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.

39 of 162 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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!
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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?

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

  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. 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.

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

    Muppets.

  6. 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."
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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~

  10. 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

  11. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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 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."
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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?

  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. 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.