När musiken tystnar – en analys av bestämmelserna om de kollektiva förvaltningsorganisationernas avdrag från rättighetsintäkter för sociala-, kulturella- och utbildningsändamål

Sammanfattning: With the introduction of the Collective Rights Management Directive (2014/26/EU), the EU's efforts to harmonize the area of collective rights management succeeded. The new digital environment had created a greater need for the EU to regulate the area and to contribute to all Member States based on the same rules. In the past, the management of the organizations had looked different because there was no harmonized regulation. The purpose of the directive is to protect European authors effectively and give users access to copyrighted content throughout Europe - copyright should be adapted for the digital environment. When law (2016: 977) on collective management of copyright (KFUL) was introduced in Sweden, a regulation was added that had not previously existed. The Swedish administrative organizations had previously applied law (1960: 729) on copyright to literary and artistic works and association law to regulate their functioning. The new law created new opportunities but also new challenges when it came to application. All organizations now had to adapt to the new regulations. This essay addresses both the Collective Rights Management Directive and KFUL, and gives the reader an insight into what it is that is regulated by the two regulations. The main focus is on the rules that govern the deductions that a collective management organization is allowed to make on its right holders, but also those that they may have the opportunity to make on foreign right holders when there are representation agreements. These provisions have proved to be problematic in that some national rules in Member States have forced national organizations to apply deductions, which may conflict with the requirement for explicit consent, which is otherwise required when a representation agreement exists. The dissertation goes through copyright law and then gives an overview of some of the Swedish collective management organizations. Then both the Collective Rights Management Directive and the KFUL are presented in two separate sections that de-scribe what their aims were at the introduction and what they regulate. The dissertation also contains a section that deals with the provisions for deductions in both regulations. This is also where the problems surrounding these regulations are ad-dressed. Finally, the essay contains an analysis where the questions are raised and answered. The conclusion is that today there are shortcomings with how Member States have incorporated the Collective Rights Management Directive. France, Portugal and Denmark are three examples of countries that are raised in this essay and where in some form there are provisions that force their organizations to deduct for social, cultural or educational purposes. Since the directive contains a requirement for explicit consent when there is a representation agreement, the requirement of consent ends up in conflict with the provisions that force organizations to make deductions. This therefore means that there is a potential conflict where the three countries that have been raised in this essay, can choose to disregard the consent and apply the deduction anyway. Furthermore, there are deficiencies in the practical application of the deduction provisions which lead to them being applied in a discriminatory man-ner. It has been found that access to the services financed by the deductions does not always benefit foreign rights holders.