Text file: 634.txt
author: miha
downvotes: 0
end consideration date: 2010-05-06
id: '634'
number comments: 9
number views: 5899
proposal type: Competent authority response
response: 'Response from the Ministry of the Economy

  The proposal to "abolish the SAZAS tax on hardware and media" refers in substance
  to the fair compensation due to the author and holders of related rights for private
  and other reproductions. Pursuant to Article 37 of the Copyright and Related Rights
  Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No 16/07, 68/08; hereinafter
  referred to as "the CPR"), the author or the holder of related rights is entitled
  to fair compensation for the making of a sound or visual recording and for the making
  of a photocopying of his or her work, which is made under the conditions of private
  and other private use referred to in Article 50 of the CPR. The use of an author''s
  work is in principle only permitted with the author''s permission and payment of
  a remuneration, while the reproduction of the author''s work under the conditions
  of private and other fair use is free (i.e. it is not necessary to obtain the author''s
  permission), and in return the ZASP recognises the author''s right to a special
  fair compensation. This is a limitation of the reproduction right already provided
  for in Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
  of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
  rights in the information society (''Directive 2001/29/EC''), which allows for a
  limitation of the reproduction right in the case of private and other fair use,
  provided that the rightholder receives fair compensation, but it does not specify
  the manner in which the compensation is to be regulated. Under the RIPA, remuneration
  for sound and visual recording is payable on the first sale or importation of new
  sound and visual recording devices and on the first sale or importation of new blank
  sound or image media, and remuneration for photocopying is payable on the first
  sale or importation of new photocopying devices and on photocopies made for sale,
  on a monthly basis according to the number of photocopies likely to be made. The
  persons liable for the payment of the allowance are manufacturers of sound and visual
  recording devices, manufacturers of photocopying devices, manufacturers of blank
  sound or image media and holders of devices offering photocopying for a fee. Manufacturers
  are not liable for the refund for those devices or media which they export. Importers
  of devices and media are also liable in solidarity, unless the import is for private
  and non-commercial use as part of their personal luggage.  The remuneration is due
  jointly to all beneficiaries and is divided among them in accordance with Article
  154(1) and (2) of the PRTR. The amount of the remuneration is determined by the
  Regulation on the amounts of remuneration for private and other reproductions (Official
  Journal of the RS, No 103/06). The remuneration for private and other reproductions
  is therefore not a tax, as the proposal implies, but a copyright remuneration due
  to the author and holders of related rights (performers, producers of phonograms,
  film producers and publishers) because the ECFR allows for a limitation of, or interference
  with, their exclusive rights, since protected works may be reproduced without their
  permission under certain conditions.  The remuneration relates to private and other
  reproductions, which are generally made in private, and it is therefore not possible
  to monitor the actual reproduction or to determine who reproduced the protected
  work, what and in how many copies. Since it is impossible to monitor the actual
  use of protected works, the legislator has opted for a flat-rate fee payable for
  each device or medium that enables the protected works to be reproduced. From the
  point of view of the individual, the flat-rate compensation may be perceived as
  unfair, especially if the protected works are never reproduced by the individual,
  but, as already mentioned, while it is not possible to monitor actual reproduction
  in the private sphere in order to preserve privacy, it does at least partially compensate
  right-holders for the damage caused to them by the increasingly widespread private
  reproduction that is allowed. It should be stressed that the compensation is intended
  to compensate rightholders for the loss of revenue caused by the permitted private
  and other private reproductions and not to compensate the rightholder for the damage
  caused to the rightholder by the pirated copies. The issue of unlawful reproduction,
  in particular piracy, is entirely separate from the issue of private reproduction
  permitted under the UDRP. Any reproduction outside the scope of reproduction permitted
  under the UDRP constitutes an infringement of the rights of the rightholders, which
  they may pursue by civil, criminal and other means. The proposal also incorrectly
  states that the compensation is paid to SAZAS, since, as already mentioned, the
  beneficiaries of the compensation are authors, performers, phonogram producers,
  film producers and publishers. The remuneration is collected by the collecting society,
  which is licensed by the Office. Until 31 December 2009, the IPF was authorised
  to collect remuneration for private and other reproductions other than photocopies,
  but there is currently no collecting society authorised to collect this remuneration.
  The photocopying remuneration is collected by SAZOR GIZ, which is also licensed
  to manage the reproduction right beyond the permitted scope of private and other
  self-copying (e.g. 4 copies). All the remuneration collected is then distributed
  by the collecting society authorised to collect the remuneration, in accordance
  with the RPLA, among the collecting societies representing the individual beneficiaries
  (SAZAS, IPF, ZAMP and SAZOR GIZ), which then distribute the remuneration among the
  individual beneficiaries, including abroad, in accordance with their own internal
  rules.  The compensation also does not hinder technological development, as it is
  known in all EU Member States, not only in Slovenia, but the compensation regime
  differs from one Member State to another with regard to the amount of the compensation
  itself and the devices or media for which the compensation is paid. The Intellectual
  Property Office of the Republic of Slovenia concludes that the proposal is not justified
  and is not suitable for further consideration, as the RIPA regulates this area in
  accordance with European rules and abolishing the compensation at issue would be
  a violation of EU law, which allows for the restriction of the reproduction right
  in the case of private and other own use only on the condition that the right holder
  receives fair compensation.   '
response date: 2010-05-21
response due date: null
sent date: 2010-04-07
title: Elimination of the SAZAS tax on hardware and media
upvotes: 27
url: https://predlagam.vladi.si/predlog/634
