An initiative against digital inclusion

On November 4, various senators from Morena, PRI and PRD presented an initiative through which they intend to force individuals to pay a kind of “compensation” to collective management societies that, in theory, represent the holders of copyrights on musical, video graphic, plastic or literary works. This claim is based on the assumption that simply by owning a device with storage or reproduction capacity, the user is -automatically and without prior judgment- committing piracy and affecting the authors, who must be compensated.

This is not the first attempt in which the lobbying of the Society of Authors and Composers of Mexico (SACM) has managed to get the Congress of the Union to work in favor of their interests. Just on April 30, 2021, the plenary session of the Chamber of Deputies rejected this proposal. Now, the initiative promoted by the SACM in the Senate of the Republic intends to correct the evident excesses of its first project, qualifying some of its provisions or incorporating text that tries to hide the most serious defect of the initiative: the direct impact on the pockets of the consumer of mobile phones, tablets, laptops, desktop computers, Internet servers, game consoles, USB media or hard drives.

In order to pretend that it is not the consumer who will pay this “compensation”, the initiative establishes that the payment will be covered by the manufacturers or importers of devices, devices, technological supports or any other that allows the copying or sound, visual or audiovisual reproduction of a work. In a rhetorical and populist manner, it is clarified that for no reason can this cost be transferred to the prices paid by final consumers, and the Federal Consumer Attorney’s Office is ordered to verify that there is no price increase. This exclusively rhetorical text is impossible to comply with. To think that the price of an iPhone should remain fixed is to know nothing about the functioning of the markets and the variables that affect prices; to start with that thing that politicians just don’t understand: the law of supply and demand.

In a curious provision it is established that the government (any public entity) has the right to get this “tax” back from the collecting societies. Let’s see, if according to them it is not the consumers who in the end will end up paying the price, why should the government, as the end user, have to give something back? The crafty wording is evident. Also, why, if the initiative assumes that all individuals violate copyrights just by having devices with storage or reproduction capacity, at the same time -and without any logic- presupposes that the government never violates them?

In addition, most musical and audiovisual content is already consumed through streaming platforms, such as Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, Apple or television and radio that already pay royalties. Most users no longer have private copies of the music and video they consume, so SACM wants to receive additional payments for royalties that have probably already been paid. Let’s remember that collective management societies are like unions, in which the leadership commands and distributes the best part, while the members get the crumbs. In this case, an individual author is not entitled to collect this consideration.

Finally, two legal notes: the right to compensation for private copying is not provided for in our free trade agreements, which state that any increase in tariffs or quotas is contrary to them. For its part, the Congress of the Union lacks the powers to impose liquid payment obligations between individuals through general regulations. Therefore, the bill is unconstitutional.

The initiative only seeks to enrich the collecting societies, not really the creator. In addition to unnecessarily hitting all efforts in favor of digital inclusion.