Copyright: Council of States postpones decision on clause for media publishers

The Council approved a motion by Pirmin Bischof (CVP/SO) without opposition. The committee responsible for preliminary deliberations has thus been instructed to review its decisions and take current legal developments in the EU into account.

The reason for the decision is a controversial addition that the Commission had added: it wants to make Google and Facebook pay in favor of media publishers. In future, the operators of internet platforms should owe publishers a fee if they make journalistic works accessible. This primarily concerns text outlines and references to articles that are displayed to internet users in services such as Google News.
 

In this way, the Internet platforms can gain data for advertising marketing or place advertisements for the text outlines and thus earn money - from the publishers' point of view, money that they are losing. Users may be content with the text outline on the social network and not click on the link that would take them to the media portal.

A compensation regulation is also currently being debated in the EU under the title "ancillary copyright". Proponents argue that the media industry is facing difficulties due to the collapse in advertising revenue. Critics doubt that the problems can be solved in this way. The specific form of the rule is also controversial.

The Commission's proposal is not yet fully developed, was the tenor in the Council of States. With the Commission's proposal, Switzerland would have the most restrictive copyright law in relation to the Internet, stated Anita Fetz (SP/BS). Upload filters would be needed for implementation. That would not be in the interests of users or journalists. Small publishers and freelance journalists in particular would be restricted.

Pirmin Bischof recalled that the Federal Council had set up a working group with all the important players, Agur 12, in the knowledge of how difficult it was to reconcile the conflicting interests in copyright law. The working group had actually managed to find a compromise. However, the Commission's decisions now deviate considerably from this. A good justification is needed for this.

Géraldine Savary (SP/VD) spoke out in favor of ancillary copyright. She emphasized the importance of the media for society. If the EU opted for an ancillary copyright, Switzerland would risk isolating itself. This would have dramatic consequences for the media in the country. However, Savary also did not oppose discussing the regulation again in the Commission.

Hannes Germann (SVP/SH) doubted the benefits of the referral. He stated that a renewed discussion in the committee would not make the difficult decisions any easier. The committee had dealt with the bill in detail.

Commission spokesperson Ruedi Noser (FDP/ZH) noted that the Commission's proposal goes further than the one under discussion in the EU. It was also disputed whether the ancillary copyright was even suitable for achieving the objective.

In Germany and Spain, where it has already been introduced, it has not been a success. Noser also pointed out that a decision would be made in the EU at the end of March, but possibly not conclusively.

Karin Keller-Sutter pointed out that the regulation was extremely controversial in the EU. In Germany, people took to the streets because they feared for the free Internet.

A clause in favor of media publishers was also discussed in the National Council in the form of an individual motion. The large chamber voted against it by 133 votes to 39 with 5 abstentions. The Council of States committee is now looking again at possible regulations in detail.
Note: Message rewritten after decision. (SDA)