Minister of Culture Paavo Arhimäki proposed the extension of the compensation levy for private reproduction to computers and mobile telephones. The government rejected this proposal but decided to increase the levies laid down in the Copyright Act.

The ways in which consumers purchase and consume various types of digital content have undergone a dramatic change in recent years. A number of different channels and media are available for listening, viewing and sharing music and films, for example, and consumers find it natural to swap from one to the other. The social media, in which consumers play a key role in producing the content and act as its principal producers, is a chapter of its own. This trend is mainly positive for consumers – they clearly have more choice.

In the context of this trend, copyright organisations have proposed that the compensation levies for private reproduction be extended while also increasing the rates for devices that already are within the scope of the levies.

Convincing arguments for preserving the status quo

In its statement to the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Finnish Consumer Agency opposed the extension of the scope of the compensation levy, as multiple levies paid by the consumer violate against the systematics of the compensation system, and paying compensation for the illegal use of content (e.g. downloading files from a peer network) is not the purpose of the levy. Neither is the concern felt by copyright organisations about the decreased accrual of compensation levies a valid reason for extending the scope of the levy.

In a transition period of this type and while an overall reform of the compensation levy system is being investigated, it is particularly important to refrain from expanding the payment base.

Copy protection is common

The Finnish Consumer Agency also draws attention to the use of technical protection and copy protection, or DRM techniques, which make it impossible for consumers to reproduce content for their personal use. For example, a consumer may buy copy protected content for his or her mobile phone. In that case, the consumer already has paid for the content, and if DRM protection prevents private reproduction, there are no legal grounds for compensation levies.

KUV/8488/48/2011

Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (Preamble, section 35)