Slashdot Mirror


Belgian Rightsholders Group Wants To Charge Libraries For Reading Books To Kids

New submitter BSAtHome writes "People with a healthy interest in fundamental freedoms and basic human rights have probably heard about SABAM, the Belgian collecting society for music royalties, which has become one of the global poster children for how outrageously out-of-touch-with-reality certain rightsholders groups appear to be. This morning, word got out in Belgian media that SABAM is spending time and resources to contact local libraries across the nation, warning them that they will start charging fees because the libraries engage volunteers to read books to kids. Volunteers. Who – again – read books to kids."

18 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's next, having to pay money to sing in the shower?

    1. Re:Crazy! by sourcerror · · Score: 5, Informative

      Didn't you get the memo? Even birdsongs are copyrighted.

    2. Re:Crazy! by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not if anyone CAN hear you sing.

      It's if anyone CAN POSSIBLY hear you sing.

      For example, if there is room in your bathroom for somebody else to stand, you would need to pay because you could possibly have a roommate standing there listening. And it's too much trouble to track whether or not somebody is there listening, it's just much easier copyright math to charge you assuming you are putting on a public performance.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Crazy! by thomst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it's crazy all right.

      These Belgian swine aren't legally permitted to charge children to BORROW these same books from the library and read them THEMSELVES, but they somehow have decided that they have the right to charge THE LIBRARY, if an adult reads them ALOUD to the same children?

      Apparently it takes a Belgian lintellectual property awyer to dumb down a village ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    4. Re:Crazy! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slight correction: The *tune* is actually past copyright. They can use the tune if they want. The words were written some time later, to fit the pre-existing tune, and remain copyrighted. So they could sing something else to the tune of happy birthday.
      "Happy song-day to you,
      We wrote this for you.
      We'd sing you the real one,
      But it's copyright too."

    5. Re:Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately, now no one can sing that without violating your copyright. Oh, I see what you're trying to do. Get everyone to start singing your "Words" in place of the original, then, once everyone is used to singing it that way, you swoop in with your lawyers and begin collecting royalties. Sweet!

            Step 1: Provide alternative lyrics for copyrighted Birthday song
            Step 2: Tell people on Slashdot they should sing those lyrics instead
            Step 3: Watch as the ever-so-influential Slashdotters spread the tradition far-and-wide in no time at all
            Step 4: Lawyer Up
            Step 5: Profit!

  2. Outrageous by Vlaix · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the kids should be charged with laziness. I mean, really, can't they read the books by themselves ? A generation of slackers, I call it.

  3. Evil and stupid, good work guys... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Psst. I heard this rumor that volunteers nurturing an enthusiasm for books in youngsters is what we call "free advertising" and "preserving the future of your market".

    I'd bet you a considerable sum of money that whatever you'll manage to wring out of volunteer reading groups at public libraries won't amount to 2/5ths fuck-all compared to the amount you'll lose because the larval Belgians are going to be growing up with fewer books and more of whatever other entertainment is available.

    There are times when being evil pays good money. This. Isn't. One. Of. Them. Dumbass.

    1. Re:Evil and stupid, good work guys... by Imrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it will improve next quarter's profits, and that's all that matters.

    2. Re:Evil and stupid, good work guys... by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is *NOT* about the interests of the publishers. This is ALL about the interests of the lawyers who seek to benefit by suiing everyone they possibly can. That they are harming their "clients" business in the long term does not bother them in the slightest.

      The **AA and all of them are a bunch of lawyers with their own interests at heart. Sure, their clients 'allow' it to happen, but most of the time, they act quite autonomously and independently of their clients as can be shown by the numerous times these groups have sued over materials they don't hold the rights to.

    3. Re:Evil and stupid, good work guys... by laejoh · · Score: 5, Funny

      the larval Belgians

      me shudders in a lovecraftian kinda way

  4. Say What? by Just+Another+Perl+Ha · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I'm sorry... but these greedy fucking cunts need to be taken out back and horse-whipped!!!

  5. Are they doing this on purpose? by CAPSLOCK2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't figure out if these people are stupid, incompetent or both. Is there any way in which they can make themselves seem any less sympathetic?

    1. Re:Are they doing this on purpose? by Wildclaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a simpler answer. They are psychopaths the whole bunch of them and simply don't understand such concepts.

  6. Even better: it's a "misunderstanding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    SABAM (the group in question) said, in a response, that it was a misunderstanding (translated, Dutch original). They charge 15 euro per public reading, and they cannot distinguish between adults and children. They always have to charge (their words, not mine).

    For those of you wondering where the misunderstanding is: they invented a nice strawman for that, by saying that the library wasn't yet slapped with a yearly fee of about 250 euro. Which is true, that hadn't happened yet. But, from the sound of it, SABAM has every intention to do so.

    Thankfully, this hasn't gone unnoticed. SABAM is losing favour with politicians. Hopefully this storm will go somewhere. Note that SABAM isn't the only rightsholder club in Belgium (there apparently is some competition! yay free market!), so dissolving them ought to be an option.

  7. They are horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a belgian I can only confirm that they are the most horrible kind of "rightsholder group" you can imagine. Some of their "royalties" include. An extra tax on every dataholder (empty CD's, hard drive's, memory cards, ipods, etc...), local bands have to pay a fee when they perform even when they only perform their own songs (because they are influenced by ...), they collect fee's from doctors waiting rooms, pubs, private parties, buses, even on the work-floor when there is music playing, ...

  8. Re:Summary is incorrect by chichilalescu · · Score: 5, Informative

    the summary is correct. SABAM clearly states that they want 15 euros per public reading (if the work is "protected"). and the GP knows this, still he acts as if this is perfectly normal. And, in the message by SABAM, they make it pretty obvious that they intend to ask for these +/- 15 euros whenever they can.
    just check their webpage, in french or dutch, if you don't believe me (this incident is not mentioned on the english version).

    --
    new sig
  9. Re:Public outrage. by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Informative

    It did. The story is about a week old. After it broke SABAM claimed that the library in question does pay about 250 EUR, but it isn't for reading books but for music played in the library. SABAM said that it does collect money for public readings of books but it's only 15 EUR and the book has to be in copyright and be written by one of their member. (Source, in dutch.)

    All of this is BS of course these people try to collect on EVERYTHING and as much as possible. They're regularly collecting money for artists that aren't affiliated with them and tend to go after "soft" targets that don't have resources to fight back. They're scum.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.