Slashdot Mirror


Belgian Media Group Demanding Copyright Levy for Internet Access

An anonymous reader writes with this tidbit from PC World about Sabam's latest demand for copyright levies: "Sabam, the Belgian association of authors, composers and publishers, has sued the country's three biggest ISPs, saying that they should be paying copyright levies for offering access to copyright protected materials online. Sabam wants the court to rule that Internet access providers Belgacom, Telenet and Voo should pay 3.4 percent of their turnover in copyright fees, because they profit from offering high speed Internet connections that give users easy access to copyright protected materials, the collecting organization said in a news release Tuesday." Sabam has previously demanded money from truckers for listening to the radio, and wanted to charge libraries royalties for reading to children.

162 comments

  1. Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From what I remember, in Canada making copies CDs is legal because of the copyright levy on blank CDs. If the media companies get there way with this copyright levy for internet access, will that make all online copyright infringement legal?

    1. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, shut up. Give us more money.

      -- SABAM

    2. Re:Two-edged sword? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorta... well no, It's still highly illegal and you can get sued for making an illegal copy.
      For example: some Canadians got sued for coping "Hurt Locker" (The erotic comedy about two gay shoe store employees and their love of leather uppers.)
      The tax was a socialist attempt to remedy the issue but in reality it's just a tax for the sake of tax.
      IMHO: I don't even think it's the money Sadam and the other organizations are after, it's more about the distribution control, since it gives them credence to exist at all.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    3. Re:Two-edged sword? by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Their constitution is different, so the answer is NO. But here, you could argue that you have already paid for the copyrighted material, and could make a precedent....

    4. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have content online too. It's only fair to charge them copyright or get a recipcal agreement.

    5. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, the levy is there not so you can pirate to your hearts content. The levy's purpose is to license backups of content you've purchased yourself.

    6. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Belgium, where Sabam is active, there is also a copyright levy on blank CDs. But who's still burning to CD in days of streaming and huge hard disks?

    7. Re:Two-edged sword? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      Why would you making backups have anything to do with them? Furthermore, what of people who don't even do that? Ah, forget it! Money!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:Two-edged sword? by Tester · · Score: 2

      Sorta... well no, It's still highly illegal and you can get sued for making an illegal copy.

      For example: some Canadians got sued for coping "Hurt Locker" (The erotic comedy about two gay shoe store employees and their love of leather uppers.)

      This is entirely untrue, in Canada, making copies of AUDIO recoding for personal use IS legal.. This only applies to Audio content, not to movies, etc. This is also why the levy is only on CDs, not on DVDs for example.

    9. Re:Two-edged sword? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, thanks to Bill C-32 being passed, it's not legal anymore if the media has any kind of copy protection on it whatsoever.

    10. Re:Two-edged sword? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      For example: some Canadians got sued for coping "Hurt Locker" (The erotic comedy about two gay shoe store employees and their love of leather uppers.)

      Well no one has really been sued yet, people have gotten a notice but that's it. The ISP(Teksavvy) who got the main notice has been fighting tooth and nail against disclosure. And so far it looks like with a bunch of other things going on, they're going to fail in this case.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, the levy is there not so you can pirate to your hearts content. The levy's purpose is to license backups of content you've purchased yourself.

      Why should I have to pay to make a backup? If I obtain a license of anything else and misplace my copy then the company that sold me the license will replace that copy for me. If I have a backup I save them the trouble.
      Nope, the law might be written as if I'm still not allowed to copy to my hearts content but the motivation when the levy was put in place was another.

    12. Re:Two-edged sword? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, P2P sharing is still illegal: http://www.musicbymailcanada.com/privcopy.html
      If you borrow your friend's CD and make a copy that's fine, but if you rip that CD (or MP3 from iTunes) and share that copy online, it's illegal.
      That's what they are talking about in the article above. Canada has sane laws in regards to copyright, but it's not free-for-all anarchy either.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    13. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Why make money on your IP only once when you can charge consumers on their purchases and their Internet connections, and thereby make the same money twice?

      In fact, while we're at it, let's implement a global head tax on the basis that if someone is a living, breathing human being, they could be infringing on copyrights. That way we can make the same money three times! The shareholders will love it!

    14. Re:Two-edged sword? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      I think "for personal use" and "CD" is a pretty clear definition that doesn't include p2p. Apples, oranges, both fruit, right?

    15. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, the levy is there not so you can pirate to your hearts content. The levy's purpose is to license backups of content you've purchased yourself.

      Why should I have to pay to make a backup?

      Because the "backup" is a copy, and the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies.

      This isn't that hard.

    16. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fair use allows me to make my own back ups. This isn't that hard.

    17. Re:Two-edged sword? by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorta... well no, It's still highly illegal and you can get sued for making an illegal copy.

      For example: some Canadians got sued for coping "Hurt Locker" (The erotic comedy about two gay shoe store employees and their love of leather uppers.)

      This is entirely untrue, in Canada, making copies of AUDIO recoding for personal use IS legal.. This only applies to Audio content, not to movies, etc. This is also why the levy is only on CDs, not on DVDs for example.

      ...but but but.... I like to play video files through the speaker, for the sound it makes.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    18. Re:Two-edged sword? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Nope. The fact that the loss is partially mitigated by the CD levy doesn't automatically make it legal.

      If there is explicit legislation making an exception to copyright for CDs then it's legal but that has nothing to do with the levy.

    19. Re:Two-edged sword? by EEPROMS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or the ISP's can copy what Google did in German, block all copyright material then watch the perpetrators of the legal action have a nervous break down when they realise they have just blown their own foot of with a 22mm canon. Media needs exposure to survive, even illegal downloaders assist in sales (most downloaders are also their biggest $$ customers). So when the media reps lose a major exposure channel trust me they start to hurt especially when they realise their advertising budget is now 5x higher to get the same income.

    20. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wont change the legal status, but i bet it will shift the moral situation quite a bit.

    21. Re:Two-edged sword? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

      I think "for personal use" and "CD" is a pretty clear definition that doesn't include p2p. Apples, oranges, both fruit, right?

      It has been ruled that using P2P is equivalent of me going to your house to make a personal copy using your equipment. Done 'over the intertubes' doesn't change the fact that it is a personal copy for personal use using personal equipment. eg: It is in no way commercial.

      IMHO this is very sane and fair copyright ruling. Don't ask me for source, that was decades(~1.4 decades) ago in the Napster era. This has been common knowledge for all Canadian since.

    22. Re:Two-edged sword? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

      I should add that, while downloading copyrighted materiel is not illegal, making it available could still get you sued. The original person that make the rip could be sue by the copyright holder. But in practice this never happen because it is extremely difficult to find him, and prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Also IANAL, but you already know that.

    23. Re:Two-edged sword? by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Ah, but a backup copy is a copy that explicitly falls outside of that exclusive right in many countries. The exclusive right comes with restrictions, this isn't hard to understand.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    24. Re:Two-edged sword? by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

      The solution is very simple, turn off the internet in all of Belgian and wait for repeal. This is a tax on all people and companies and people even though less than 1% are actually doing any sort of illegal downloading. This is unfair to all. Lynch the bastards.

    25. Re:Two-edged sword? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...sane laws in regards to copyright...

      Ha ha, very amusing, but you and I both know there's no such thing

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    26. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in Canada you ARE allowed to make a copy of a purchased DVD for archival purposes. If you do it in order to sell it, that's different. And for that they've got a case. And other countries are much better at it.

      As to the CD levy, a friend of mine, a local singer/songwriter not signed to a label performs and sells his own home-made CDs of his own music. He tried to get a rebate on the CD levy (such as it was at the time) and was told, "No. It goes into a fund that is distributed to 'real' music distributors." He checked and Sony got most of it in one way or the other. They mentioned radio play.

      What's a radio?

    27. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Belgium, the levy is on all digital media: USB flash drives, hard drives, CDs, DVDs, and most likely all forms of magnetic data storage including tape and floppy disks.

    28. Re:Two-edged sword? by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      But who's still burning to CD in days of streaming and huge hard disks?

      Me. My car's got a CD player, but no Bluetooth/Line-in.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    29. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO: I don't even think it's the money Sadam and the other organizations are after, it's more about the distribution control, since it gives them credence to exist at all.

      You got that completely wrong: money is the only thing Sabam is after. Only a fraction of the money they collect, goes to the authors/composers/copyright-owners they claim to represent.
      They even charge for content from authors they don't represent. And how would they be representing every author in the world anyway, but they are still trying with this tax.

    30. Re:Two-edged sword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haig, near-fresh right out the jr rates high showcased his / her 'Orange Army' colors in the very first four week period in the Cycle Clothing q Fresh 12 months whenever this individual procured third-place in the U23 Route Country's Titles within Ballarat. Alongside a full accentuate regarding NRS riders this individual more recently rounded-out any stellar few days in the Woodside Vacation de Perth, gained through teammate Java Cooper, by using third-place general. With all Bicycle Jersey the leader's hat completely about his / her backside in the Fight to the National boundaries Haig is actually in the hot-seat since on the list of favourites to acquire complete bill.

  2. Should I get a discount every time I buy legally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they are going to charge across the board and assume we are all pirates, perhaps we should get a discount when we do legally purchase something to offset this cost? I'm sure the Belgian Media group has done the math and with so few legal purchases they'd be more than happy to reimburse me every time I do it the right way.

  3. As Iron Man said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you can't have it. End of story.

  4. Oh yes by RenHoek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Belgian ISP I would demand 90% of all profit Sabam makes them, since they enable them to sell digital goods..

    Greed, plain and pure.. all copyright groups should be shot.

    1. Re:Oh yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the properly licensed copyrighted material I view over the internet? I'm already paying for the content, and these bastards are already getting their piece of the action. Now they want another 3.4% from the ISP?

    2. Re:Oh yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as it usually happens in these situations, the additional costs will be transferred onto the customer. So not only you pay more for music because of leeches like Sabam, but now you'll also pay more for the internet access because of the same leeches.
      In Poland where I come from, same sort of blood-suckers (ZAiKS) tried to make people pay up for broadcasting music released under free licences and in public domain. They are an "association of artists" but they also collect money on behalf of artists they do not represent, because they have a virtual monopoly and can lobby the government however they want.
      They should all burn in eternal fires!

  5. Well... by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    I'd pay a 3.4% tax if granted immunity from copyright infringment suits.

    1. Re:Well... by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhm... paying a protection racket never ends well. Should I quote a few opinions about a 10th century case?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Well... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why quote outdated 10th century case that's probably hard to apply directly when you have so many current cases? In every case, the fees keep expanding with no reduction whatsoever in demands for stronger copyright protection.

    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pay a 3.4% tax if granted immunity from copyright infringment suits.

      Hey, did we say 3.4% last year? Oh, yeah, no, turns out them yachts is expens... I mean, turns out the preservations and innovations of our cultures is way more important than THAT. So this year we'll be taking 6.8% from yous. You woudn't wants our precious, irreplaceable culture to dies off, right?

      Not like it matters much. Whadya wanna bet we can makes those downloads of yours go all illegal all of a sudden? Budget ahead for next year, is alls I'm sayin'.

    4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know what you mean, but maybe many others don't, so maybe instead of the 10th century story of Sweyn Forkbeard and Æthelred the Unready,
      you'd better quote the more recent and accessible 1911 funny Rudyard Kipling poem.

      P.S.: better hurry up and read the poem before it gets retro-actively put under copyright again!

    5. Re:Well... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      you'd better quote the more recent and accessible 1911 funny Rudyard Kipling poem [wikisource.org].

      Michael Longcor made a song out of this one early this century - quite good, if you Kipple...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Well... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I'd pay a 3.4% tax if granted immunity from indictment.

      FTFY

  6. It won't be good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They'll be demanding more soon enough. There's never enough blood for vampires.

  7. Wasn't Dr Evil.... Belgian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't Dr Evil.... Belgian?

    1. Re:Wasn't Dr Evil.... Belgian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How waffle!

  8. When does it end? by maseo126 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Muppets.

  9. so.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    by that logic the council who built our roads are also responsible for enabling people to go and rob banks or any crime that involves travelling!. Get real.

  10. Re:Should I get a discount every time I buy legall by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they are going to charge across the board and assume we are all pirates, perhaps we should get a discount when we do legally purchase something to offset this cost? I'm sure the Belgian Media group has done the math and with so few legal purchases they'd be more than happy to reimburse me every time I do it the right way.

    Yes, the discount should be 100%. If they're going to assume we're pirates and build their kickback on the basis that we're getting their product for free, we should... get their product for free.

    --
    "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  11. Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have these extortionists shot in the streets.

  12. Hello by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Welcome fellow Belgians. We at Sabam, being sociopaths, wish to tax your internet usage, your radio, and yes, even your libraries. You should be pleased that a group of malicious psychopaths like us have latched on to this particular game, because otherwise we'd probably be stalking playgrounds and public washrooms for victims that we could molest, beat and possibly even cannibalize to fulfill our obscene lusts.

    So fork over lots of cash to us, or we'll be forced to start fulfilling our other fantasies, and you will never feel safe in a public space again.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Hello by lgw · · Score: 2

      We at Sabam, being sociopaths, wish to tax your internet usage, your radio, and yes, even your libraries. You should be pleased that a group of malicious psychopaths like us have latched on to this particular game, because otherwise we'd probably be stalking playgrounds and public washrooms for victims that we could molest, beat and possibly even cannibalize to fulfill our obscene lusts.

      Oh? I just assumed they did both, possibly the same time.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We at Sabam, being sociopaths, wish to tax your internet usage, your radio, and yes, even your libraries. You should be pleased that a group of malicious psychopaths like us have latched on to this particular game, because otherwise we'd probably be stalking playgrounds and public washrooms for victims that we could molest, beat and possibly even cannibalize to fulfill our obscene lusts.

      Oh? I just assumed they did both, possibly the same time.

      You assumed right ... Don't tell anyone.

  13. Obligatory Python... by Shoten · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well now, the result of last week's competition when we asked you to find a derogatory term for the Belgians. Well, the response was enormous and we took quite a long time sorting out the winners. There were some very clever entries.

    Mrs Hatred of Leicester Said 'let's not call them anything, let's just ignore them'... ...and a Mr St John of Huntingdon said he couldn't think of anything more derogatory than Belgians.

    But in the end we settled on three choices:
    Number three ... the Sprouts (placard 'The Sprouts'), sent in by Mrs Vicious of Hastings... very nice.
    Number two..... the Phlegms (placard) ... from Mrs Childmolester of Worthing.
    But the winner was undoubtedly from Mrs No-Supper-For-You from Norwood in Lancashire... Miserable Fat Belgian Bastards!

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Obligatory Python... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...which is similar to the working definition of "Belgium" employed by Douglas Adams...

  14. Re:Should I get a discount every time I buy legall by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    No I we should get a royalty on every successful purchase someone makes from their services or the publishers they represent. Since that is obviously one copy we did not pirate ;p

  15. A New Business Model .. again? by fallen1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I'm sure they would LOVE for this to be their new business model as it allows them to profit without doing a fucking thing, I am equally sure the majority of Belgians would prefer a different business model for them - called "Out Of Business - Permanently".

    Or, perhaps, the Belgians would agree to the "tax" on their internet connections in exchange for the ability to consume any and all content they can reach using said internet connection. Including downloading any material copyrighted by those said organization covers without ever needing to worry about getting sued for infringement. Basically, since Belgians are paying for copyright through a "tax", they are now allowed unfettered consumption.

    And fuck Sabam if they want to have their cake and eat it to. Then all of the Belgians should reintroduce the "Out Of Business - Permanently" model to them. It is time for "the people" to take back control from the corporations. Maybe the Belgians can get the ball rolling?

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

  16. Block all access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the ISP's should do is block all access to content that can be purchased. Cut the beggers legs off so to speak.

    1. Re:Block all access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      High quality video and music files in open formats that will play on multiple platforms cannot be "legally purchased", so this is moot. Requiring that someone buy a product from company A (i.e., a blu-ray player, or DRM-supporting playback device), so that they can use a product by company B (the actual content), is called collusion and is illegal in many jurisdictions.

      The laws don't apply to big corporations though.

    2. Re:Block all access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Requiring that someone buy a product from company A (i.e., a blu-ray player, or DRM-supporting playback device), so that they can use a product by company B (the actual content), is called collusion and is illegal in many jurisdictions.

      This is really a dumb line of thinking. Did you complain that every cassette tape you bought wasn't inside of a walkman? Did you know that VHS tapes had copy protection schemes? Just like when I bought a VHS tape I couldn't easily copy, when I buy a Blu-Ray I am not buying the rights to that content forever and in all forms. I am buying a piece of plastic with a copy of the content I want on it. I know I will need to have a way to access the content. In the case of a Blu-Ray this would be a device that plays Blu-Rays. There is nothing sinister about needing a playback device to access content.

  17. sabam being trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a few years back there was a troll program to defend the people's rights and they did a concert with fake artists in front of sabam hq. they were actually charged for the concert even though there was no such artist as "suzi wan" and "kimberly clark" or also "ken wood". they are actually made up brand names of toilet paper and blender equipment! it was quite amusing. there is a youtube video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZAsa9QmQO8

    1. Re:sabam being trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suzi Wan - apparently this is a European thing, since I've never seen this brand in the USA. They seem to make east-Asian-style food
      Kimberly Clark - makers of Kleenex-brand tissues
      Kenwood - makers of annoyingly loud car audio systems that make you want to shank the guy driving the pile of Bondo in the lane next to you

    2. Re:sabam being trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kenwood:

      you're thinking of this Kenwood Corp
      The OP was thinking of Kenwood Ltd

      Hence the reference to blender equipment...

  18. Efficiency for a price? by Unknown1337 · · Score: 1

    The premise of this is absurd. You can't stop people from viewing the material so blame the the providers of the connection... right... That's like blaming your ears for hearing nails on a chalkboard instead of remedying the sound in the first place. So basically if search engines sucked and material was hard to find there would be no issue? Libraries sort their books so that material (both copyrighted and not) is easy to find, I suppose they should be forced to pay too? High speed Internet offers high speed to everything online, not just the illegal content.

    1. Re:Efficiency for a price? by cjpa · · Score: 1

      The reasoning of SABAM in this matter follows their tax on radio-broadcasters. Radio stations are obligated to pay SABAM for broadcasting copyrighted songs. So to rationalize their greed, they just followed that logic for internet providers. Since internet providers are now broadcasting a lot of copyrighted material, they should pay for it, just as well as the radio stations are.
      It's just a bit sad that at the same time, there's a very steep price for internet streaming radio websites(to the point that you need to have big pockets to set up a legal streaming radio station in most of northern europe - even if you only broadcast non-copyrighted songs or songs by artists who aren't registered with SABAM). So not only are those website-operators paying, now also the ISP's should pay.
      It's all getting totally ridiculous and there have been a lot of calls for a better alternative in Belgium. The current SABAM has more in common with the Italian mob than with a legitimate company. And on that note: Does is seem right the one who looks out for the rights of copyright holders, is a company? Shouldn't it be a non-profit?

    2. Re:Efficiency for a price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reasoning of SABAM in this matter follows their tax on radio-broadcasters. Radio stations are obligated to pay SABAM for broadcasting copyrighted songs. So to rationalize their greed, they just followed that logic for internet providers. Since internet providers are now broadcasting a lot of copyrighted material, they should pay for it, just as well as the radio stations are.

      What are you smoking? ISPs and Radio Stations aren't even in the same ballpark as business models. The radio station broadcasts music and information that they want you to hear and for that right, they pay the media organizations. An ISP does not broadcast to you. You purchase the connection and utilize it to access legal or illegal activities online.

  19. Re:Should I get a discount every time I buy legall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How does that work in practice? Oh, you want a 10% discount? Well our price just went up 11%.

  20. More like "slippery slope" by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think you will run out of money before you run out of people to pay off. First it's a Belgian company demanding a tax. Next it will be a French company demanding a tax on Belgian ISPs, because hey, Belgians read French books too. And some Dutch trolls will want their cut for what the other half of Belgium reads. Then some Americans will want a piece of the action and all hell will break loose.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:More like "slippery slope" by StuartHankins · · Score: 2

      Insightful. The only way to stop the other bullies is to stand up to the bully in front of you now.

    2. Re:More like "slippery slope" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
                No matter how trifling the cost;
      For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
                And the nation that plays it is lost!"

      The bard.

    3. Re:More like "slippery slope" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well, it's good and proper this is being handled by courts and regulatory agencies, rather than that anachronism of elected legislators in a parliament.

      Takes the politics out of it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:More like "slippery slope" by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Simple solution. Set some rate, say a 5% surcharge, which covers all copyright infringement. The copyright holders are then free to negotiate/litigate among themselves on how to divide up that 3%.

      If we can't get them to stop bothering us, maybe the best thing to do is to get them fighting each other so they're too busy to bother the rest of us.

    5. Re:More like "slippery slope" by Lithdren · · Score: 4, Funny

      Set some rate, say a 5%...

      ...negotiate/litigate among themselves on how to divide up that 3%

      You work in Hollywood accounting, dont you? Somehow I dont object to this.

    6. Re:More like "slippery slope" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a bully of bullies? Next thing you know we'll be in a bully arms race!

    7. Re:More like "slippery slope" by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Mod up. Knuckling under "just for this one bully" doesn't end well.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:More like "slippery slope" by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      So a bully of bullies? Next thing you know we'll be in a bully arms race!

      Led from a bully pulpit.

  21. Tax the government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > offering high speed Internet connections that give users easy access to copyright protected materials
    Perhaps they should also tax the government 3.4% for providing roads, giving users easy access to copyright protected materials in stores... wait, did I just say "tax the government"?

  22. Re:Should I get a discount every time I buy legall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA doesn't mention pirating. They're complaining that people now use iTunes, YouTube and Spotify, where the money goes directly to the artists or record labels, and not through the little media group that they set up.

  23. It's no good, we have to kill them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do we actually have to kill these maggots to stop all this non-sense? They want to eat us alive.

    1. Re:It's no good, we have to kill them. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      Do we actually have to kill these maggots to stop all this non-sense? They want to eat us alive.

      yes but thats illeagle and nukes from orbit won't do it they are the only thing left that will survive it

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re: It's no good, we have to kill them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naaaah.

      Nuke the place from orbit. It's the only way to be sure ... ;-) /J

  24. Let Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give them what they want and then tell your entire customer base that they have paid a fee for access to that copyrighted material and stop throttling bit torrent. Let them reap what they sow. 3.4% fee for unfettered access to music, movies, books, and more? Sure!

    Greedy fucks.

  25. Copyrighted materials are usually legal by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the copyrighted materials that you download from Amazon or iTunes store or elsewhere, all those copyrighted materials that you download through streaming services like Pandora, or things like BBC iPlayer, are perfectly legal and paid for. Shouldn't they charge the post office when I order DVDs or CDs with copyright materials through mail?

    1. Re:Copyrighted materials are usually legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't they charge the post office when I order DVDs or CDs with copyright materials through mail?

      No. By their logic, the post office should pay them because it is possible to send copyrighted materials through mail.

    2. Re:Copyrighted materials are usually legal by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      All the copyrighted materials that you download from Amazon or iTunes store or elsewhere, all those copyrighted materials that you download through streaming services like Pandora, or things like BBC iPlayer, are perfectly legal and paid for. Shouldn't they charge the post office when I order DVDs or CDs with copyright materials through mail?

      Well don't stop there. Charge the guys who make the delivery vehicles as well, because those trucks will be carrying the post with the DVDs and CDs. And box companies as well, because those DVDs and CDs will be placed in boxes for shipping.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  26. NGOs always operate like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    When an NGO (non-governmental organisation that is actually a disguised State operation, funded and given legal powers by the state) is created, it always follows the same pattern. At first the NGO follows the original mandate of its creation. Being, in reality, a state body, the NGO very quickly reaches its first set of goals. By this time, the heads of the NGO are very powerful people with massive salaries, and their ambitions are only just beginning. Now the NGO needs to massive expand its areas of operation to maximise the growth of power and profit accruing to its managers (and the politicians directly paid off by the NGO in quasi-legal and/or illicit deals).

    The more rules an NGO can implement, the more powerful and richer the NGO becomes. The 'media rights' groups in mostly non-Anglo-Saxon first world nations are some of the most powerful and corrupt NGOs on the planet. They directly enrich the pockets of leading politicians in those nations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. And, the more the politicians benefit, the greater the powers granted to these 'rights' bodies.

    The goal of any 'rights' body is to tap every citizen of that nation. The power that comes with such legally forced forms of 'taxation' is unthinkable, and overwhelms any activism that arises from concerned citizens who oppose such forms of taxation. All voters can do is complain, after all, whereas the NGO will promise to enrich every major politician that grants it extra powers.

    It gets worse. The massively corrupt NGO will spend a small part of its fortune on FUD, propaganda and PR campaigns. Whatever agenda it was originally created to push will be promoted in schools and in the mass media. Opponents will be depicted as cranks, criminals, and other forms of 'social criminals'.

    Democracy becomes utterly worthless when technology allows systems to arise that give corrupt politicians powerful tools to manipulate the voters, while increasing their own financial and power base. In the USA, for instance, the sheeple EXPECT any politician that rises to the top to magically earn hundreds of millions of dollars in their 'private' 'business' 'arrangements'.

    The ruthlessly filthy evil monsters that rule Belgium today still teach schoolchildren about the 'glories' of Belgium rule in Africa. The Belgium Holocaust in the Congo rivals the communist Holocausts in the USSR and China as the greatest Holocaust of the 20th Century. Belgium has a ruling class completely unrepentant of its Crimes against Humanity. Sabam is just an extension of this mindset.

    1. Re:NGOs always operate like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The ruthlessly filthy evil monsters that rule Belgium today still teach schoolchildren about the 'glories' of Belgium rule in Africa. The Belgium Holocaust in the Congo rivals the communist Holocausts in the USSR and China as the greatest Holocaust of the 20th Century.

      [citation needed]

      I've been raised in Belgium and I was taught of these horrible massive killings made first by the King's people and then the Belgian authorities.

  27. Re:Should I get a discount every time I buy legall by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    Well, I know of a Sint Maarten outfit that offers that 100% discount.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  28. Sure there's lots of copyrighted content online... by mark-t · · Score: 2

    ... but a whole fucking shitload of it is being freely distributed.... LEGALLY.

    So unless they are going to take those additional fees and distribute them internationally to absolutely every human being alive who has ever put something copyrighted online, *EVER*... they really should stay away from the issue.

    This post is copyrighted by me, for instance. And people can access this post by going on the Internet and reading comments on Slashdot under this article. Will *I* receive even the tiniest sliver of the funds they collect? No? Then they shouldn't be trying to touch that Pandora's box with a pole of any length.

  29. Me too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Belgian copyright provides automatic protection for any creative work. Since there are strong indications that the only reason why people get internet is to read my 'Anonymous Coward' posts on slashdot, I'm entitled to at least a twenty percent cut in this racket...

  30. No moral high ground by Kalvos · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's no moral high ground for SABAM. I know Slashdot's readers don't much like ASCAP, but they're my licensing agency and part of my small income as a composer comes from those royalties. Problem is, SABAM has yet to pay (via ASCAP) a cent of the royalties owed me for performances in Belgium for the past eight years. (Same goes for SPA in Portugal, which has never forwarded any royalties due.) Until they actually turn over the royalties they collect in composers' names, they have no excuse to collect them in the first place.

    Before you engage in the screw-you comments, please know that I provide all my sheet music for free download and only expect the performance royalties in return. The performers and venues pay those royalties, but Belgium and Portugal just pocket the money.

    1. Re: No moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you mentioned SPA, since those guys have been asking for a levy on storage media to account for private copying of legally purchased content. Good to know how keen they are on properly paying performers...

    2. Re:No moral high ground by Bigby · · Score: 1

      But is the sheet you write your music on copyrighted?

    3. Re:No moral high ground by steelfood · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think anyone except the trolls are going to reply with "screw you"-type comments. I think most people here respect the fact that you're trying to make a living doing what you like to do, and would root for your continued success.

      Now, if your continued success was contingent on you trampling over the mostly-dead body of civil rights, then things might turn hostile. But unless you're working for one of these groups, and in fact, you're an executive in one of them, I don't see how that could possibly be.

      As they say, you're welcome to make a living doing what you want to do, but you don't have the right to do so. And that applies to engineers, scientists, academia, and artists alike.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:No moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no moral high ground for SABAM. I know Slashdot's readers don't much like ASCAP, but they're my licensing agency and part of my small income as a composer comes from those royalties.

      Yep, most people "don't like" a shakedown company that claims to be "for the artists" but then pays out based on radio airplay.

    5. Re:No moral high ground by Kalvos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure how much you know about ASCAP. Its stupidities (such as the Girl Scout fiasco) give them a bad name. They've been my licensing agency since 1988. They pass through 90% of the amount collected to me, and I have absolutely no paperwork except an annual tax statement. That 10% they keep is really worth it.

      Because of the genre of music I write, almost 100% of my royalties come from live peformances, not airplay. In the U.S., airplay royalties are by random checks of logs. That radio issue is not their doing. ASCAP and BMI are still operating under a 70-year-old court order allowing them to represent composers and authors and their publishers collectively. Every change has to go back to the court for approval. In other countries, every airplay generates royalties (such as these $.90 and $1.50 amounts I get from Sweden and Finland every three months). Although my music has been heard thousands of times on the air (and on cable -- the Discovery Channel's "Deadly Women" series includes a clip of my music), I've never been caught in a log check. Unlucky me.

    6. Re:No moral high ground by Kalvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm always of two minds about this issue. I oppose long copyright terms, draconian prosecutions, DRM and most of the lot of the law since the DMCA.. I also oppose work-for-hire exceptions as permitted under U.S. copyright law (mostly with respect to the transformation of the work into other media, its excerpting and repurposing without compensation).

      As a senior composer (yikes!), I made a societal deal five decades ago that my work would be granted a reasonable time to recoup the effort that went into its creation.

      The definition of 'reasonable' can be surprising to those whose work is immediate (pop, software, etc.). In my genres (what I call 'nonpop') that time can be very long indeed. Many pieces composed in the 1970s (I'd guess before most Slashdotters were born) are just getting their first performances now as the younger performers discover them. This is a long time -- and I have a lot of trouble believing that such work should drop into the commons even before its first performance. So I appreciate the extension of copyright that recognizes both the longer life of artists now and the longer time to market on certain kinds of art and music.

    7. Re:No moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that your royalties are chewed to nothing by their letter opening fee, their waste disposal fee (getting rid of the letter), their desk fee (fee for the desk on which they work) and, lest we forget, their fee fees (the fee for having a fee - applied multiple times). Net of fees, you owe them money for having performed in their jurisdiction.

    8. Re:No moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they didn't pay you because they were busy embezzling the money:

          SABAM Charged With Copyright Fraud, Embezzlement, Money Laundering

    9. Re:No moral high ground by Kalvos · · Score: 2

      I've been a publisher since 1969. Our scores were always produced and distributed at low cost in expectation of performance royalties. We work for the long term, not the short one.

      Royalties have never, historically or presently, been supplementary.

    10. Re:No moral high ground by stenvar · · Score: 2

      I have no problem with performance royalties. What we're talking about here is agencies that demand money on the sale of unrelated products (Internet services, media, devices) and then funnel that money to you. What moral right do you have to try force me to pay you money (which is what you're arguing here), even though I think your product is crap and would never buy it, consume it, or even bother to pirate it?

    11. Re:No moral high ground by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      If it took you around 40 years to finally start making money off of it, what did you do to earn money in the meantime?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    12. Re:No moral high ground by stenvar · · Score: 1

      I oppose long copyright terms, draconian prosecutions, DRM and most of the lot of the law since the DMCA.

      Yeah, but you favor taking away money from other people as a tax on unrelated products and then enriching yourself with it, because that's what we're talking about here. And in addition to the numerous taxes that are already levied in Belgium, they now want to impose charges on Internet access.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Belgium

    13. Re:No moral high ground by Kalvos · · Score: 1

      I believe the term is "civilization". For example, I have no children but have ungrudgingly paid decades of property tax, the largest portion of which funded schools. There are hundreds of such situations, and they are part of the contract which makes up a culture.

    14. Re:No moral high ground by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I believe the term is "civilization".

      Nonsense. These people are trying to make everyone pay because some people are 'pirates'. If that's your idea of civilization, then you and other like-minded people should go start your own country away from the rest of us and then you can have all the draconian copyright laws that you wish.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    15. Re:No moral high ground by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      And this sort of collective punishment won't help pay for anything I consider truly important, so comparing it to collecting taxes for public education is, I believe, extremely ridiculous. If they can do this sort of nonsense, then I demand a levy on every single product that is for sale because I feel I'm not earning enough money. Give me free money! It's civilization!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    16. Re:No moral high ground by stenvar · · Score: 1

      I believe the term is "civilization".

      So you put the title "composer" on your shingle and all of a sudden you fancy yourself a contributor to civilization and the world owes you money? I don't think so. Contributing to civilization requires skill and artistry, and if you actually had those, you'd be able to make a living at it without stealing other people's money.

      For example, I have no children but have ungrudgingly paid decades of property tax, the largest portion of which funded schools. There are hundreds of such situations, and they are part of the contract which makes up a culture.

      Universal education is part of civilization, and I have no problem paying my share. I don't have a problem with paying for art and music that I consider good, both by purchasing it and through donations. I do have a problem with being forced to pay for your bad music; your music isn't part of "civilization" (yes, I listened to samples on YouTube, and yes, I am a classically trained musician).

      It's not just about the money. The current system disconnects financial rewards from artistic quality, and that has led to a huge amount of crap being produced by people who fancy themselves "serious" musicians and artists.

    17. Re:No moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't actually have the option to decline, consequently: s/contract/blackmail/

      most of what governemnt does is morally unjustifiable. Governement has 2 legitimite uses:
      1) prevent the use of force
      2) facilitate cooperation

      Nowadays governments are the main forcing party, and they don't faciliate they coerce. Neither is OK

    18. Re:No moral high ground by stenvar · · Score: 1

      BTW, even if we wanted to have public funding for people like you as part of "civilization", we should pay for it through taxes, as an explicit budget item, and the costs should be born equally by everybody. Let's drop the pretense that these copyright fees on specific devices and services compensate you for illegal copies of your works.

      And, actually, right now, we are paying for you several times over, first through the commission and performance of your works through often publicly funded organizations, and then you come back and want to extort even more money from Internet users and techies for hypothetical piracy of your works.

    19. Re:No moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the fact that he does not want SAMBA to get the levy?

      In particular because " Until they actually turn over the royalties they collect in composers' names, they have no excuse to collect them in the first place."

    20. Re:No moral high ground by devent · · Score: 1

      Did you do actually anything in those 40 years to promote the music? Or was it just sitting around on some Youtube channel; or in some old audio tapes; or on some old music CDs in a bin in the basement?

      How are you deserve any money from work you did 40 years ego, and for which you did not do anything at all since now?
      Now I would understand it if you would actively promote the 40 years old music, like write to the younger performers, or offer them your music. But no: you just sit on your ass and wait for the music to be discovered. And after it is discovered, you now want money.

      It's like the same story with Sita Sings the Blues
      The music used was basically forgotten for 90 years, but because Nina have done something useful now all the cockroaches came and demanded money from her work.

      The film uses a number of 1920s Annette Hanshaw recordings. Although the filmmaker initially made sure these recordings were not covered by US copyright law,[8] a number of other copyright issues surfaced,[...]Nina Paley was unable to pay the approximately $220,000 that the copyright holders originally demanded.

      Why are authors and musicians the only one that are so full of them self that they demand being paid for sitting on their asses for 40, 90, or 120 years, doing nothing?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  31. sounds like a plan by zaax · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a good deal to me. All the written material; music; films I can watch for £3 / $6 / €3.5 per month. Though how authors; musicians etc will be up to Sabam. Though I think Sabam owes me a few pounds as I wrote (and a number of people used) software in the '90's.

  32. not a new idea but usually not well thought out. by prelelat · · Score: 1

    There are different countries that do have levies for copy-written works. Canada has/had levies on different writable material like blank music cds cassettes and that sort of thing, they also wanted it to apply to ipods but thankfully itunes proved that content could generally be purchased legally so they didn't. I think that's a good case to look at here. If all you could use your internet connection for was piracy or the majority of people were using it for piracy then maybe I would be OK with this. But the majority of people online at least in North America I believe aren't inherently pirating music, videos and games.

    So how do you justify taxing people who don't infringe to those that do? That's like asking everyone to pay a fine because most people speed. Also how do you distribute the money from the levies? Does it go to the game industry, music, video, book, or art? What percentage? It was a problem with Canada's levies, money wasn't ever considered for software developers which I assume have a significant portion of their wares pirated.

    I also don't like to be charged for a crime I didn't commit so there's that too.

  33. Honestly by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    How much media content can there be that deals with waffles?


    The Belgians love waffles!!

  34. Fee for "Access"? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    they should be paying copyright levies for offering access to copyright protected materials online

    Access doesn't imply use. Should record stores pay an additional percentage of their profits simply for providing "access" to people that don't end up buying anything? I haven't, and don't intend to, ever buy or unlawfully download digital content over the Internet (I just don't have that need) so why should some of the money I pay my ISP go to an industry I don't use, simply because they cling to an outdated business model?

    Okay, for you youngsters, a "record store" is an actual place you can go to, walk around inside, actually *touch* and buy records - crazy, I know, but true. Okay, for you really young kids, a "record" is ... :-)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Fee for "Access"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does fondling the storage medium noticeably affect the quality or enjoyment of its content? Well, maybe...

  35. Which is cheaper? by tekrat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Every Belgium citizen paying a 3.4% tax year after year, or Belgium citizens pooling their money to hire a hitman to kill every last top-dog in this organization?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Which is cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about money. It's about making the world a better place. Who do we hire? I heard 47 was looking for a job.

    2. Re:Which is cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose that my one-person organisation (SABLAM) collect and redistribute this 3.4%, representating the Belgian people re. this specific issue.
      As it is not feasible work to actually do this collecting in person, the 3.4% should be collected by means of taxes on every sale of CDs, DVDs, etc. containing music; and then passed on to me.
      Of course, for the service of representing the people of Belgium, my organisation will require a small fee from the collected funds, say 2.4%.
      This would leave 1% for the hiring of hitmen^W consultants.
      Remember, if you don't pay this tax, some poor hitman's children will starve!
      You don't hate children, do you?

  36. Dear SABAM, by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    FUCK YOU. Assholes.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Dear SABAM, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU. Assholes.

      +infinity

    2. Re:Dear SABAM, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen!

  37. Here's how you fix it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inform the group that you have a huge amount of money waiting for them at the local sports-stadium, enough for every employee to have a share.

    As they walk in, hand them a cigarette, a blind-fold and ask what they want on their tombstone.

    Complete firing squad activities, the remainder of the country can breathe a sigh of relief as this leech on society has been removed permanently....

  38. Don't they provide access to copyrighted materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, don't the record companies provide easy access to these materials themselves? Isn't the point of their business that people pay them for access? Hey, I know - if they never sold^H^H^H^H licensed copyrighted materials, people probably wouldn't have any access to them at all! That would be the best!

  39. Re:Sure there's lots of copyrighted content online by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    well, sure, using spotify is legal. they know that.

    but they argue that because that cuts into their local copyright mafia branch profits, the isp's should pay.

    I guess the labels didn't want to send them money for music played on spotify so they had to find someone to pay 'em(they get money from radio plays so it's flawless logic that SOMEONE must pay them for streaming music, too, and not just the labels ;D ).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  40. Wrong punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fining these criminals is the wrong approach, since it only reinforces Sabam's desire for the practice to continue. Instead, they should treat the citizens of Belgium like true criminals, and have a mandatory jail sentence of 3 months or so, to be served at a convenient time between the ages of 18 and 25. Then Sabam can be satisfied that they're getting justice for all of the copyright infringement that Belgian citizens commit.

  41. Pirate Cinema makes some dire prediction on this by morcego · · Score: 1

    Just read http://www.amazon.com/Pirate-Cinema-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765329093

    There isn't really much more to say about it...

    Executive summary: allowing this is a really bad idea because it sets a legal precedent.

    --
    morcego
  42. And everyone in Belgium should pay a speeding fine by kawabago · · Score: 1

    Owning a car in Belgium means Belgians have the ability to speed on the roads, therefore the only sensible course is for all Belgians to pay a fine for the speeding they otherwise would have gotten away with. Children! They can grow up into criminals, so new parents should have to pay for possible future crimes by their children. Pets! Laundry! Toilet paper! Where will it end?

  43. Re:Should I get a discount every time I buy legall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a steal!

  44. Re:As Iron Man said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think that's the best example. The Gov't ended up stealing one of Tony's suits anyway.

  45. And I want a pony. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Sabam has previously demanded money from truckers for listening to the radio, and wanted to charge libraries royalties for reading to children.

    And I want a pony, and a brand new Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport, and a solid rhodium toilet.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:And I want a pony. by stenvar · · Score: 1

      The difference is: you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it, they do.

  46. What they really mean: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We want money because music industry and movie industry content moves over your interwebs just like trucks moving CDs and DVDs on roads also pay us.

    Oh, and we're not paying a cent in royalties to anyone else who also has their content moved over the same routes.

  47. Solution? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    FTA:

    >>the Belgian association of authors, composers and publishers,....

    Ok, so we block all references to anything named by those authors, composers and publishers, so no trace of them exist on the internet (in Belgium anyway) so no one can pirate their stuff.

    No?

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  48. Re:Barack Obama by roc97007 · · Score: 0

    Is "both" an allowed response?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  49. Slippery slope by np2392 · · Score: 1

    This type of thinking is so idiotic. So should high speed internet access be illegal since some users can use it to pirate easier? Why should the ISPs share in the blame for what their users are doing? All they are doing is giving them access. What's next? It's illegal to talk in groups of more than three people because you COULD be planning a terrorist attack?

  50. Re:Barack Obama by Rakarra · · Score: 0

    This is a shitty attempt at a google bomb.
    Hell, First-posters are more meaningful.

  51. I got to thinking... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    And the idea behind government is to protect us from these kinds of things and make the playing field fair. In a legal sense. This is the very definition of a lawful and good society vs a tyranny or oppressive one.

  52. that's nothing new by stenvar · · Score: 1

    In several European countries, people already have to pay a significant fee on printers, computers, and cell phones, money that then is funneled to select publishers and other copyright trolls.

  53. Re:Sure there's lots of copyrighted content online by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    ... but a whole fucking shitload of it is being freely distributed.... LEGALLY.

    So unless they are going to take those additional fees and distribute them internationally to absolutely every human being alive who has ever put something copyrighted online, *EVER*... they really should stay away from the issue.

    This post is copyrighted by me, for instance. And people can access this post by going on the Internet and reading comments on Slashdot under this article. Will *I* receive even the tiniest sliver of the funds they collect? No? Then they shouldn't be trying to touch that Pandora's box with a pole of any length.

    I bet you agreed anything you post to Slashdot is no longer yours. It's pretty common so I would think they now own the copyright.

  54. about time by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    Those freeloader children getting stories read to them from the library without paying royalties? The monsters! Every time my parents read me a story we put a nickle in a jar, how could ignore the poor Belgian company?

  55. Re:Sure there's lots of copyrighted content online by mark-t · · Score: 1

    You may want to reread the terms of use on Slashdot again. It explicitly says that submitters retain ownership of anything that they submit.

  56. Money for nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would not mind paying small extra copyright fee as long as it grants me right to download latest tv shows, movies, etc.. But somehow i think there up to money for nothing again. Too bad content industry cant modernize there business models to better serve modern consumers. I think it joke that i have to wait 6 months or more before tv shows become available here in scandinavia.

    Yep did try netflix, even thats lagging behind badly.

  57. Funny acronyms by blivit42 · · Score: 1

    It seems like the music licensing companies in many countries are equally evil. This latest move by the Belgians is just business as usual, disgusting as it may be.

    But, why do they then choose acronyms that are so easy to make fun of?

    ASCAP: Ass-Cap (put a cap in yo ass)
    SABAM: Sa-*BAM* (like punching someone in a Batman comic book)

    I'm sure there are fun mis-pronunciations for the equivalent associations in other countries as well. Anyone from other countries want to contribute more?

  58. No 'Net For You by twakar · · Score: 1

    I think a simple solution to this asshattery should be a policy, or a law, among all Belgian ISP's and Wireless providers to refuse to take on SABAM, their members, and their families as customers. If they cannot get internet service, besides begin really fucking funny, it should send a clear message to the rest of the world.
    Also, given this level of mental retardation, what are the laws in Belgium surrounding having someone committed to mental illness facility. Surely they qualify?

    Thoughts?

    --
    Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity!
  59. We should be suing Sabam by mendax · · Score: 2

    Yes, we should be demanding a large share of their profits for:

    -- Allowing them to live on OUR planet;
    -- Breathe OUR air;
    -- Drinking OUR water and then contaminating it by pissing it out;
    -- Tolerating their greed, foolishness, short-sightedness, and stupidity; and
    -- Poorly mimicking the behavior of politicians.

    These people truly are a waste of skin.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  60. FOAD by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    FOAD. Seriously. Get a productive job.

  61. That's a nice internet you got've there by J.J.+Dane · · Score: 1

    shame if anything were to happen to it..

  62. Competitive guy that I am... by Smerta · · Score: 1

    As a competitive American, I'm very upset that these Belgians seem to have out-assholed our biggest copyright clowns. Damn, they beat us. For now.

    Although I'm not too worried... our bench is very deep, I'm sure we've got some even more insane idiots waiting in the wings.

    This whole desparate, pathetic money grab is just so degrading. Have they no shame?

  63. Piracy Legal and Rampant in Belgium by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

    As an American living in Belgium, I can provide some context. Here in Belgium, while it is illegal to distribute copyrighted material without consent of the author, it is ALREADY legal for people to ~download pirated content. IANAL, but my impression is that the laws just happened to be worded that way since before the internet boom. It is a similar to the situation in may states where some drugs are legal to possess and use, but not to sell. Because of this, and also because movies often take over a year to get subtitled and released legally here, piracy is rampant. EVERYONE here feels a bit guilty about pirating, but does it anyway.

    I have no clue if this organization has any moral authority to seek royalties on behalf of artists, but I can assure you that the legal balance between the rights of artists and the rights of consumers is way out of wack here in Belgium. Part of this may have to do with the fact that Belgium recently set a record for years without a federal government.

  64. Treat Digital Media as a Public Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually this is a good idea because it might pave the way towards acknowledging digital copyrightable content as a Public Good. Public Goods are both non-rival (my consumption doesn't prevent your consumption) and non-exclusive (you can't stop me from consuming). For digital media the first is certainly true and the second is practically true, or at least as true with roads. Standard market practices break down when it comes to Public Goods which is why they are left to governments to provide or fund as only government can ensure that people pay for said goods via a taxation mechanism. Imagine if all the bullshit with DRM and SOPA and lawsuits simply went away to be replaced by a universal media tax. Creators would be paid a portion of the total collected pot based on the popularity of their content and all persons in the covered jurisdiction would get unlimited access to content when and where they wanted.

  65. Re:Miserable fat Belgian bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You watch your mouth! We don't speak like that in polite company!

  66. Sabam has been known to lose track by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    of reality, probably because it's lead by some remnants of the babyboom who fail to accept the fact that even in belgium it's 1913 by now
    i read about the trucker thing and something like listening to music with open window, is that ethical since a passerby might hear a few notes without paying for it
    in a country of five governments ruling 11 million people and wondering where the money has to come from to sustain it this is not really abnormal.
    the norm is after all mediocrity, inefficiency, face down to the ground and do whatever you can when no one sees it
    it's a cultural thing bred from 2000 years of occupation since the romans got here and after them about everyone in europe, those who survived learned to trick the system while smiling as if they liked taking one up the ass. No one tell me it's not a cultural thing because it is just that, the consequence of the past. Even if the flandres nationalist would have this proud past and shit. That's a REAL cultural thing of the region. Not all evolution is genetic. This just the fenotype of the belgium sapiens
    and Sabam ... myeah, no one cares about sabam really and sabam doesn't really care about keeping it real either. This place is doomed unless it gets with the program but i cant say that because that would be me being negative and you cant be negative. Positivity is more important than truth or facts
    nuff said ... i have made about five posts on five forums today and the state of the world is depressing me already

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?