Slashdot Mirror
SABAM Wants Truckers To Pay For Listening To Radio
guruevi writes "SABAM, the Belgian RIAA, wants truckers to start paying for the copyrights to listen to the radio in their cabin (Google translation of Dutch original). SABAM already has a system in place to extract fees from businesses for having radios in the work area for businesses with more than 9 employees, and they find that truckers' cabins are areas of work and thus infringe on their copyrights. The local politicians think this is going too far; they believe truckers need a radio for safety reasons and view a truck cabin as 'an intimate place.'"
The first quote is "Kink ready nonsense." Hmmm...perhaps I need to machine translate more stories.
I was led to this place, a place I can't understand. A place that demands my belief just as strongly as my disbelie
I'd be fine with this, as long as the beancounters are forced to personally visit every single trucker in person, and attempt to extract their fees.
I'd imagine they'd soon have a 'close encounter of the truckstop kind'... perfect sort of punishment for this level of arrogance. Next they'll be demanding fees for listening to the radio while driving to work. The publishing industry will stop at nothing to fraudulently demand fees for others' works.
Perhaps they have forgotten the reasons why music is broadcast over the radio for free in the first place?
1. Advertising revenue
2. Free promotion of new music
Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.
They have either paid for the music on CD, or the radio stations have already paid their dues.
What's next, people who whistle getting charged for public performances?
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
SABAM already has a system in place to extract fees from businesses for having radios in the work area for businesses with more than 9 employees
how nice for them
Who did they throw money at in order to get such a nonsensical perk?
Assuming Belgium radio royalties for broadcast music works on a similar basis to elsewhere (and I believe it does) then the radio station has already paid a royalty for broadcast. Claiming a second royalty seems extremely dubious.
The radio station broadcasting it already paid the royalties for a license to broadcast it.
Double dipping hogwash.
We always come back to the same thing - money. Radio stations make money - like Google, like free-to-air television - with adverts. Therefore they want to get the maximum exposure to their transmissions possible. It is in their interests to achieve that by including a decent DJ, reasonable news, maybe some talkback - oh, and music. It is, surely, the radio station's responsibility to do that legally.
Let's use a car analogy ... ok, truck analogy.
I buy a truck from Ford. Off I go, driving about. Sometimes at night.
I don't expect the manufacturer of the headlights to come along and say "Hey, you are using my lights a lot, you have to pay me extra money".
So why the heck should it happen here?
And why pick on truckies (not a group, actually, I'd choose to pick on, but there you go)? Why not - well, anyone?
"Cats like plain crisps"
I just couldn't get the image of some suit having to say "SABAM!" in order to turn into a super-copyright-dues-collector in red tights with a yellow lightning bolt.
Oooops, I guess now I have to go pay DC Comics their pound of flesh.... will it never stop?
Im a middle aged senior management IT guy and last year I realised I had not heard a new song on the radio in two (2) years even though I listen to 9 hours of radio a week. You see I listen to podacasts as my free time is split up all over the place so normal radio programming does not meet my needs as I would miss half the program when I get called away. But at the same time I have heard lots of adverts in the last year. If I was a musician I would be worrying because there is a medium to high income group of professionals now who thanks to the stupidity of the record labels "never ever can hear their music". So my money stays in my pocket and mu CD collection of years gone past gets taken out and played every now and again, pretty dumb in my view and a really stupid way to promote a product that needs to be heard before it can be sold.
No, if you are driving as part of a business then you can't listen to music unless the business have brought the appropriate protection money, so this would apply to anyone traveling on company business. Trucks, Salesman, Field Support etc.
The group are taking the current rules and applying them to their logical conclusion, hopeful this will prompt government to wonder if the rules as they are currently implemented actually make sense.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
KODA, the Danish equivalent of RIAA, had a case in Højesteret (Danish High Court) in 2003 that basically said that when you're at work, the broadcast licence rules for companies is in effect, even if you're a single trucker in a truck.
Only a few articles in Danish media covered it then. Here's the official statement from KODA at the time and a Google translation here
(weird links in preview -- wonder how they'll look when I press submit...)
A proud member of the Onion-in-Hand alliance
If I was representing the truckers, I'd say "Sure, no problem, we just won't transport any loads carrying your goods anymore."
See how quickly they decide a few dollars in licensing revenue is not worth losing all retail sales.
Well %$#^* Belgium!
Pardon my French.
Hookers, you say?! Now it definitely is a workplace. Let the fees flow!
dull-eyed footstool-temporary octopus
ASSCAP, Asscrap, Monday (NNN) — After its recent successes suing girl scouts over singing copyrighted songs around campfires, the American Super-Society of Composers, Authors and Performers has filed a brief in a lawsuit against AT&T arguing that its members deserve payment every time a mobile phone rings.
The owners of the musical compositions are already paid for each ringtone download, but this does not cover ASCAP public performance royalties.
"The musicians and songwriters are the true creators of objective value in society," said ASCAP spokesdroid Ayn Rand. "They deserve your support. How would civilisation survive without Crazy Frog or the Nokia Tune? Which changes one note from the 1902 'Gran Vals' by Francisco Tárrega, so is completely original and deserving of royalties.
"To this end, we are bringing suits against those individuals who, having purchased RIAA-licensed ringtones, do not then silence them when in public. Statutory damages of $80,000 should have a salutary effect on our coffers and, of course, our public image."
Further lawsuits will then be brought against those who silence their mobile phones. "4'33' by John Cage is a copyrighted work. Without the money going to his estate, he may never write another measured piece of silence again." This will be followed by suits against those whistling or humming music in public, then those thinking about music in any form without a licence.
In support of their position, ASCAP pointed to vast public outpourings of sympathy from millions of people who never wanted to hear a tinny thirty-second burst of cheesy synthetic R&B coming from a phone ever again in their lives.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I'm sorry, if you don't want anyone to listen to your music, don't broadcast it.
This is like people who post shit on the web and get butthurt when people link to it. If you don't want people having whatever it is you're serving, don't put a computer on the web that doles it out in response to a HTTP GET request.
If you don't want people listening to your music, don't broadcast it as an unencrypted FM signal. You should not be able to broadcast something in the clear and then put conditions on who can tune in.
Thanks for clearing that much up. But I, and I am sure lots of other slashdotters, am still unclear on one detail.
What is a female?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I wish they'd try that in the US. US law is no less screwed up than UK and European law, but I'd really like to see them try that here. The FCC can't even enforce the laws regarding mobile radios in the trucking industry. Any screwball can buy a high powered 10 meter radio and have it adapted to operate on Citizen's band - then add a kicker that puts out 1600 or more watts.
It would truly be funny to see inspectors trying to enforce copyright nonsense at a truck inspection station!
"When music is outlawed, only outlaws will have music!" Yeah - I like the NRA too.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"hopeful this will prompt government to wonder if the rules as they are currently implemented actually make sense."
One party in the Belgian government sees nothing wrong with letting the government fall if they don't get to waste the money that others make. In other words, most of the time the Belgians don't even HAVE a government, so I doubt it.
I suspect that SABAM management may find it difficult to get into their offices one day as all access routes may get blocked by either lorries or just their load. I cannot see truckers take it that SABAM is trying to blackmail them - driving a lorry isn't that profitable to start with. I cannot see this solve itself any other way..
Insert
They are the worst administration in our country... I have experienced people around me saying the worst things about the SABAM and its dumb rules on countless occasions. They are the bureaucratic death of the true love for music. Worst thing is, more often than rarely, they don't even pay the artists, or they ask fees for non-existing/unregistered artists!
This flemish [BE] TV crew exposed them some time ago... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZAsa9QmQO8/p
At least in the US, radio stations have to pay to play (perform) music to an audience. I suspect that is pretty much the same everywhere. That "performance for an audience" has already been paid for. How can they justify also charging the audience as well?
Taxis already have to pay SABAM
Nice to see that it's not just the RIAA that's batshit crazy.
Well %$#^* Belgium! Pardon my French.
That should have been "Fuck B-----m!".
Mask the expletives according to their nastiness.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I can't wait for the proliferation of microphones in public places to catch you whistling a popular tune and charge you a royalty fee for it. ;-)
In that case, let's walk up to each, and say "Fuck you, guys!" loud and clear. It might not achieve much, but at least we'll feel better about doing it...
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Why aren't they targeting taxis? The whole thing is stupidity in motion. The end result will be that the companies pull the radios out of the trucks and the drivers supply their own, either portable or clipped into the dash.
First, they came for the truckers. If successful, they'll be tempted to go for the tractors and cranes, and then the taxis, and then the company cars. So where is the logical ending? Private cars used for business trips? Or just any vehicle where the music is audible a few meters from the vehicle?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
If you are listening to the radio with your hookers, you are doing it wrong.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This is double taxation sort of. Most people pay fees for listening to music at home and then more fees need to be paid in order to listen to the same stuff somewhere else.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Anyway, 10m is the 28MHz amateur radio band (10m being the wavelength). Ham gear is more powerful, and can drive larger linear amplifiers (the 'kicker' in CB parlance). A 1600W linear is going to need around 100W of drive, so the ham radio would work nicely. I think the legal limit of a CB is something like 10W, which would underdrive the linear.
The US obsession with RF power never ceases to amaze me, especially when I'm using 5W to talk to an operator running 1500W. The QRP mantra: power is no substitute for skill.
As you say, I can't believe I am biting at the troll ...
I genuinely hate these people as much as Sony... Some of the taxes they ask: 1. Tax on a blank cd/dvd (you might use it to pirate music) 2. Tax on a DVD/CD-Burner (you might use it to pirate music) 3. Tax on music you buy (you might pirate it) 4. Extra tax if you buy the music online (you might pirate it more easely) 5. Tax on HDD/USB/Media players (you could store some of their music on it) 6. Tax on listening to the radio at work 7. Tax when you give a party and play music 8. Tax when you are a DJ and use the music at a party When is the last time you had to go to jail because you bought a screwdriver? (You could kill someone with it, you know...) Crazy BS...
It won't work. These useless rentseekers even see no contradiction in charging you for songs you have written and recorded yourself.
It was stupid in the 1980s when they started charging radio stations and it's become progressively more stupid since but they see nothing wrong. They just see marks to milk without giving them anything they don't already have.
"Change gear, change gear, change gear, check mirror, murder a prostitute, change gear, change gear, murder. That's a lot of effort in a day." (/clarkson)
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Yep, I know NOTHING abotu CB radio but I figured out what "10m" meant and I intuit that a 1600W transmitter is much more than legally allowed by the FTC.
No sig today...
Do you know why truckers keep a dog as a traveling companion?
Because a sheep would be too obvious.
Any screwball can buy a high powered 10 meter radio and have it adapted to operate on Citizen's band - then add a kicker that puts out 1600 or more watts.
It would truly be funny to see inspectors trying to enforce copyright nonsense at a truck inspection station!
That would be easy, just check for the trucks with a 19 inch rack, plus the air conditioning units needed to cool that beast. All in all, a 1.6 kW transmitter plus support equipment would weigh over a ton and fill a room.
Not to mention the antenna, when you have over a kilowatt of RF power you need to be sure you have an efficient antenna, otherwise the power would be dissipated all over the place instead of being radiated. Consider that a typical kitchen electric oven uses that range of power, you don't want it spread at random around you.
Hint: in RF equipment "1600 watts" isn't treated as cavalierly as in audio marketing. Those are truly 1.6 kW of radiated power, not the 50 watts or so that audio equipment labeled as "1600 watts" put out.
Isn't broadcast radio already paid for by advertising? I thought the process went like this: Advertisers pay radio station, who uses a portion of said revenue to pay for licenses to broadcast songs. Beyond that, I fail to see how it should matter how or where anyone within broadcast range tunes in. The local recording industry already has their money. If they want more, maybe they should renegotiate with the radio stations or pull their licenses and start their own radio stations, cutting out the middleman.
Beyond that, I believe they can very well fuck off. How the hell are they going to enforce this, stick a microphone in every truck cab to hear what the driver's listening to?
So, if I listen to my iPod at work, my employer needs to pay for a license for the music? That's absurd.
I really hope someone moves to reign in these copyright people ... in their minds, there is barely a scenario in which I could listen to music and not owe them more money.
Have friends over and put on music -- public performance, pay up. Drive with my windows down -- public performance, pay up.
I can think of no defensible reason why someone sitting in a truck needs to pay extra for the music any more than someone who is driving in a car under any other circumstances.
It's hard to care about these people's "rights" anymore when all they want to do is make sure we don't have any.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The taxi drivers should explicitly charge the customers for music service, so that people know that they are paying these stupid taxes. No one will care, unless it touches them in some obvious way...
Worst is that we don't even HAVE a government that we can overthrow, like e.g. Egypt.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So, if I listen to my iPod at work, my employer needs to pay for a license for the music? That's absurd.
Actually, SABAM just assumes that you have a radio , so you have to pay.
Even my hairdresser had to pay SABAM because his radio was playing.
I can think of at least two reasons why this is absured :
- a trucker listening to music is no different than someone who drives a regular car.
- watching and listening tax (kijk en luistergeld ) was abolished a long time ago. If there was a good reason to abolish it then , why reintroduce it now
Slipping shoelaces ?
I used to be a taxi driver here in .au, many years ago something similar happened with a big fuss from APRA/AMCOS going after hair dressers and the like for playing music in their stores. I phone APRA for clarification and was told that playing music in my taxi was not considered a public performance, (as the passenger could ask for it to be turned off/ stations changed etc). Strange how different countries can see the same thing in a different light?