The NIM implementation of copyright in the Digital Single Market


Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market

Some of the text is copied from the EU Commission press release of 19th January 2019


My comments show how we at NIM are capable of handling the implementation of BOTH article 13 and 11 to the benefits of creators, normal consumers AND gigantic internet platforms like Google and Facebook.

The proposed “Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market” (the directive) seeks to ensure that artists (especially small ones, for example, musicians), and news publishers and journalists benefit from the online world and the internet as they do from the offline world. Currently, due to outdated copyright rules, online platforms and news aggregators are reaping all the rewards while artists, news publishers and journalists see their work circulate freely, at best receiving very little remuneration for it.

This makes it very difficult for artists and media professionals to earn a decent living.

It is important to point out that the draft directive does not create any new rights for artists and journalists. It merely ensures that their existing rights are better enforced. Nor does the draft directive create new obligations for online platforms or news aggregators (DSP — Digital Service Providers). It merely ensures that existing obligations are better respected. What is currently legal and permitted to share will remain legal and permitted to share.

We already have a working platform in place for journalists and writers:

To emphasise!

The draft directive intends to oblige giant internet platforms and news aggregators (like YouTube or GoogleNews) to pay content creators (artists/musicians/actors and journalists) what they truly owe them;

No new rights or obligations are being created. What is currently legal and permitted to share will remain legal and permitted to share.

The expectation is that the draft directive will push the online platforms/news aggregators to finally roll out a policy to fairly remunerate all those from whose work they make their money.

However, the directive says nothing as to implement the directive!

In our opinion, the only way to make sure is to register all copyrighted content and make sure that the DSPs has a way to licence the content.

Which raises two crucial points:

  1. the creators of content must get paid, or the value and relevance of content will deteriorate.
  2. The content must be highly relevant: — It’s the essence of customers experience and their digital interactions.

Relevant and quality content makes a cornerstone of the user experience.

Moreover, the users’ expectations follow a simple law: they always increase over time.

To combine the two point is not only challenging, but it’s also very costly!

Which is why NIM created the Content as a Service (CaaS) concept to secure the creators of content (starting with music) a reasonable income. At the same time giving the Digital Service Providers (DSPs) easy access to licensed material.

However, the challenges in putting together a highly specialised user experience (for example) in the streaming of music and near real-time payments of royalties often creates a massive extra cost that is difficult to defend in a very marginal business.

We believe it all starts with regulated registration and trade of copyrights.


A regulated registration of copyrights and Intellectual property rights is a significant step in making creators of content able to live upon their creativity. Moreover, by using blockchain (CopyrightChains), an immutable provenance is created for each registration.

  • First, you must be registered as a legal entity either as a person or a company.
  • Secondly, you must register a wallet on the CopyrightChains to obtain a wallet address.

It’s important to know that names are not unique but the identifier, CopyrightID, is unique. Whenever you are looking for copyright, search and confirm it is the right one by checking the CopyrightID.

The CopyrightID will be created automatically for you and looks something like this:


The Name: Write the name of your copyright.

A description: Write a description of your copyright. You are also (for instance) able to include website links which are particularly useful considering the description as of now is unchangeable;

Total CopyrightShares: Define the total supply of your CopyrightShares. The total amount can either be fixed at issuance or increased later by making the CopyrightShares re-issuable (default).

Reissuable: Re-issuable defines if a Copyright issuer can increase the CopyrightShares supply at a later point or not. If set to “Reissuable”, the issuer can increase the amount any time. It’s also important to know that if re-issuable is set to true at the beginning, it can still be changed to false at a later stage;

Decimals: Set how many decimals your asset shall have. For example, if you set 8 decimals as in Bitcoin, your CopyrightShare can be divided down to 0.00000001. If you set 0 (default), your shares/splits can only be transacted in whole pieces (1, 3, 15);

The expectation is that the draft directive will push the online platforms/news aggregators to finally roll out a policy to fairly remunerate all those from whose work they make their money.


The image shows the details for the song Fallen Angel (NB! Only the Musical Works details as no recordings is registered yet)¨

You can now send CopyrightShares to all the owners of this copyright. In this case, 250 000 goes to Guy Fletcher, 250 000 to Doug Flett and 500 000 to BMG/CHRYSALIS Music as publisher.

That is the basis for each time the song Fallen Angel is licenced and paid for in CREATIVES. NIM will ALWAYS know what percentages each copyright shareholder has and ALWAYS paid the right owner the right amount according to CopyrightShares. That is also the case if Dough wants to sell 100 000 shares in Fallen Angel. This sale can be done on a similar DEX that is used for CREATIVES; only it’s for copyrights.

It works in the same way since it’s constructed of same blockchain technology.

Instantly after confirming the sale of 100 000 CopyrightShares in Fallen Angel from Doug Flett the new owner will start receiving royalties and Doug will get the agreed price for the trade of 100 000 CopyrightShares in Fallen Angel deposited in his wallet.

So, registration of CopyrightShares (both initially and at transfer) is essential for receiving royalties. Equally important trades in Copyrights, when CopyrightShares has changed hands, it will immediately reflect in the ownership shares of the Copyright and royalties received from the DSP will always be sent to the right shareholder.

Which is why a motion to register and trade in Copyrights are presented to the Swedish parliament before Christmas. See link below for full text (Sorry, only in Swedish)

You can see a rough translation in our newsroom:

Let’s clear up some misunderstandings (mostly “fake news” created by lobbying fractions for Google and Facebook)

The draft directive does not target the ordinary user.

By contrast, the draft directive will impact large online platforms and news aggregators like Google’s YouTube, Google News or Facebook, making it essential for them to remunerate artists and journalists whose work they monetise correctly

The directive will not affect internet freedom or lead to internet censorship.

Freedom on the internet, as in the real world, will continue to exist as long as the exercise of this freedom does not restrict the rights of others, or is illegal. This means that a user will be able to continue uploading content to internet platforms and that these platforms/news aggregators will be able to continue hosting such uploads, as long as the platforms respect the creators’ right to fair remuneration. Currently, the online platforms/news aggregators remunerate creators on a voluntary basis and only to a very limited degree.

The draft directive will not be the source of censorship. By increasing legal liability, the draft directive will increase pressure on internet platforms/news aggregators to conclude fair remuneration deals with the creators of work through which the platforms make money. This is not censorship.

Automatic filters (solved by CopyrightChains)

The draft directive sets a goal to be achieved — An online platform/news aggregator must not earn money from material created by people without compensating them. Therefore, a platform/news aggregator is legally liable if there is content on its site for which it has not properly paid the creator. This means that those whose work is used illegally can sue the platform/news aggregator.

NIMs CaaS handles these problems elegantly by offering any consumer a simple and easy way to register your UGC (User Generated Content) BEFORE uploading to Facebook and YouTube.

For instance, you film your sisters birthday on your mobile and you want to put the song “Happy birthday” as music always make a video better. Since this is a copyrighted song (most popular in the world), Facebook and YouTube will have to refuse upload under article 13 UNLESS you make a quick stop at one of NIM’s partners MaaS (Music as a Service) and register the use of “Happy birthday” as a UGC (User Generated Content) BEFORE uploading the video.

Since the Copyright is registered and you registered the use (take 15 seconds) neither Facebook nor YouTube will have any objections, and they will pay the royalties to the owners of Happy Birthday, each time it’s played.

Why have there been numerous recriminations against the directive?

The draft directive has been the subject of intense campaigning. Indeed, some statistics inside the European Parliament show that MEPs rarely have or even never been subject to a similar degree of lobbying before (such as telephone calls, emails etc.). The companies to be most affected by the directive have multi-billion dollar yearly revenues (for example Google’s revenue for 2017 was $110 billion, and Facebook’s was $40.7 billion).

Such wide-ranging campaigning generally does lead to impressive claims snowballing; there are claims that the draft directive risks “breaking the internet”, or “killing the internet”. Since the draft directive does not confer any new rights on creators, nor impose new obligations on internet platforms/news aggregators, such claims seem excessive.

There are numerous precedents of lobbying campaigns predicting catastrophic outcomes, which have never come true.

For example, telecom companies claimed phone bills would explode as a result of caps on roaming fees; the tobacco and restaurant lobbies claimed people would stop going to restaurants and bars as a result of the smoking ban in bars and restaurants; banks said they would have to stop lending to businesses and people, due to tougher laws on how they operated and the duty-free lobby even claimed that airports would close down as a result of the end of duty-free shopping in the single market.

None of this happened.

Share this article

Recent posts

Popular categories

Recent comments