules in the digital marketplace in order to stop the “transfer of value” on the internet. (Photo: CISAC / Iris Haidau)

The European Union (EU) had, for quite some time, established rules for the collective management of copyright and neighbouring rights...read more

Copyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committees

On 22 November 2017, the Federal Council presented its Message on the revision of the Federal Copyright Act (FCA), and referred the copyright bill (FCA-B) to the two houses of Parliament. Text by Vincent Salvadé

Copyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committees

Revision of Swiss copyright law: work has started in the Federal Palace in Berne. (Photo: Simon Zenger / Shutterstock.com)

The bill reflects the compromise reached by the AGUR12 II working group at the beginning of March 2017. Parliament has started working on the bill, and SUISA was invited to present its point of view on 12 April 2018 at a hearing organised by the Science, Education and Culture Committee of the National Council. SUISA also had the opportunity to state its views before the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council, first in writing and then orally on 18 May 2018.

Each time, SUISA acted in association with Swisscopyright, the entity which brings together the five Swiss collective management societies in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights. SUISA started by underscoring that the main objective of Swisscopyright was to ensure fair remuneration for cultural creators, including in the digital age. For this reason, the five collective rights management societies supported the compromise achieved at AGUR12 II level and, consequently, the Federal Councilʼs proposal. However, the societies asked for changes in the provisions governing the new entitlement to remuneration for video on-demand (VoD) with a view to ensuring that the new regulations better reflect the AGUR12 II compromise and secure fair remuneration for creators.

1. General appraisal of the FCʼs bill

Swisscopyright welcomed the Federal Council’s intention to introduce an “extended collective licence” (Article 43 FCA-B). Collecting societies could thus grant blanket authorisations for certain uses, including on behalf of rightholders they do not contractually represent; this would foster cultural projects while assuring remuneration for entitled parties. The blanket authorisation would apply to uses which cannot be individually controlled by rightholders; collecting societies would act as an “insurance” (of a sort) for users. The extended collective licence is perfectly consistent with the function of a collective rights management society, which is to facilitate and simplify rights management for all stakeholders.

Generally speaking, Swisscopyright welcomes all the measures designed to improve collective rights management: according to the FCʼs proposal, users would be required to communicate their declarations to collecting societies in electronic form to facilitate automatic processing (Article 51 FCA-B); collecting societies would be authorised to exchange the data delivered by users (Article 51(1bis) FCA-B); accelerated tariff appeals procedure (Article 74(2) FCA-B); and the Federal Arbitration Commission in charge of tariffs would be permitted to hear witnesses (see draft of new Article 14(1) lit. g of the Administrative Procedure Act). These new rules are designed to increase efficiency, reduce management costs and ensure more money is available for distribution to cultural creators.

“Swisscopyright believes these new anti-piracy measures are necessary to foster legal offers ensuring fair remuneration for creators.”

Swisscopyright also supports the Federal Councilʼs proposals for new anti-piracy measures since they contribute to improving the situation. According to Article 39d FCA-B, platforms presenting significant piracy risks would be obligated to actively combat copyright infringements (stay down obligation). The possibility of processing data for criminal prosecution purposes (Article 77i FCA-B), must be included in the FCA since the Federal Supreme Court ruled that collecting information on pirates and hackers (in particular their IP addresses) is not currently admissible under the Law on Data Protection (ATF 136 II 508). Swisscopyright believes these new anti-piracy measures are necessary to foster legal offers ensuring fair remuneration for creators.

Swisscopyright accepted the proposed copyright exception for the use of works for scientific research (Article 24d FCA-B), but only in the context of the AGUR12 II compromise. The fact that – conversely to what had been proposed in the original draft in 2015 – this exception is not accompanied by a claim to remuneration is indeed problematic for rightholders in the literary field. Swisscopyright underscored that no further concessions to the scientific community would be accepted on the backs of cultural creators.

2. Right of remuneration for VoD

Online platforms making available feature films (cinema and TV) have replaced DVD rental. Whereas, under Article 13 FCA, authors and artists used to receive a share of DVD rental revenues, this is no longer the case for online availability. The revised legislation must ensure that authors and performing artists, as the primary creators of value, participate in this new economic model: Swisscopyright welcomed the introduction of a right to remuneration in Articles 13a and 35a FCA-B. The collecting societies underscored that the right to remuneration must be supplemental to the fees paid to the creators by producers (for the commissioning of works, the performances therein and the corresponding rights). The FCʼs proposal is not clear in this respect; Swisscopyright argues that the parliamentary debates must make it clear that the right to remuneration is supplemental to, and not in lieu of, such fees.

“The composers and publishers of film music entrust their rights to collective rights management societies like SUISA which act directly vis à vis the VoD platforms. The contractual system for music assures composers more favourable financial conditions than they would have under a statutory remuneration right.”

Moreover, the exclusion of music works from the new right to remuneration was an essential element of the AGUR 12 II compromise; regrettably, the FC has not included this exclusion in its proposal. Since the voluntary collective management model functions well in the music sector, we should come back to the solution advocated by AGUR12 II. The music and the audiovisual sector diverge significantly in this respect. The composers and publishers of film music entrust their rights to collective rights management societies like SUISA which act directly vis à vis the VoD platforms (alongside the aggregators who handle all other rights in the film). The contractual system for music assures composers more favourable financial conditions than they would have under a statutory remuneration right.

In the field of music, however, it is necessary to ensure that the revenues distributed by collecting societies are properly apportioned between the composer and the publisher. The composer must in any event receive an equitable share. Article 49(3) FCA already guarantees this for concerts, radio broadcasts and recordings. But this rule only applies to areas under federal regulation, and therefore not to VoD. As a result, Swisscopyright proposes rewording paragraph 5 of Article 13a FCA-B to stipulate the composerʼs right to a fair share of the voluntary collective management revenues, in line with SUISAʼs current practice.

The plenary debates in the National Council (expected in autumn) will show whether the parliamentary committees were sensitive to the argumentation put forward by Swisscopyright.

Related articles
Copyright Act Review: Authors and publishers must benefit more from the online exploitation of their worksCopyright Act Review: Authors and publishers must benefit more from the online exploitation of their works The Federal Council has adopted a dispatch on the new Copyright Act. SUISA is in principle content with the current version of the law. The solutions achieved in the working group for the Copyright Act (AGUR12 II) were implemented. In order for authors, performers, publishers and producers to benefit better from the digitisation, it is necessary to adopt important additions. Read more
Blockchain – an ending or future for collective management organisations?Blockchain – an ending or future for collective management organisations? Dear members, everyone in the music industry is talking about “Blockchain” at the moment. But it’s not easy to find anyone who can explain in simple terms what it’s all about … Read more
Changes to the distribution of collections for internet useChanges to the distribution of collections for internet use New distribution keys will be used for the distribution of collections for internet use (audio and video on demand offers). For downloads, a new key of 25% for performing rights and 75% for reproduction rights shall be applied. For streaming, the split shall consist of 75% performing rights and 25% reproduction rights. Read more
Collapse article

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

On 22 November 2017, the Federal Council presented its Message on the revision of the Federal Copyright Act (FCA), and referred the copyright bill (FCA-B) to the two houses of Parliament. Text by Vincent Salvadé

Copyright law revision: work starts in the parliamentary committees

Revision of Swiss copyright law: work has started in the Federal Palace in Berne. (Photo: Simon Zenger / Shutterstock.com)

The bill reflects the compromise reached by the AGUR12 II working group at the beginning of March 2017. Parliament has started working on the bill, and SUISA was invited to present its point of view on 12 April 2018 at a hearing organised by the Science, Education and Culture Committee of the National Council. SUISA also had the opportunity to state its views before the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council, first in writing and then orally on...read more

Blockchain – an ending or future for collective management organisations?

Dear members, everyone in the music industry is talking about “Blockchain” at the moment. But it’s not easy to find anyone who can explain in simple terms what it’s all about … By Vincent Salvadé, Deputy CEO

Blockchain - an ending or future for collective management organisations?

British singer songwriter Imogen Heap is said to be the pioneer in the practical application of Blockchain technology for music distribution: Since October 2015, her single “Tiny Human” can be purchased and licensed online via the platform Ujomusic. The payment of the parties involved is based on pre-defined distribution rules via crypto currency. (Photo: Screenshot ujomusic.com)

Blockchain is a technology, a database, a register. It enables the secure exchange of information in a network which is based on the contribution of qualified participants (miners) who check the validity of the transaction by means of the processing power of their computers. All transactions are grouped into blocks which are linked with one another and each participant can check whether the validation operation is correct. This is also how Bitcoin works.

You haven’t quite grasped all of the above? Me neither. It appears, however, that this technology which is based on “smart contracts” gets away without intermediaries: The composer could therefore be paid for concert tickets or music streaming directly. There is even word in the street that this could be the end of collective management organisations.

“Collective management of rights is more than just pure technology. It is based on an important value: a joint defence of creative work.”

Same old story: Since online music emerged about 20 years ago, people predicted that the internet would free authors and help them to become independent of intermediaries. Well, collective management organisations are still here and they constitute an indispensable counterweight to internet giants.

Collective management of rights is, after all, more than just pure technology. It is based on an important value: a joint defence of creative work. Authors will always need an organisation which supports them, which negotiates contracts for them (including smart contracts) and campaign for fair transaction conditions (even if they have been certified by the Blockchain).

But hold on a minute: This statement does not allow us to rest on our laurels. It’s the duty of collective management organisations to be interested in the Blockchain, to understand it and to try and use it for the utmost advantage of authors and publishers.

“Collective management organisations hold essential information which ensures that the remuneration is transferred to the right persons.”

SUISA collaborates with its sister societies to achieve this aim – in Switzerland and abroad. This technology could, after all, be instrumental in avoiding conflicts among rights holders with respect to a work or regarding their due remuneration.

Collective management organisations hold essential information which ensures that the remuneration is transferred to the right persons, and they also possess powerful IT instruments. So how would it be possible that they’re skipped in the transaction validation process?

One thing is for sure: You must not leave the technology companies alone to deal with these questions. Otherwise the Blockchain would become a blocking chain – at the detriment of creative work!

Related articles
Third party content on your own website must be paid for pursuant to Swiss legislationThird party content on your own website must be paid for pursuant to Swiss legislation If you operate a website, you cannot dispose of the copyright of third party contents without authorisation. If you use third party contents on your own website, you require an authorisation from the author pursuant to Swiss legislation in effect, irrespective of the type of the technical integration. SUISA issues licences for the online exploitation of music, including music in videos, and negotiates these case by case. Read more
To be continued: Our success story, spanning more than 90 yearsTo be continued: Our success story, spanning more than 90 years The General Assembly of our Cooperative Society will take place on Friday, 23 June 2017, in Zurich. Members will have the opportunity during the General Assembly to co-determine the destiny of their cooperative society. Apart from the positive results of the annual accounts for 2016, SUISA is also going to report on the Joint Venture Mint Digital Services, co-founded with SESAC, plus on the developments regarding the copyright revision and the debate on the ‘service public’. Read more
Mint Digital Services: FAQsMint Digital Services: FAQs SUISA and SESAC, a US collective management organisation, have established Mint Digital Services as a joint venture. Mint Digital Services will take over the invoicing and administration services for SESAC and SUISA’s online licensing activities. The joint venture will also offer services to publishers and collective management organisations. Warner/Chappel Music, a major publisher, is already using Mint’s services. Here the main FAQs. Read more
Collapse article

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

Dear members, everyone in the music industry is talking about “Blockchain” at the moment. But it’s not easy to find anyone who can explain in simple terms what it’s all about … By Vincent Salvadé, Deputy CEO

Blockchain - an ending or future for collective management organisations?

British singer songwriter Imogen Heap is said to be the pioneer in the practical application of Blockchain technology for music distribution: Since October 2015, her single “Tiny Human” can be purchased and licensed online via the platform Ujomusic. The payment of the parties involved is based on pre-defined distribution rules via crypto currency. (Photo: Screenshot ujomusic.com)

Blockchain is a technology, a database, a register. It enables the secure exchange of information in a network which is based on the contribution of qualified participants (miners) who check the validity of the transaction by means of the processing...read more

Swiss Copyright Review: SUISA in charge of a working group

Given the diverging reactions to the preliminary draft for the copyright law review, Federal Councillor Simonetta Sommaruga consulted the AGUR12 again in the summer of 2016 – the latter is a working group consisting of representatives from the affected sectors. The working group had the goal to look for conjoint solutions. Text by Vincent Salvadé

Swiss Copyright Review: SUISA in charge of a working group

The exhibition “Oh Yeah! Pop music in Switzerland” in the Museum for Communication in Berne covered 60 years of Swiss pop culture in the form of a multimedia experience (as pictured). An exhibition such as this would be able to benefit from a simplified rights acquisition via an extended collective licence (ECL). The introduction of such a licence has been one of the issues being discussed regarding a possible review of the Swiss Copyright Law. (Photo: Museum for Communication / Hannes Saxer)

For this purpose, several sub-groups were created; they were tasked with analysing several topics. SUISA was leading one of these sub-groups (working group 1) which focussed on four questions: Introduction of the extended collective licence, governance of the so-called “orphan” works, a possible new exception in copyright for science and the question of secondary publication rights of publicly financed scientific works.

Working group 1 consisted of the following representatives: Authors (Suisseculture), work users (DUN), libraries (BIS), music producers (IFPI), book publishers (SBVV), the Federal Office of Culture and the collective management organisations (Swissperform and SUISA). It was active between October 2016 and February 2017 and achieved the following results:

Extended collective licence

The extended collective licence (ECL) is a legal institution which is common in the Nordic countries, authorising collective management organisations to be active on behalf of all rightsholders as long as the societies are sufficiently representative. The working group holds the view that the ECL brings advantages both to rightsholders and users and consumers alike. It grants the former a remuneration for the mass exploitations of their works and performances, which individuals can hardly control and monitor. For the users, the ECL simplifies that process for obtaining the rights for projects which are connected with several goods protected by copyright (URG, CopA). This is particularly important in our digital age. Finally, the ECL could entail a growth in the number of cultural goods that are offered legally.

The working group has therefore presented a draft for a legal provision to introduce the ECL. It was careful when wording the draft that the legal basis would not be used to licence usages which clash with offers that are individually authorised by the rightsholders. Furthermore, the working group endeavoured to secure the freedom of the rightsholders by providing them with the opportunity to opt out from an ECL if the provisions are unacceptable for them.

Orphan works

Works are referred to as ‘orphan works’ if the rightsholders are unknown or cannot be located. Current legislation contains a provision on orphan works (Art. 22b URG/CopA) which authorises users to obtain the necessary exploitation rights via the licensed collective management organisations if the rightsholders cannot be contacted. This provision is, however, limited to sound and audiovisual recordings.

The working group suggests to expand this solution to all orphan works provided that they can be located in the archives of libraries, schools, museums and other institutions which contribute to the preservation of cultural heritage. It also recommends a solution in such cases where the collective management organisations cannot pay rightsholders after a period of ten years has lapsed: The money would then have to be invested into retirement funds and cultural promotion funds.

Exception for science

The working group is of the opinion that an exception of the exclusive right can be justified if the works are reproduced for scientific purposes by technical processes. These processes are, among others, data processing (text and data mining, TDM) and other similar procedures by means of which works are reproduced automatically in order for specific common features to be identified, for example. The European Union also plans to introduce such an exception.

The working group did, however, not reach an agreement concerning the issue whether this exception should be accompanied by a right to receive remuneration for the affected authors. The authors from the literature sector supported such a move whereas the users pleaded for an exception free of charge.

Technical measures simplify reading and processing of sources for scientists. Reading is a way to enjoy a work free from copyright. SUISA therefore reckons that a right to receive remuneration for the usage of sources in the context of a scientific activity is not advisable. An important factor, however, is to watch out whether the exploitation of the scientific research falls under copyright if this result contains recognisable, protected works. Furthermore, authors’ moral rights must remain unchanged, and the teaching activity must not fall under the new exception as they are already subject to a special regulation pursuant to Art. 19 and 20 URG/CopA (which provides for authors’ remuneration). The proposal of the working group takes these demands into account.

Secondary publication right

Work users, especially academic circles at Universities, wish to change the Swiss Code of Obligations in order to prohibit an author of a scientific work to assign his rights to make a work available to a publisher free of charge if it has been largely funded by the public authorities. It is the aim to allow authors to publish their works for free access on the internet, parallel to the publication by the publisher.

The working group was not able to submit a proposal regarding this issue as the opinions within the group varied too much. For publishers, such a provision would be the same as an actual expropriation and would prevent them from investing in the scientific sector.

What next?

The working group 1 has submitted its proposals to the AGUR12. The latter will discuss them together with other issues affecting the URG review (such as the fight against piracy or private copying). AGUR12 has finally established a supported compromise package where the three proposals described earlier by working group 1 were taken into consideration.

While it had to represent very different parts of the business, working group 1 managed to bring about an approach of the divergent views. This certainly contributed to a growth of the mutual understanding among the parties, and that a compromise could be found. A compromise, whose elements will be anchored in the law sooner or later, or so we hope.

Related articles
Second attempt to review the Swiss Copyright Act The preliminary draft by the Swiss Federal Council for a review of the Swiss Copyright Act was not able to carry a majority during the consultation. The Federal Councillor in charge, Simonetta Sommaruga, has therefore called upon a working group again. AGUR12 II is asked to work out specific legislative proposals alongside the compromise that had been achieved by AGUR12 and been in place for more than 2 years. Read more
The fight for the copyright review gets tougher Dear members, the Swiss Federal Council launched the consultation for a draft to review copyright in December 2015. The draft followed the recommendations by AGUR12. However, further proposals were added from the administration and as a result of parliamentary initiatives. Read more
“Without an organisation like SUISA many songs would never have been created” The famous and popular musician Peter Reber has been a SUISA member since 1971. In a written interview, the composer, lyricist, artist and publisher explains, why his collective management organisation is important for him and why – from his point of view – it is not necessary that collective management organisations should be subject to a stricter supervision. Read more
Collapse article
  1. Maruchka says:

    Droit d’auteur – révision
    Je ne suis pas sure d’avoir compris le chapitre ‘pour la science’

    Une petite vraie interrogation/apréhension : où s’arrête l’exception, ‘pour la science’ ?
    peut-on réquisitionner quelqu’un – juste pour la science – ?

    la science c’est des mio de personnes…
    la science ne sait-elle pas aller demander de la même façon, que n’importe quelle personne, qui veut diffuser une oeuvre ?
    si le scientifique aspirait à travailler gratuit, pour sa bonne cause ; reste que prendre c’est voler et obliger c’est très rarement bien.

    suggestion D : le scientifique fait sa demande à l’auteur et lui demande son prix/propose un tarif le scientifique informe l’auteur, qui a 10-15 jours (vs. poste) pour exprimer et exposer un éventuel désaccord et définir un autre tarif, que celui proposé par le scientifique
    + un tarif minimum mentionné dans les articles – calculé en fonction de la valeur ajoutée par l’oeuvre et des tarifs en vigueur dans le secteur du scientifique ou de l’artiste (l’oeuvrier) ; le tarif le plus élevé étant appliqué
    – en effet, dans ce genre de situation, ne faudrait-il normalement demander un audit par l’artiste ou un contrat de travail pour le scientifique-artiste ?
    pourquoi pas ?
    + subventions sont à disposition du scientifique, qui voudrait investir dans une recherche, p.ex. musicale

    Souvenez-vous quand nous montions aux fronton, pour défendre l’idée, le droit à la réflexion.
    Rappelez-vous quand le propriétaire du piano ou des toiles et de la peinture était le propriétaire de l’oeuvre, car l’esprit n’avait que peu de valeur, c’était le bien matériel qui comptait et qui recevait la somme totale des mérites, l’artiste vivant d’amour de son art et d’eau fraîche, rosée
    jusqu’à ce que sa toile ou sa musique finisse par lui rapporter argent…, enfin…, à ceux qui détenaient ses oeuvres ; lui n’ayant pas connu le jeans

    certains sont montés aux barricades, ce ne fut ni simple, ni rapide, peut-être y a-t-il eu des vies risquées mais la raisons a eu le dessus et le droit d’auteur est né, affaiblissant sans doute l’esclavagisme (ancrage du concept)
    cela a pris du temps, pour nous apporter le droit d’auteur, donc, à présent, que nous pouvons en profiter, faut-il vraiment le concéder, sans tenir compte des autres outils et données scientifiques comme un travail artistique ?
    mais pourquoi ?

    Voilà pour la science.

    Par contre se prendre un droit d’auteur sur quelque chose de visible (=/= créé par l’homme), comme par exemple une plante brésilienne brevetée aux USA/par USA c’est inconcevable…

    C’est un sujet qui me tient à coeur… 🙂

    • Nicolas Pont says:

      La restriction en faveur de l’utilisation à des fins scientifiques a été notamment conçue pour favoriser la fouille de textes et de données (text and data mining ou TDM).

      Il s’agit par exemple de pouvoir analyser et découvrir d’éventuels liens entre les nombreuses publications scientifiques, afin de trouver de nouvelles pistes de recherche, notamment dans le domaine de la médecine.

      Sans restriction en faveur de l’utilisation à des fins scientifiques, les chercheurs devraient, pour fouiller et compiler des extraits de textes, demander l’autorisation préalable des auteurs de ces textes, protégés par le droit d’auteur. Cela n’est tout simplement pas possible d’un point de vue pratique.

      SUISA est favorable à la restriction, qui ne devrait toutefois que peu concerner les oeuvres musicales.

      Ce qui se fait dans le secret du laboratoire du chercheur est difficilement contrôlable et il est donc également complexe de faire valoir un droit d’auteur sur cet acte.

      En revanche, il est capital que le résultat de la recherche scientifique ne puisse pas être exploité librement, s’il reproduit des oeuvres protégées. Les auteurs de ces oeuvres protégées doivent avoir leur mot à dire sur cette exploitation et avoir les moyens de demander une rémunération. C’est l’une des priorités de SUISA.

      L’exception pour la science ne doit pas concerner l’enseignement, y compris dans les universités, puisque la loi prévoit un droit à rémunération en faveur des auteurs dans ce cadre. Ce droit à rémunération fait l’objet du tarif commun 7, lequel ne doit pas être touché par une exception pour la science. C’est l’autre priorité de SUISA.

      Nicolas Pont / Service juridique SUISA Lausanne

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

Given the diverging reactions to the preliminary draft for the copyright law review, Federal Councillor Simonetta Sommaruga consulted the AGUR12 again in the summer of 2016 – the latter is a working group consisting of representatives from the affected sectors. The working group had the goal to look for conjoint solutions. Text by Vincent Salvadé

Swiss Copyright Review: SUISA in charge of a working group

The exhibition “Oh Yeah! Pop music in Switzerland” in the Museum for Communication in Berne covered 60 years of Swiss pop culture in the form of a multimedia experience (as pictured). An exhibition such as this would be able to benefit from a simplified rights acquisition via an extended collective licence (ECL). The introduction of such a licence has been one of the issues being discussed regarding a possible review of the Swiss Copyright Law. (Photo: Museum...read more

“Without an organisation like SUISA many songs would never have been created”

The famous and popular musician Peter Reber has been a SUISA member since 1971. In a written interview, the composer, lyricist, artist and publisher explains, why his collective management organisation is important for him and why – from his point of view – it is not necessary that collective management organisations should be subject to a stricter supervision.

“Without an organisation like SUISA many songs would never have been created”

Peter Reber is a composer, lyricist, publisher, artist and event organiser and a SUISA member since 1971 (Foto: zVg)

Peter Reber, you have been a SUISA member since 1971. Why?
Peter Reber: It goes without saying that you don’t go to the baker and help yourself from the shelf with the bread rolls without paying. Not everyone understands that you can’t simply use intellectual property without paying, as it’s much more complex and needs explaining in more depth. Composers and lyricists are not in a position to manage their interests on a national and international level themselves. Without an institution such as SUISA and its international partners, I would never have been able to find an economic foundation for my activity. Many songs would never have been written. SUISA does not just manage my financial interests, but is also the prerequisite for a diverse range of activities in our country.

Copyright issues are subject to change. How do artists and musicians have to adapt to it?
Of course it also is down to us artists to deal with those issues. We witness such developments in every day situations, after all. Due to the digital revolution such as loss-free copying and the rapid development of the new media, i.e. the internet, many new questions have to be answered. As an artist, I pass my feedback and my issues on to SUISA; in return, I benefit from the workshops and infos which SUISA offers to us authors.

The Federal Council intends to tie collective management organisations more closely to the government. What is your stance regarding these plans?
I have been a SUISA member for 45 years. As a composer, lyricist, publisher, artist and event organiser, I know the entire spectrum of the music business. It is very complex, as it ranges from aesthetic via organisational to legal issues. Due to its flexibility and the flat hierarchy within SUISA it has always been possible for me to find someone to talk to about my issues. My issues have always been in good hands as a consequence of the profound knowledge of the SUISA staff. I would have huge concerns if the government and the politicians would increase the influence and control over our copyright society. It is important to me that SUISA retains a certain independence. Only if it does, can it represent the interests of us authors in a credible manner and does not turn into a playground for other political and economic interests.

Where could copyright be improved from your point of view?
There is always and everywhere room for improvement. Important steps have been introduced by SUISA already in some ways: Authors have the opportunity today to let SUISA only represent them in partial aspects and to manage the other areas themselves, for example.
The biggest problem, however, has been and will remain the fact that the public still does not show enough understanding for the fact that intellectual property is worth protecting and must be paid for, too. That’s an area where us authors and our SUISA have to continue to work on.

On Peter Reber
With more than 40 gold and platinum awards for more than 2 million sold sound recordings, Peter Reber can be counted among the most successful Swiss composers, lyricists and performers. From 1968 to 1981, he has been member of the successful band Peter, Sue & Marc, after that he began an equally successful solo career. During his career, Peter Reber has written more than one thousand lyrics, melodies and arrangements and provided six Swiss contributions to the Eurovision Song Contest. His compositions have been published on sound recordings by more than hundred national and international artists, from folk musicians to rock musicians. 2016, he received the Swiss Music Award for his life’s work. www.peterreber.ch

The interview with Peter Reber was conducted for the “Sessionsbrief” (session letter) of Swisscopyright. Swisscopyright is the joint umbrella of the five Swiss collective management organisations ProLitteris, SSA, SUISA, Suissimage and Swissperform. With the “Sessionsbrief”, the societies inform interested parties from within the political scene as well as the public on subjects affecting copyright.

Swisscopyright Sessionsbrief September 2016 (PDF)
Swisscopyright Website

Related articles
SUISA is working cost-consciously Last year, SUISA and the other Swiss collective management organisations (CMOs) have invested time and money into a cost analysis which had been requested by the federal government. The results of the study are now available. At hardly anyone’s surprise, study reveals that the Swiss CMOs work efficiently and have their costs under control. Nevertheless, the Federal Council demands a stronger control of the collective management organisations in its proposal for the copyright law revision. This is not just unnecessary, but actually absurd, as a closer look at the study results reveals. Read more
Copyright: Quo vadis? In December 2015, the Federal Council presented the draft for the review of the Swiss Copyright Act. At the same time, the consultation started, which is open until March 2016. SUISA supports the proposed measures inasmuch as they have been taken from the compromise agreement reached by the working group on copyright (AGUR12). SUISA has been contributing to said working group which had been summoned by Federal Councillor Simonetta Sommaruga in 2012, consisting of affected parties. Some suggestions of the draft for the copyright revision now need to be criticised, while others endanger the compromise that other interested circles have reached. Read more
The freedom of SUISA members is at stake Dear members, did you know that your collective management organisation invested time and money into a cost analysis requested by the Federal Government during the summer of 2015? Why, you ask? Well, just read on …
Collapse article
  1. Giorgio Tebaldi says:

    Lieber Jean-Pierre

    Die SUISA kommuniziert seit 2008 die Löhne der Geschäftsleitung transparent in ihrem Jahresbericht (www.suisa.ch/jahresbericht). 2015 belief sich der Lohn unseres Generaldirektors auf CHF 307’506, wie man im letzten Jahresbericht auf Seite 32 lesen kann; insgesamt erhielten die drei GL-Mitglieder CHF 776’349. Das ist um einiges tiefer als die von Dir genannten CHF 400’000 pro Person.

    Die Verwaltungskosten sind für die SUISA natürlich ein wichtiges Thema, und wir sind entsprechend darum bemüht, unseren Aufwand so gering wie möglich zu halten. Dass die Kosten der SUISA – und auch der anderen vier Schweizer Verwertungsgesellschaften – in einem angemessenen Rahmen sind hat Ende 2015 übrigens eine Studie im Auftrag des Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum (IGE) gezeigt: https://blog.suisa.ch/de/die-suisa-arbeitet-kostenbewusst/ / https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Urheberrecht/d/Studie_Verwaltungskosten/MM_IGE_Abschluss_der_Verwaltungskostenanalyse14012016.pdf.

    Herzliche Grüsse
    Giorgio Tebaldi / Leiter Kommunikation

  2. Nicht nur als langjähriges SUISA-Mitglied (Tonträger “Face the world” von A touch of class; jp’s acoustic instrumentals & Disco (S)Hits) bin zwar generell und grundsätzlich ebenso gegen staatliche Eingriffe aller Art.
    Da ich bis Ende April ’13 hauptberuflich 18 Jahre lang als geschäftsleitender Berater der Communication Executive AG (Tochter des Headhunters Engineering Management Selection Schweiz) aktiv war, ist mir allerdings konkret bekannt, welche fürstlichen Löhne sich die erweiterte Geschäftsleitung der SUISA seit Jahrzehnten genehmigt: Da es sich dabei um über 400’000.- CHF Jahresgehalt pro Person und Jahr handelt, ist nur völlig logisch und nachvollziehbar, dass die Entschädigungen an all die echten Musiker und musikalisch eher trivialen Musikanten zur Deckung dieser “Overhead”-Kosten ZU LASTEN der Künstler allzu mickrig ausfallen müssen!
    Gegen diesen Schutz der GF-Pfründe ist längst konkreter Handlungsbedarf angezeigt; und es wäre äusserst sinnvoll, wenn die SUISA-Verantwortlichen diesbezüglich selbst ein Einsehen hätten!…

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

The famous and popular musician Peter Reber has been a SUISA member since 1971. In a written interview, the composer, lyricist, artist and publisher explains, why his collective management organisation is important for him and why – from his point of view – it is not necessary that collective management organisations should be subject to a stricter supervision.

“Without an organisation like SUISA many songs would never have been created”

Peter Reber is a composer, lyricist, publisher, artist and event organiser and a SUISA member since 1971 (Foto: zVg)

Peter Reber, you have been a SUISA member since 1971. Why?
Peter Reber: It goes without saying that you don’t go to the baker and help yourself from the shelf with the bread rolls without paying. Not everyone understands that you can’t simply use intellectual property without paying, as it’s much more complex and needs explaining in...read more

Stream ripping – tape recorders on the internet

Stream ripping software records audio and video streams. A copy of the entire stream can thus be saved as a file. Swiss copyright legislation provides for a private copy remuneration which is applicable to recording and storage media. Stream ripping apps are not covered by the statutory obligation to pay a levy – just like the tape recorders in the past. Text by Manu Leuenberger

Stream ripping works just like a tape recorder on the internet: Audio and video streams can be recorded in their entirety by means of an application. The statutory obligation to pay a levy exists pursuant to Swiss copyright law for the resulting reproduction on the storage medium, but not for the actual software. (Photo: Evgeniy Yatskov / Shutterstock.com)

The consumers are happy: Thanks to streaming, music collections, video shop stock, radio and TV transmissions are available – always and anywhere. All you need is an internet connection. Contents which are otherwise only available online are now also accessible offline due to stream ripping. Special software applications for this purpose make it possible to create complete copies of the streamed audio or video files on a storage medium. The saved file can then also be played back without an internet connection.

From a technical perspective, a permanent flow of data packets is being transmitted via an internet connection from a server to a receiving device. Receiving devices can be smartphones, tablets or computers, for example. The incoming data packets are played back via such devices by means of a stream player software as a continuous music piece or video. After playback, the data packets are deleted on the receiving device at once.

A stream ripping application thus allows a tape-recording of such audio and video streams, as it were. Such applications store the data packets from the streaming service permanently on the receiving device. Put together, the data packets stored in the memory of the target device result in a complete copy of the audio or video file retrieved from the streaming service.

Remuneration for private copies for authors

You could also refer to the stream ripping application as a recording software. The functionality corresponds to that of a tape recorder. Instead of an audio or video tape, the content is recorded onto a storage medium as a file. The final result is a copy of the played, transmitted, or streamed original.

The possibility to make tons of music copies on audio tapes led to private copying to be anchored into legislation nearly 25 years ago. Since then, it is permitted in line with the Swiss Copyright Act to make copies of protected works for the use in people’s private circles or home life. In return, rights holders have a statutory entitlement to receive a remuneration for such private copies.

Such a remuneration or levy must be paid by the manufacturers and importers of the recording and storage devices. The levies are collected by the Swiss collective management organisations (CMOs) and distributed to the rightsholders. The selection of blank media carriers subject to a levy has increased due to technological developments from audio and video tapes via CD/DVD blanks to digital memory in MP3 players, smartphones and tablets.

Blank media levies apply for recording and storage media

The statutory duty to pay a levy only applies to recording and storage media. In the analogue example, the recording medium would be the tape, not the tape recorder. In the digital equivalent, the blank media carrier is the storage item. The recording software is the recorder.

Since the law only covers blank data carriers, levies for private copying cannot be claimed and collected from the makers of stream ripping applications. For the same reason it is not possible to claim levies from the providers of such applications i.e. the operators of software or app stores. They do not qualify as importers of a recording or storage medium, but as software sellers.

The stream ripping software as a product meanwhile depends on the contents of third parties. That’s nothing new, as it was the same case with tape recorders back in the day. Whether someone records music from a vinyl on to a tape or an audio or video stream onto a digital storage medium: It always involves the creation of a copy. For such reproductions to be used for private purposes, the so-called blank media levy was introduced in Switzerland. On the basis of this levy, authors, publishers and producers of music and films get their due remuneration for the copies that are being made.

Stream ripping – an obsolescent model?

Users of stream ripping applications should be aware that they might infringe the usage conditions of streaming platforms. There are providers which permit only the streaming as per their terms and conditions, but no downloads or copying of the music tracks or videos. A potential consequence of a detected infringement could be that the personal user account is blocked or deleted.

The propagation of subscriptions for (mainly mobile) internet access without any limitations of the data volume could have an impact on the usage of stream ripping applications anyway. If the capacities are not limited, it is possible to constantly access streaming platforms. This could reduce the demand to copy audio and video streams and save them locally for offline use.

Legal streaming services pay licence fees for authors’ rights

On top of that, the legal offer of the streaming providers has become so comprehensive in the meantime that the consumer demand for niche repertoire can be satisfied much better. Furthermore, streaming services such as Tidal, Apple Music, Spotify or Google Play Music offer functions to listen to the music offline as an integrated part of their subscriptions. Stream ripping apps are therefore no longer necessary to locally store personal music preferences for offline usage.

Said legal streaming providers also conclude licensing agreements with the CMOs and pay licence fees for the copyright in question. Composers, lyricists and publishers of the used music thus participate in the collections from the streaming services.

After all, this is something any music or film lover should definitely know: If you buy a streaming app, you pay the software provider, not the creators and artists whose works you would like to listen to or watch.

Collapse article

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

Stream ripping software records audio and video streams. A copy of the entire stream can thus be saved as a file. Swiss copyright legislation provides for a private copy remuneration which is applicable to recording and storage media. Stream ripping apps are not covered by the statutory obligation to pay a levy – just like the tape recorders in the past. Text by Manu Leuenberger

Stream ripping works just like a tape recorder on the internet: Audio and video streams can be recorded in their entirety by means of an application. The statutory obligation to pay a levy exists pursuant to Swiss copyright law for the resulting reproduction on the storage medium, but not for the actual software. (Photo: Evgeniy Yatskov / Shutterstock.com)

The consumers are happy: Thanks to streaming, music collections, video...read more

Copyright: Quo vadis?

In December 2015, the Federal Council presented the draft for the review of the Swiss Copyright Act. At the same time, the consultation started, which is open until March 2016. Text by Vincent Salvadé

After a partial review in 2008, it is planned to review the Swiss Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights once more. (Photo: Manu Leuenberger)

SUISA supports the proposed measures inasmuch as they have been taken from the compromise agreement reached by the working group on copyright (AGUR12). SUISA has been contributing to said working group which had been summoned by Federal Councillor Simonetta Sommaruga in 2012, consisting of affected parties. Some suggestions of the draft for the copyright revision now need to be criticised, while others endanger the compromise that other interested circles have reached.

Three areas need to be given particular attention:

Private copying

In Switzerland, the copying of works for private purposes is usually allowed by law and is also remunerated via a levy on blank media. The major advantage of this system is that it does not criminalise consumers, something that AGUR12 also reiterated. The relevant remuneration and levies do, however, have to be constantly adapted to the current circumstances.

At the same time, private copying has been undergoing change. In the music sector, downloads have increasingly been replaced by streaming. Nowadays, music is being listened to online instead of downloaded. While listening to music, the copying process on the end device of the consumer (smartphone, tablet etc.) now only stretches over a very short period. The permanent reproduction takes place elsewhere, on remote servers (key word: “Cloud computing”).

SUISA believes that neither current legislation nor the draft of the URG (CopA) revision accommodates the new developments appropriately. SUISA is thus going to submit modernising suggestions in the course of the consultation.

Collective rights management

The Federal Council plans to extend the supervision of collective rights management, namely at two levels: On the one hand, the supervision shall comprise the entirety of activities of collective management organisations (CMOs), irrespective of which sector they cover; on the other hand, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) shall not only check the legality of rights management but also its adequacy in future.

CMOs have been founded by rightsholders in order to defend their rights. As a consequence, only rightsholders should be able to decide on the operation of its CMOs. The planned expansion of the supervision would be problematic from a constitutional law aspect.

In order to safeguard a correct collective rights management, today’s controls are more than adequate: first, by the members via the society’s internal bodies and committees, second, via external auditors, third, via the IPI which is confined to the legality of the administration and areas with a dominating market position of CMOs, and fourth, via tariffs which are controlled by the Federal Arbitration Commission for the Exploitation of Copyright and Related Rights.

Why should the government thus interfere in the personal transactions of authors and other rightsholders? The affected parties had not requested anything to this end. Furthermore, a recently published expert analysis which has been published on behalf of the IPI confirmed that CMOs work efficiently and have their costs under control. As a consequence, this kind of expansion of the supervision by the government must be rejected.

On the other hand, SUISA welcomes the suggestion by the Federal Council that an extended collective licence should be introduced in Switzerland. This is a type of statutory provision which is already known in Nordic countries. Thanks to the collective licence, the CMO could represent rights holders which are not members. For such rightsholders, licensing agreements which have been concluded between CMOs and users of works shall apply unless they explicitly pull out from such agreements (“opt out”). It would thus be possible to legalise the mass usage of works – something that is paramount in the digital age – in order to be able to pay rightsholders their due remuneration. The latter do, however, continue to have the freedom to opt out from such licensing agreements.

Anti-piracy measures

SUISA supports the measures suggested by the Federal Council to combat piracy. They are the result and an important component of the compromise of AGUR12. The proposals are based on the contributions of the access and host providers. They would have to delete illegal contents under certain conditions, prevent such contents from being re-uploaded, to block access to piracy sites or to point their action out to relevant users in the case of copyright infringements.

This type of system does, however, mainly rely on self-regulation. SUISA therefore believes that the law should have a higher minimum standard than provided in the legislative proposal. In addition, certain measures are only possible if the works are already on the market in Switzerland. In other words: Illegal online offers of a film which is not available in Switzerland yet, would be less severe than in the case of a DVD which can already be purchased anywhere in the shops… The desire of the consumer to get access to a bigger number of legal offers is understandable. In this context, innovative enterprises do, however, have to be protected from unfair competition by illegal providers.

There is another gap: If the explanatory notifications by the access providers to the infringer bear no fruit, the rights holder could use legal means to find out about the identity of the illegal providers. In order for this step to be available, two such notifications must turn out to have been futile within a year. In other words: Rights holders are asked to tolerate the infringement of their rights for a whole year, before intervening steps are taken … This is hardly acceptable.

Conclusion

The impression prevails that the Federal Council has taken the recommendations of AGUR12 on board but then complemented them ad lib. It surely is a good thing that political visions influence the development of copyright to a degree. On the other hand, copyright repeatedly finds itself as the focal point of various interests: those of authors, consumers, the industry etc.

The compromise established by AGUR12 has the advantage that it safeguards a balanced development of the legal framework – which has been accepted by the affected parties. It is thus vital that this compromise is not put at risk. Otherwise, the CopA review is in danger of getting stuck …

Additional information:
SUISA works cost efficiently (SUISAblog, 13.01.2016)
SUISA members’ freedom is at stake (SUISAblog, 20.11.2015)

Collapse article

Leave a Reply

All comments will be moderated. This may take some time and we reserve the right not to publish comments that contradict the conditions of use.

Your email address will not be published.

In December 2015, the Federal Council presented the draft for the review of the Swiss Copyright Act. At the same time, the consultation started, which is open until March 2016. Text by Vincent Salvadé

After a partial review in 2008, it is planned to review the Swiss Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights once more. (Photo: Manu Leuenberger)

SUISA supports the proposed measures inasmuch as they have been taken from the compromise agreement reached by the working group on copyright (AGUR12). SUISA has been contributing to said working group which had been summoned by Federal Councillor Simonetta Sommaruga in 2012, consisting of affected parties. Some suggestions of the draft for the copyright revision now need to be criticised, while others endanger the compromise that other interested circles have reached.

Three areas need to...read more