By: Miro Petek
During the years of Svoboda’s government, we witnessed an almost uninterrupted stream of political scandals, personal dramas, social‑media disputes, and media spectacles. Front pages were filled with obscure stories about Robert Golob and Tina Gaber, while more important matters remained almost entirely unnoticed due to triviality, daily political noise, and left‑leaning propaganda.
One issue that went almost unnoticed – at least I do not recall it appearing on the media or political agenda – was a warning from Brussels regarding Slovenia’s violation of EU copyright law, which the European Commission addressed to Golob’s government in January this year. The accusation is that Slovenia systematically restricts authors’ rights, interferes with their property, and maintains a monopolistic model of copyright management, which is contrary to EU legislation.
The warning did not come overnight. The European Commission had already alerted Slovenian authorities to the problem in June 2024 through the EU Pilot procedure. This procedure gave Slovenia an opportunity to align the disputed provisions with EU law before receiving a formal warning from Brussels, but this did not happen. Slovenia’s response was assessed as inadequate in January 2026, and the Commission launched infringement proceedings against Slovenia for violating EU law.
Golob’s government had a year and a half to address the copyright issue seriously, but during that time it was fully occupied with the grand finale of state plundering. They could have examined the warnings of authors; SAZAS, for example, has been pointing this out for more than a decade. They could have prepared legislative changes. They could have opened a public debate. Instead, they remained silent and insisted on the existing system because it suited them.
The core of the Commission’s criticism is simple. An author must have the right to decide whether to permit or prohibit the use of their work. This is the essence of copyright. The Slovenian system, however, in many cases deprives authors of the ability to choose and forces them into collective management through a single organisation. The Commission warns that this turns the author’s exclusive right into merely a right to compensation, while decision‑making is taken over by others. If this column is distributed through media clipping services, copyright and related rights may arise. The law states that part of the revenue must go to authors, but an individual journalist or columnist typically has no influence over who manages their rights, how revenues are distributed, or what share they actually receive.
And here we reach a broader paradox. For the past twenty years, the European Union has been systematically dismantling monopolies. It investigates Google, Apple, Meta. It opens energy markets, telecommunications, transport, and financial services. The foundation of the EU internal market is competition. While Brussels limits monopolies, the Slovenian state continues to protect them in the field of copyright.
A special responsibility lies with the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office (URSIL), which should be the primary guardian of authors’ rights. Instead, the office is part of the problem, not the solution. The entrenched networks within the office quickly ensnare any new director appointed by politics. URSIL insists on a model that restricts authors’ choice and strengthens the monopoly position of certain organisations. Regarding AIPA, synonymous with disputes in the field of copyright, URSIL cannot avoid the question of what role it played in creating such a system.
And finally, we arrive at the essential question: who benefits from such a system?
Large sums of money circulate in the field of copyright, and from this rich table something often falls into the hands of political parties. Where there are millions, there are interests. Where there are interests, there are influences. Where there are influences, lobbying often appears. It is therefore not surprising that the debate on authors’ rights often turns into a debate about who will manage the money. Too little is said about who will manage the rights.
