Tag Archives: Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property

Positive figures for the 2018 financial year to date

The Board meeting held the day before the General Assembly in June 2018 had a multi-layered agenda to handle. In addition to preparing for the General Assembly, the meeting also reviewed the course of business for the year to date. Report from the Board by Dora Zeller

Positive figures for the 2018 financial year to date

Satisfactory revenue and distribution results for composers, lyricists and publishers: SUISA’s 2018 financial year got off to a good start in terms of results. (Photo: Manu Leuenberger)

Key figures for the start of the 2018 financial year are positive: domestic revenues totalled CHF 60.3 million as at 31 May 2018, exceeding the budget by 8% and the prior year by 7%. The amount distributed in the second-quarter settlement in mid-June was CHF 43.8 million. At CHF 13.2 million, expenses were within budget.

Review of business activities

The Board approved the comprehensive report and explanatory notes to the 2017 financial statements prepared by the Auditor. These are part of the documentation that SUISA is required to file with the Federal Intellectual Property Institute (IPI) each year for its review of SUISA’s business activities.

Following changes in the Financial Market Infrastructure Act and its implementing ordinances, SUISA had to amend its investment regulations, in particular as regards due care rules for derivatives trading. The Board laid down clear guidelines regulating SUISA’s activities on the investment market. SUISA is also required to submit any amendments to these regulations each year to the IPI, the competent regulatory authority.

Satisfactory income and distribution results for year-to-date 2018

For the year to date as at 31 May, revenues increased for all classes of rights compared both with the budget and the prior year. The growth in revenues from online uses – plus 174%, or CHF 4.7 million – was particularly noteworthy. When preparing the budget, it had been expected that all online contracts would be transferred to SUISA Digital Licensing or Mint Digital Services, and that the corresponding revenues would flow into these companies. However, negotiations with the online service providers are taking longer than expected. Until the new contracts are signed, the corresponding revenues will continue to flow to SUISA, the parent company.

Initial distribution results for 2018 are also positive. The remuneration collected under most tariffs is meanwhile distributed to rightsholders following a quarterly schedule. The first quarterly settlement comprised 8,879 individual settlements representing a total distribution of CHF 13.8 million; the second, in mid-June, comprised 11,800 individual settlements and a total distribution of CHF 43.8 million.

With regard to revenues from abroad, thanks to a new IT application, we managed to distribute a larger number of settlements from our foreign sister societies than ever before at this time of the year. Remuneration totalling CHF 4.1 million was distributed to SUISA members. Moreover, starting in autumn 2018, foreign revenues will also be distributed on a quarterly basis. This means that the second of the three foreign settlements for 2018 will be distributed in mid-September. The third settlement will then be made in mid-December.

Sponsoring commitments and distribution rules

Figures aside, on to sponsoring: SUISA is making itself seen and heard with a number of actions in the framework of various musical events. The overriding aim is always to inform the public about the purpose and activities of our Cooperative Society and to attract well-deserved attention and esteem for the creative work ofour members. In this context, the members of the Committee for Organisation and Communication learnt about SUISA’s commitment in support of the Walo Prize and the organisation of the successful Songwriting Camp. Other events (co-)sponsored by SUISA include a day of concerts in the “Offen für Neues” (“open for the new”) series at the Festival Murten Classics in August, as well as “Label Suisse” in mid-September in Lausanne.

At the meeting, the Board also spent considerable time debating the amendment of the Distribution Rules. The amendments proposed by the Executive Committee are first examined by the Distribution and Works Committee. They are then referred to the Committee for Tariffs and Distribution before being sent to the Board. Finally, the amendments must be submitted to the IPI and the Liechtenstein Office of Economic Affairs. The amendments come into force once they are approved by both institutions, and the document is published.

Related articles
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
Since December 2017, statements are made available via “my account”Since December 2017, statements are made available via “my account” Thanks to the password-protected members’ area “my account”, our members can keep an overview of their distribution statements and distribution settlements. Many members asked us to stop the dispatch by post. We have taken this request into account and introduced the option to renounce on the postal dispatch. 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.

The Board meeting held the day before the General Assembly in June 2018 had a multi-layered agenda to handle. In addition to preparing for the General Assembly, the meeting also reviewed the course of business for the year to date. Report from the Board by Dora Zeller

Positive figures for the 2018 financial year to date

Satisfactory revenue and distribution results for composers, lyricists and publishers: SUISA’s 2018 financial year got off to a good start in terms of results. (Photo: Manu Leuenberger)

Key figures for the start of the 2018 financial year are positive: domestic revenues totalled CHF 60.3 million as at 31 May 2018, exceeding the budget by 8% and the prior year by 7%. The amount distributed in the second-quarter settlement in mid-June was CHF 43.8 million. At CHF 13.2 million, expenses were within budget.

Review of business activities

The Board...read more

Changes 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”. Text by Irène Philipp Ziebold

Changes in relation to the distribution of Tariff CT 1 and CT 2 collections

Even though there is a plethora of digital TV programmes available, only a few of them fill TV screens for a longer period. (Foto: Zeber / Shutterstock.com)

Cable network providers have carried out a migration of their offerings from analogue to digital in the last few years. The number of the radio and TV programmes on offer is now many times higher than before. Until recently, the number of subscribers acted as the calculation basis for the distribution of income from Tariffs CT 1, CT 2a and CT 2b. As a consequence, the distribution depended on the receptability, i.e. on how many subscribers of a cable network provider had the option to receive a specific channel.

With the increase of the broadcaster offerings, the significance of the subscriber numbers regarding the actual work usage has decreased remarkably. This is due to the fact that of the multitude of channels that consumers have at their fingertips today, they only use a few in reality. With the switch of the calculation basis to the reference parameter “daily reach”, what counts in terms of distribution now is what consumers actually watch.

The daily reach corresponds with the share of people who have watched or listened to a specific programme on an average day for at least 30 seconds. The relevant usage is thus registered which goes above and beyond a mere channel hopping.

Distribution more exact based on actual usage

Due to the daily reach as a calculation basis the actual usage is now taken into consideration more: The copyright royalties now flow to those channels that have really been watched or listened to. Channels which were not selected by the consumer or where consumers merely hop through, are not taken into consideration for the allocations into the three broadcaster groupings (SRG SSR, Swiss private channels, foreign channels).

The switch to the reference parameter of the daily reach will entail that more money is going to be distributed to Swiss channels. In the case of the calculation based on subscriber numbers so far, many foreign channels were taken into consideration which are in fact only used by a very small portion of subscribers. This will no longer be the case with a calculation basis in accordance with the daily reach.

IGE (Institute of Intellectual Property) decision dated 26/07/2017 (PDF 1.47 MB, only in German) in relation to “Review of item 5.5.1 distribution rules: Distribution of collections from CT 1, 2a and 2b”
Further information on the distribution keys of SUISA

Related articles
SUISA settlement dates 2017 – an overviewSUISA settlement dates 2017 – an overview SUISA members whose works are performed, broadcast, reproduced or used online a lot can look forward to receiving remuneration at least four times per year for their work on lyrics or compositions or their publishing activities. In 2017, SUISA will continue with its quarterly distributions that it had successfully introduced previously. Minor modifications serve the purpose of distributing the income swiftly and cost-effectively. 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
Commentary on SUISA’s annual results for 2016Commentary on SUISA’s annual results for 2016 SUISA can report a very successful financial year 2016. The result reflects an all-time high regarding the income from domestic copyright exploitation. In the Cooperative Society’s history of more than 90 years, this is a record sum in terms of remuneration that is due for distribution. The average cost coverage deduction remains low – about CHF 88 per CHF 100 of the income collected can be paid out to authors and publishers that are entitled to receive such remuneration. 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.

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”. Text by Irène Philipp Ziebold

Changes in relation to the distribution of Tariff CT 1 and CT 2 collections

Even though there is a plethora of digital TV programmes available, only a few of them fill TV screens for a longer period. (Foto: Zeber / Shutterstock.com)

Cable network providers have carried out a migration of their offerings from analogue to digital in the last few years. The number of the radio and TV programmes on offer is now many...read more

New distribution key for performing and broadcasting rights

The SUISA distribution key for performing and broadcasting rights will be changed from 01 January 2017 onwards. For works with an original publisher, the share of the author shall be 66.67% and that of the publisher 33.33%. The distribution rules are thus adapted to the CISAC key which is applied at international level. Text by Irène Philipp Ziebold

8/12 for authors, 4/12 for publishers: SUISA will adapt its distribution key for performing and broadcasting rights to European standards again. (Photo: Manu Leuenberger)

The majority of SUISA’s European sister societies apply the so-called “CISAC key” when it comes to originally published works in the performing and broadcasting rights sector. CISAC is the international umbrella for collective management organisations (Confédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Auteurs et Compositeurs). The shares of the distribution key recommended by the umbrella organisation for performances and broadcasts amount to 66.67% for authors and 33.33% for publishers.

SUISA’s distribution key

SUISA’s distribution key had deviated from the internationally established CISAC standard in the past. Up to now, SUISA distribution rules provided that the shares for originally published works for performing and broadcasting rights was 65% for authors and a maximum of 35% for publishers. Regarding the production of sound and audio-visual recordings, the composers receive 60% and the publishers 40%.

In the case of works with a sub-publisher, the author has an entitlement as per the distribution rules to receive 50%, and the publisher and sub-publisher to claim the remaining 50% for performances and broadcasts. Regarding the production of sound and audio-visual recordings, the composers receive 40% and the publisher and sub-publisher share the remaining 60%. In this context, it is worth mentioning that SUISA usually adopts the contractually agreed split between the publisher and the sub-publisher in the case of sub-published works. Only in the absence of such agreed splits will SUISA apply the keys established by the distribution rules.

Alignment with the European CISAC standard

The distribution keys by SUISA will now be adapted in the case of originally published works in the performing and broadcasting rights to European standards. The keys relating to the production of sound and audio-visual recordings (mechanical reproduction rights) shall remain unchanged in the distribution rules. Strictly speaking, the application of the CISAC key of 67% for authors and 33.33% for publishers is nothing new, but rather a re-introduction of a previous provision.

The key applied on a Europe-wide level is actually expressed in fractions 8/12 (author’s share) resp. 4/12 (publisher’s share). When SUISA began working with IT systems back in 1962, the aim was to avoid decimal places after the decimal point. As a consequence, SUISA changed the key, and rounded it to 65%, resp. 35%. The majority of the other European societies kept the translated fractions i.e. 66.67% and 33.33%.

Effects of the changed distribution rules

Thanks to the adaptation of the distribution keys, authors will be remunerated with the share that is deemed as standard in the European area. While the publisher share will be decreased by 1.67%, they will, together with the authors, benefit from positive effects which the changes bring about.

Apart from the harmonisation with other European societies, the (re)introduction of the CISAC key for originally published works entails further significant advantages:

  • Important increase in efficiency during work registration: Processing of SUISA works with international contributors will become simpler. Difficult conversions in the case of joint productions with international authors become redundant.
  • Processing distributions of the sister societies will be significantly simplified: The matching distribution keys will facilitate the processing of distributions by international sister societies to a great extent.

Validity of the changes to the distribution rules

Both the SUISA Board of Directors as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) have agreed to this change. The new distribution keys will come into force from 01 January 2017 without any retroactivity. This means, that all works declared after 01 January 2017 will be registered with the new distribution key. In the case of works that had been registered before that date, the distribution key in place shall remain valid. These works will not be changed.

The decision of the IPI dated 28 July 2016 is published at the SUISA website.

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.

The SUISA distribution key for performing and broadcasting rights will be changed from 01 January 2017 onwards. For works with an original publisher, the share of the author shall be 66.67% and that of the publisher 33.33%. The distribution rules are thus adapted to the CISAC key which is applied at international level. Text by Irène Philipp Ziebold

8/12 for authors, 4/12 for publishers: SUISA will adapt its distribution key for performing and broadcasting rights to European standards again. (Photo: Manu Leuenberger)

The majority of SUISA’s European sister societies apply the so-called “CISAC key” when it comes to originally published works in the performing and broadcasting rights sector. CISAC is the international umbrella for collective management organisations (Confédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Auteurs et Compositeurs). The shares of the distribution key recommended by the...read more

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. Text by Andreas Wegelin, CEO

SUISA is working cost-consciously

A study of the IPI confirmed that SUISA and the other Swiss collective management organisations have their costs under control (Photo: Giorgio Tebaldi)

What is the study about?
The supervisory authority of the Swiss CMOs, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), has, upon the recommendation of the Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO) commissioned an in-depth study in early 2015 with the objective to investigate whether the costs of the CMOs are adequate. The study was conducted between February and December 2015 by experts of the Fernfachhochschule Schweiz (distance learning technical college, FFHS), the consultancy firm SERVUS GmbH and the Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften (University of Applied Sciences in Zurich, ZHAW).

In the study, the administration costs of the five Swiss CMOs ProLitteris, SSA, SUISA, Suissimage and Swissperform were compared to non-profit organisations (NPOs), insurances and foreign CMOs. Furthermore, the salaries within CMOs were compared to those of public administration, insurance and banks.

The basis for the study were publicly available data from annual / financial reports of the organisations, on the one hand. On the other hand, detailed finance and organisational data were evaluated that had been provided by the CMOs or obtained via surveys among the organisations. The analysis covered material from the years 2008, 2012 and 2014. The costs for this exhaustive study was carried by the CMOs.

What were the conclusions of the study with regards to the administration costs?
The in-depth analysis confirms that the administration costs of the CMOs are generally adequate and are within the range of comparable sectors. There is a similar picture with regards to salaries: They are in a similar range or even lower than those of the public administration and insurance sector. The study concludes: “Based on the analysis undertaken there is no cause for concern that there are significant shortcomings related to the cost management of the collective management organisations.”

The study also reveals the sometimes rather major differences between the CMOs in terms of the relevant administration cost and salaries, and explains those further. The reasons for this are, for example, due to the fact that the business activity and the legal mandate varies from CMO to CMO. Furthermore, the CMOs differ in terms of work repertoire processed, licences granted and tariff bases.

Last, but not least, the study offers valuable information regarding room for improvement to the CMOs. There is, for example, room for savings in cases where newly negotiated tariffs are structured in a simpler manner and processes can thus be automated. In order to achieve this, the help of negotiating partners is required, as the tariffs are agreed upon after negotiations with the relevant user associations. The study also recommends to evaluate potential synergies for an even closer cooperation. The CMOs intend to consider these recommendations and derive suitable actions from them.

SUISA looks good in terms of its administration cost and salaries. Does this mean there’s no need for any further action?
There is always room for improvement – this applies to every enterprise. SUISA also constantly aims to keep its costs low, to improve its efficiency and thus to be able to pay out as much as possible to its members – composers, lyricists and publishers of musical works. As a consequence, cost control and raising efficiency are central points in SUISA’s strategy. SUISA constantly evaluates and streamlines its business processes. IT forms one important aspect: By means of online registration and information platforms, processes can be simplified and costs can accordingly be saved. Last year, the introduction of an online portal for SUISA members constituted an important step in that direction; the portal continues to be expanded in terms of its functionalities. Similar projects have been launched in the customer area.

There is also potential for savings with regards to tariffs. On the one hand, SUISA seeks to standardise its tariffs as much as possible. SUISA can, however, only implement this step to a limited extent due to the fact that the tariffs are not devised unilaterally by SUISA but are subject to negotiation with the user associations. In the case of tariffs where such a simplification is feasible, SUISA is seeking to implement this as much as possible.

The study confirms that the five CMOs ProLitteris, SSA, SUISA, Suissimage and Swissperform work well from a general perspective. Is the stricter control on the CMOs as requested by the Federal Council therefore appropriate at all?
No, there are three reasons why the requested stricter control is unnecessary and incomprehensible. First of all, the administration cost analysis shows that the CMOs look good in terms of their cost and salaries. A stricter regulation would be appropriate if the organisations in question would run their businesses badly and to the disadvantage of their members and customers.

Secondly, the Swiss CMOs are cooperative societies under private law, resp. in the case of Swissperform, an association under private law. They belong to their members. It is the members who decide and vote at general / delegates’ assemblies – the respective highest organisational bodies – how the societies carry out their work correctly and adequately. As the cost analysis has shown, members are well placed at exercising their autonomy. The plans of the Federal Council represent a case of members, i.e. Swiss creatives, being patronised and a gross disregard of their autonomy.

The working group on copyright (AGUR12) – and this is the third reason – has already concluded that a stricter supervision over the CMOs is not necessary. In said working group, consumer, producer and user associations took part alongside representatives of creators and artists. The proposals of the Federal Council on the copyright revision are largely based on the final report of this working group. The Federal Council has, nevertheless, ignored the recommendations of the AGUR12 concerning the issue of supervision and decided that a stricter control is required. Particularly with a view on the results of the study, this decision is not just very hard to comprehend but quite simply wrong.

So what are the next steps for the copyright law revision?
The CMOs and other parties have time until the end of March to take a stand in relation to the proposals of the Federal Council. This does not just affect the plans for a stricter control but also other suggestions e.g. how to combat internet piracy or with regards to remuneration models for private copying. We are going to give our view within said deadline and inform you about this in due course.

What’s really important for SUISA and the other CMOs is that after the presentation of this study, a sense of calm returns to the discussion on the control and supervision of CMOs. AGUR12 had already explained in its recommendations that a control of the CMOs which exceeded today’s statutory regulations, was not necessary. The discussion for the impending copyright law revision now needs to be de-emotionalised in our opinion. The focus for the next months must be re-directed to solutions which guarantee a fair remuneration for authors when it comes to the usage of their works, especially in the digital distribution sector.

“IPI study confirms cost-consciousness of Swiss collecting societies” (Press release)

Collapse article
  1. Luka Pitschen says:

    Hier ist Lukas Pitschen
    sehr geehrte Muskschaffende
    Ein Inländer Vorrang ist das A und O
    Cover Freaks sollen verboten werden
    Wenn der Staat fungiert wird alles verfälscht
    Wir brauchen Arbeitgeber sodass CH Kompo
    nisten überhaupt existieren können…
    Musik komponieren und produzieren ist eine
    Wissenschaft und verdient höchsten Respekt
    Neider sind Gift und sind zu ignorieren.
    Es lebe das 12 Ton System !!
    Den Komponisten wünsche ich genug Umsicht und genug Zeit für unsere Sicherheit.
    Liebe Grüsse aus der Ostschweiz von
    Lukas Pitschen ( Musik Eigenproduzent )

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.

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. Text by Andreas Wegelin, CEO

SUISA is working cost-consciously

A study of the IPI confirmed that SUISA and the other Swiss collective management organisations have their costs under control (Photo: Giorgio Tebaldi)

What is the study about?
The supervisory authority of the Swiss CMOs, the Swiss...read more

Cost analysis for collective management organisations

A cost analysis has been carried out among the collective management organisations on behalf of the IPI. The figures reflect how diverse and different the business of issuing licences and distributing royalties to rights holders actually is. At SUISA, cost awareness is already established due to the cooperative members exercising self-control and the right to participate in the decision making process; additional supervision by third parties is therefore not necessary. Text by Andreas Wegelin

Cost analysis for collective management organisations

The results from the cost analysis will help to save further costs where necessary. SUISA’s cost control is, just like at any other private association mainly the duty of its members. (Photo: Lenetsnikolai / Fotolia.com)

Since early summer this year, financial experts have been busy with an analysis of the five collective management organisations’ costs: SUISA, Suissimage, Swissperform, ProLitteris and SSA. Under the guidance of experts from the Fernfachhochschule Schweiz (distance learning technical college), the ZHAW (University of Applied Sciences in Zurich) and the consultancy firm SERVUS, they are tasked with presenting a report to our supervisory authority, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) before the end of this year. The report focusses on the use of the collected remuneration which are intended to be first and foremost paid to authors and publishers, performing artists and producers.

The purpose of this exercise is to provide a more thorough insight into the cost arising for our activities as a collective management organisation. Together with the cost analysis, a report on how useful these expenses are, where there might be areas with saving potential and why certain areas cost significantly more than others.

Diverse and different licensing business

SUISA welcomes this cost analysis, especially the comparison with the other four Swiss collective management organisations and CMOs abroad. Furthermore, while collating the numbers, it has become obvious to us how diverse and different the business of issuing licences and distributing royalties to rightsholders actually is.

SUISA, for example, has about 30 different tariffs as it holds rights on the music in nearly all usage areas. The collected monies are – where possible – distributed on a work basis, i.e. per performed work, to many domestic and foreign authors and publishers.

In comparison to this, the activities of Suissimage are mainly based on the five tariffs related to cable (re)transmission, internal use at schools / for educational purposes or time-shift TV. The umbrella organisations for communication networks supports our sister society for authors’ rights on audiovisual works with its collection activities. The outsourcing of parts of the tariff process and collection activities to such associations reduces the entire effort in some cases, and the administration costs of the collective management organisation acting as the collection centre.

Inflexible rules governing administration costs make no sense

It is therefore clear that the costs Suissimage incurs in terms of collecting for these tariffs are disproportionately lower than the expenses SUISA incurs when issuing licences to approx. 50 importers based on 4 different sub-tariffs for blank media levies. It is thus quite clear that collecting levies for photocopying from all companies in Switzerland requires even more effort for ProLitteris.

Those differences continue when it comes to distributing the collected money. The costs are higher if – as is the case at SUISA – all distributions are split down to work-level and if payouts are not just made to own members but also worldwide to about 100 sister societies.

The cost analysis is going to show such differences and therefore also provide good reasons, just like the AGUR12, the copyright review working group, had already determined: It doesn’t make any sense to impose inflexible rules relating to the levels of their administration costs. The societies just differ too much from one another in their activities.

Cost control is a matter of the cooperative members

SUISA’s cost control is, just like at any other private association mainly the duty of its members. The General Assembly elects a Board among the members which directs the business and is responsible for adhering to the budget and the accounts. Members also run the financial matters of their cooperative by approving the annual accounts. They decide, for example, whether SUISA should offer its members gratuitous legal advice or whether they wish to finance pension scheme or a cultural foundation.

There are signs that political forces intend to change this. They wish to introduce an increased supervision over the collective management organisations. There is no need for that: The cost analysis is going to show that, in most cases, the organisations are handling the authors’ and publishers’ money carefully.

Regrettably, there has been one unfortunate single case where executives of a collective management organisation had been paid high amounts for their own pension with the approval of the relevant committees of that CMO. Such an individual case does, however, not justify to intensify the supervision to such a degree that the autonomy of our cooperative society, in other words, the ability of each individual member to contribute to the decision on the business and fate of SUISA, should be restricted.

Fair payment for the use of music

It seems that some politicians have little idea that the usage of music actually incurs a cost. They consider licence fees raised by SUISA to be a pain and forget that these fees are the basis for a fair payment to thousands of creators, musicians and lyricists, in Switzerland, too.

In order to be able to defend themselves against such a self-service mentality, authors have created their collective management organisations in the form of cooperative societies. Through these cooperative societies they are willing to provide the necessary means for their rights to be managed effectively. This is really not the place for a political intervention.

The results from the cost analysis will help to save further costs where necessary. In that sense, it is a welcome instrument for analysis for business activities. The plan that all costs incurred by collective management organisations should be controlled by the supervisory body, however, has to be clearly rejected. Members wish to and can control their own private cooperative society. They are the first to be interested in a well-functioning and cost effective society. After all, everything that would be expended senselessly would be lost to their own personal income. SUISA members neither want to lose the remuneration they are due nor their personal right to decide on their own, private collective management organisation.

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.

A cost analysis has been carried out among the collective management organisations on behalf of the IPI. The figures reflect how diverse and different the business of issuing licences and distributing royalties to rights holders actually is. At SUISA, cost awareness is already established due to the cooperative members exercising self-control and the right to participate in the decision making process; additional supervision by third parties is therefore not necessary. Text by Andreas Wegelin

Cost analysis for collective management organisations

The results from the cost analysis will help to save further costs where necessary. SUISA’s cost control is, just like at any other private association mainly the duty of its members. (Photo: Lenetsnikolai / Fotolia.com)

Since early summer this year, financial experts have been busy with an analysis of the five collective management organisations’ costs: SUISA, Suissimage, Swissperform, ProLitteris...read more