To draw out a book on SGAE you have carried out a study over two years. How hard is it to understand how it works? Why?

What has in principle lasted for two years has been a writing process, but we started with some previous works, like Why Marx didn't talk about David's copyright. (Why didn't Marx talk about copyright? Enclave, 2014) or Another model is possible (Another model is possible). So we can say that this book started four years ago.

Understanding the complex world of intellectual property is difficult and even more difficult to understand the management model represented by SGAE. Antón Reixa, former director of the entity, left us with great reflection when we interviewed for the book: He told us that “the just thing has to be explainable” and explained that SGAE technicians had to put the same Powerpoint eighteen times to understand how money was distributed on TV.

“Only the crow’s singing does not pay rights,” says the SGAE. How does the entity collect and distribute?

You could answer this question through another book. For short, I repeat to you the phrase I heard from a partner: The SGAE collects the money as a Ferrari, but distributes it as a car. What has made the entity so bad a picture has been the hunger to raise its money, and the slogan you mention is a sign of it. SGAE should receive no more, but better. And above all, distribute it efficiently and appropriately.

Identifies works once they are collected for their use. And the question posed to anyone is: How does he then know that this collection is due to him? This is what David means when he says “first shoot and then ask.”

The fact that tariffs are applied according to their availability and not to their effective use means that there are so many unidentified rights in the black box. That is, a tabernacle pays for not being able to use the songs that are in the repertoire of the SGAE. Subsequently, identification is not carried out correctly, and rightholders do not have the right to identification.

What about the money raised on behalf of non-members? Can you give up that fundraising?

Five years after the collection without the authors claiming, these rights prescribe and become assets of the entity. Many authors do not want to be part of the SGAE for multiple reasons and necessarily waive their rights.

It is paradoxical, because the law says that there are mandatory collective management rights, that is, that they can only be done through entities such as the SGAE, but being a member of the entity is voluntary. It is therefore levied on behalf of non-members, creating a vicious circle to increase numbers. The rights that remained to be "identified" in 2015 were €17.5 million.

Corruption cases, canon abuses… Is the decline of the SGAE really occurring or is it just an opinion?

We speak in the book of the decline of its monopoly, and we think that is objective. The Spanish Commission on Markets and Competition has imposed fines for the excesses in the implementation of tariffs; from Europe the free way is left to independent management associations through Directive 2014/26/EU on management entities; alternatives such as the DAMA or EKKI have been created in recent years… there are many reasons. But now more than ever, in addition to the monopoly that the SGAE has, decadence is noticeable in its structure and management model.

The lack of transparency and the lack of adaptation to the new management models are your main criticisms. What to do?

Among the things we propose in the book are to give the partners a greater decision-making capacity, to abandon the availability pricing system and to set the tariffs for effective use – it is feasible with the existing technology – to try to get to the relevant owner what remains in the black box of “identification” rights – amounts to which the SGAE cannot distribute, because the authors are not identified or because they are not members of the entity…

Something good will have, however...

Of course it does. Collecting societies emerged to manage the rights of authors and to be able to collect for them. In the case of musical works, its dissemination capacity makes it very difficult for the author to track his work on his own. Imagine asking yourself about our rights by radio, bar to bar, room to room. Collecting societies are needed to facilitate this work.

The problem occurs when authors and editors enter the same entity because they have conflicting interests. We have recently seen that in the “case of television wheels” there are legal loopholes that allow great imbalances; the wealth of a few authors and editors is sought, and this supposes a political power – more votes are generated in SGAE.

Turning to good things, some of the benefits go to aid, such as dissemination and promotion, spin organization or record production. In addition, it offers assistance for the payment of graduated glasses or hearing aids, or to paralyse the eviction of a partner.

SGAE collects it from all repertoires, including those licensed under the Creative Commons license. But with these licenses can the author receive the rights that correspond to him?

The conflict is clear: The SGAE does not accept free licences or a non-commercial clause. But the problem is that, as it charges for availability, it charges for the repertoire it does not manage, including that of authors using Creative Commons. Therefore, if the author wishes to receive the money due to him, he should be a compulsory partner of the SGAE, and obviously both cannot be done together.

The obligation for the member to declare all his repertoire in the SGAE and his attitude of not accepting free licenses only hinders the free decision-making by creators.

The culture of music consumption has changed a lot in recent years, and most of it does so via the Internet and streaming platforms. How is it raised here?

Payment flows from the on-line music industry are particularly complex. The platforms are unclear about the distribution of rights and royalties. However, producers always get more than the authors.

The White Paper on Culture provides significant data: of the €9.99 subscription to a platform only 0.46 is earmarked for artists. Record labels receive 4,58 euros and a single euro is allocated to the authors’ share – to distribute them between editors and authors.

That with platforms like Spotify. The most significant data, though, we picked it up when we were studying how YouTube worked. There is a confidential agreement between SGAE and YouTube that the authors cannot know. Therefore, the authors cannot know how much they receive at the expense of our work. According to our sources, the Governing Board of the SGAE does not know the contents of the document either, just the Governing Board.

In the book, you talk about alternatives like EKKI. What development can they have?

In its fight against the monopoly, the SGAE has always been the winner of it. At the beginning of the first decade and the middle of the twenty-first century, two unsuccessful attempts were made. DAMA was the first (Copyright of Audiovisual Media), driven by the writers’ unions ALMA. Now it happens again with the creation of EKKI in the Basque Country.

The model proposed by both EKKI and DAMA is very different from that proposed by SGAE: firstly, they have the principle of “one member vote” – excluding the amount of the collection – and they charge the fees for effective use and not for availability.

EKKI is at a very early stage, organizing information seminars, training and attracting new partners. The members of the AMA were five years before they began to raise funds, overcoming the trials and pressures of the SGAE. We hope that EKKI can be put into operation sooner. As Anari told us “his advantage is that he has a wide margin for improvement. […] A small crack can open a very large rock.”