Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SABAM Wants Truckers To Pay For Listening To Radio

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the tell-us-of-your-plight dept.

Music 337

guruevi writes "SABAM, the Belgian RIAA, wants truckers to start paying for the copyrights to listen to the radio in their cabin (Google translation of Dutch original). SABAM already has a system in place to extract fees from businesses for having radios in the work area for businesses with more than 9 employees, and they find that truckers' cabins are areas of work and thus infringe on their copyrights. The local politicians think this is going too far; they believe truckers need a radio for safety reasons and view a truck cabin as 'an intimate place.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The supplied translation link... (3, Funny)

JTinMSP (136923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627848)

The first quote is "Kink ready nonsense." Hmmm...perhaps I need to machine translate more stories.

Re:The supplied translation link... (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627964)

a more accurate translation would be "absolute nonsense", the translation is rather poor realy

Re:The supplied translation link... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628018)

> a more accurate translation would be "absolute nonsense", the translation is rather poor realy

This is a MAFIAA group we're talking about. "Kink ready nonsense" sounds like their kind of thing whether it's a mistranslation or not.

It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627860)

n/t

Quote explains it all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627866)

'an intimate place.'"

Finally some one addresses internet porn.

That's just unfair (2)

WonderingAround (2007742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627876)

So you can drive a car and do whatever you want but as soon as your hauling 12 hours a day and have to do all day there a niche to gouge money?

Re:That's just unfair (4, Interesting)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628052)

No, if you are driving as part of a business then you can't listen to music unless the business have brought the appropriate protection money, so this would apply to anyone traveling on company business. Trucks, Salesman, Field Support etc.

The group are taking the current rules and applying them to their logical conclusion, hopeful this will prompt government to wonder if the rules as they are currently implemented actually make sense.

Re:That's just unfair (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628306)

I wish they'd try that in the US. US law is no less screwed up than UK and European law, but I'd really like to see them try that here. The FCC can't even enforce the laws regarding mobile radios in the trucking industry. Any screwball can buy a high powered 10 meter radio and have it adapted to operate on Citizen's band - then add a kicker that puts out 1600 or more watts.

It would truly be funny to see inspectors trying to enforce copyright nonsense at a truck inspection station!

"When music is outlawed, only outlaws will have music!" Yeah - I like the NRA too.

Re:That's just unfair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628526)

You would probably make more sense if you made more sense. What the hell are you saying? I mean, I've used a CB radio before (not that I'm some kind of god) but it puts me in front of a majority of /. readers. What the hell does a 10 meter radio mean? And whats a kicker with 1600 watts? Wtf is the scale? What are you talking about. I can't believe I bite you troll.

Umm, nope (2)

cheros (223479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628320)

"hopeful this will prompt government to wonder if the rules as they are currently implemented actually make sense."

One party in the Belgian government sees nothing wrong with letting the government fall if they don't get to waste the money that others make. In other words, most of the time the Belgians don't even HAVE a government, so I doubt it.

I suspect that SABAM management may find it difficult to get into their offices one day as all access routes may get blocked by either lorries or just their load. I cannot see truckers take it that SABAM is trying to blackmail them - driving a lorry isn't that profitable to start with. I cannot see this solve itself any other way..

Re:That's just unfair (3, Funny)

quenda (644621) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628126)

Well %$#^* Belgium!
Pardon my French.

Re:That's just unfair (0)

Zandamesh (1689334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628192)

Well %$#^* Belgium!
Pardon my French.

So fuck America? Since, you know, RIAA/MPAA are from in there?

Your logic is impeccable!

Re:That's just unfair (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628334)

Actually - pardon your Flemish...

Re:That's just unfair (4, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628358)

Well %$#^* Belgium! Pardon my French.

That should have been "Fuck B-----m!".
Mask the expletives according to their nastiness.

Re:That's just unfair (1)

Phroon (820247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628382)

Turlingdrome! This is a swutting family site, quenda. Keep saying words like that and you'll get us into one joojooflop of a situation with the censors!

Re:That's just unfair (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628236)

Why aren't they targeting taxis? The whole thing is stupidity in motion. The end result will be that the companies pull the radios out of the trucks and the drivers supply their own, either portable or clipped into the dash.

Re:That's just unfair (2)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628354)

Taxis already have to pay SABAM

Logical conclusions... (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628372)

Why aren't they targeting taxis? The whole thing is stupidity in motion. The end result will be that the companies pull the radios out of the trucks and the drivers supply their own, either portable or clipped into the dash.

First, they came for the truckers. If successful, they'll be tempted to go for the tractors and cranes, and then the taxis, and then the company cars. So where is the logical ending? Private cars used for business trips? Or just any vehicle where the music is audible a few meters from the vehicle?

Re:Logical conclusions... (5, Insightful)

deniable (76198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628434)

Actually, a tax on overly large sound systems could be a bonus.

Re:That's just unfair (0)

warp_kez (711090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628276)

The number of f*** knuckles with their "doof doof" crap blaring for all too hear would more than cover the "licensing costs" and "royalty fees".

The drug^H^H^H^H cartels are not making their money through lawsuits, so they are going after legal and responsible users.

I'd be fine with this, as long as... (5, Interesting)

NeuralAbyss (12335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627880)

I'd be fine with this, as long as the beancounters are forced to personally visit every single trucker in person, and attempt to extract their fees.

I'd imagine they'd soon have a 'close encounter of the truckstop kind'... perfect sort of punishment for this level of arrogance. Next they'll be demanding fees for listening to the radio while driving to work. The publishing industry will stop at nothing to fraudulently demand fees for others' works.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (5, Interesting)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627906)

I find this interesting.
It used to be that these companies kissed the ass of Radio stations. Who knows, they still might.
They gave away the songs, tickets to concerts, everything to the radio stations to play the music during prime time to get their songs out there.
Now, they are wanting the consumer, the very person that will like or dislike their artists work to pay to even listen to it for the first time?
Complete 180 by the industry.
Here is what I propose... play garage band songs, and songs by people who dont want to nickle and dime the consumer to death
Fuck you big industry and suck my balls.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (0)

eyrieowl (881195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627996)

I think they still love the radio stations. They're just trying to open up new revenue streams. They're too foolish to realize that the blood their draining is ultimately their own, the just believe that they're hitting up the consumer....

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628006)

The industry is dying. They're going after any revenue stream they can dream up now.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628416)

s/revenue/extortion/, but yeah.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (2, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628152)

Well, ostensibly the radio was an advertisement for the album. The radio plays one or two songs from the album and people hear it and want to hear more from the album. The problem facing todays music industry is that they seem to be unable to find any artists that can actually put an albums worth of music together, let alone one that has any real staying power. So they are getting desperate and looking anywhere they can for revenue.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (4, Interesting)

deniable (76198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628246)

Two different groups actually. The radio is being chased by individual record companies trying to grab a bigger slice of finite air-time. This is a collection group with a hunting license from the whole industry. These are the people who charge restaurants for playing the radio that the first group are using to push their product.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628446)

Hell no man, what are you thinking? They will demand you pay up even if they AREN'T signed with that company!
Then they will sue you and blame you for destroying the industry like the pirate you are.
I'm not even kidding with that, they have done it before. Wish i could find the link again.
I agree with you though. There are plenty of great music creators out there who aren't with some crappy companies like this.
Some even do it for the sole purpose of making music, because they love it for that reason, not for money-grabbery.
It used to be that people badly wanted to play anywhere they could to get a label to notice them and sign them on. Now people have saw how evil these companies can be. Obviously some will still want to be signed for whatever reason, but you're better off with a Myspace page and a donation link probably.

It also reminds me of the story of a woman playing the radio in her café.
Dude from one of these halfwit companies comes in and tells her it is illegal to play without a licence.
So she takes it in to the backroom and turns the volume up. Don't think you will hear anyone in the café complaining about noise pollution and/or anti-social behaviour, which is the only other thing they could do.

One wonders what they would do if they saw a gang of people out on the street with a radio up loud.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (2, Interesting)

Velex (120469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627918)

Heh, I thought I'd relate an experience I had at a truckstop once. I used to be a trucker. I was walking back from the fuel desk after filling up my truck and earning a $250 shower, and this guy comes up to me. He was an older man, wizened. He approached me like a gentleman, sort of. He said something like, "I make a lot of money by the mile, do you want to see the inside of my Peterbilt?"

My answer was, "No."

I don't remember our exchange exactly, but he'd gendered me female and decided I was a lot lizard. I remember being flattered at being gendered female and also offended at his assumption that I was a lot lizard instead of a driver.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627952)

Wow, that's the worst pickup line I've EVER heard of.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627992)

but he'd gendered me female

WTF is the matter with you? Unless he was some sort of wizard, you were "gendered" in the womb. He merely thought you were female.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628104)

I think he means the guy flipped him over and inspected his genitals.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628344)

Or lack thereof, apparently...

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628100)

My truck stop experience is limited, so excuse the silly questions. But what are you talking about when you refer to a "$250 shower"? How does a person "earn" one? And are you, or are you not, actually female?

(I think I can imagine what a "lot lizard" is.)

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (5, Informative)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628168)

Truck stops often offer a free shower in their facility with a minimum fuel purchase. Given that fuel prices are high and trucks have rather large fuel tanks, spending $250 on a fill up is not at all uncommon. Thus if you flip things around, it becomes 'free diesel' with the purchase of a '$250 shower'. Just a way of making it sound cute, especially when the facilities aren't exactly up to par.

And a lot lizard, for those still unsure, is just a prostitute that works a truck stop.

Ah thanks, but this is slashdot (5, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628304)

Thanks for clearing that much up. But I, and I am sure lots of other slashdotters, am still unclear on one detail.

What is a female?

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627966)

The idea they are trying to make us believe is that artist need to be paid, but over 3/4 of the money is going to the labels, not the artist... and really why not keep stealing money form people.

I live in Belgium, and I am required to pay the tax for the radio (I do not own a radio, nor do I have a car) also, I am required to pay the tax for a TV, when once again I do not own a TV and never watch TV (I think it is filled with too much crap), but as I have a company laptop, I am able to watch TV through the Internet, so I must pay the same tax.

If we move a bit farther from this, recently the Belgium government changed a bunch of other laws, such as Motorcycle (I do own a motorcycle) must pay the park meter and use car spot to park now, I am fine with this, but then adapt the price and make special parking for bikes, but no, I have to pay the same price as a car, and I have found my bike on the ground twice due to some stupid car trying to take the 3/4 of the spot available.

It is basically the same everywhere, let's steal money from people, and let's not hold back at any cost because in the end, it is better to make the rich richer!

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628450)

I live in Belgium, and I am required to pay the tax for the radio (I do not own a radio, nor do I have a car) also, I am required to pay the tax for a TV, when once again I do not own a TV and never watch TV (I think it is filled with too much crap), but as I have a company laptop, I am able to watch TV through the Internet, so I must pay the same tax.

To be fair: this is not a Belgian issue, but a problem with the Walloon government. The TV/Radio tax ("Kijk- en luistergeld") is a state responsibility. Only Wallonia still collects it, in Flanders and Brussels this tax was canceled several years ago.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (0)

evilandi (2800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628476)

AC: I do not own a radio,

I doubt that very much. Have you actually read the feature-list of your mobile phone?

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (1)

19061969 (939279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628216)

Quoth: "Next they'll be demanding fees for listening to the radio while driving to work. The publishing industry will stop at nothing to fraudulently demand fees for others' works."

Hey! Have you been listening in to our strategy planning meetings? That's breaking our copyright, y'know!

Yours,

SABAM lawyers.

Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628384)

I have my stereo loud enough to be heard by many cars in an area around me on my way to work. Does that constitute a public performance?

Radio (4, Insightful)

paylett (553168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627884)

Perhaps they have forgotten the reasons why music is broadcast over the radio for free in the first place?
1. Advertising revenue
2. Free promotion of new music

Re:Radio (5, Interesting)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628122)

It used to be that music/tv shows were there as an enticement for a viewer to be exposed to the ads..NOW, the viewer/listener is considered 'stealing' the shows, if they don't listen to / watch the ads.

It's a subtle but disgusting difference.

Re:Radio (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628350)

So on your cable TV there are no commercials at all even though you pay by the month, right?

Pardon the sarcasm - but this is the business model they are after. They want the ad revenue AND the monthly "rent".

Fuck 'em (4, Interesting)

the real darkskye (723822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627890)

They have either paid for the music on CD, or the radio stations have already paid their dues.

What's next, people who whistle getting charged for public performances?

Re:Fuck 'em (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627904)

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the cabin of a truck does not provide space for "9 employees".

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628188)

It's not impossible. I once had 22 teenagers in a VW bus and we were rockin' along to the radio... Granted, they were all very good friends (and some better than just good friends after that... ;-)

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628210)

You misunderstand. They merely have systems in place to extract fees from places with at least nine employees, but that doesn't mean that places with at least nine employees are the only ones that are theoretically subject to those fees. Now, they're simply choosing to enforce it for truck drivers as well. It'd be like a teacher having a rule that anyone caught talking without first raising their hand will get sent to the principal's office, only enforcing it whenever nine or more of them talked at the same time, but then one day begin enforcing it whenever little Johnny specifically decides to talk, even if he's the only one talking. Which is to say that it's arbitrary, unnecessary, and just plain stupid.

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627916)

Will you keep it down?! Don't let them get any ideas!

Interestingly, the CAPTCHA on this one was "illicit".

Re:Fuck 'em (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628270)

Music is everybody's possession.

It's only publishers who think that people own it.

~John Lennon

SPECTACULAR quote! Kudos, sir.

Re:Fuck 'em (3, Interesting)

dejanc (1528235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628386)

What's next, people who whistle getting charged for public performances?

We have a similar thing going on in Serbia - local RIAA-likes going to public places and extracting money from establishments that own a radio. At a hair dresser's salon they charged the owner a fee for public/commercial use of music for hearing a ringtone of her cellphone. I kid you not...

Re:Fuck 'em (4, Interesting)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628492)

What's next, people who whistle getting charged for public performances?

They have tried. I have a neighbor who used to whistle popular tunes. Another neighbor, after trying complaining to the police, then called the American Society of Composers And Publishers, in an effort to silence the whistling. ASCAP lawyers then sent him a Cease and Desist letter, threatening to sue him for the maximum infringement penalty if he did not pay them a settlement immediately. AFAIK, the guy never paid any settlement, but neither did ASCAP further pursue the matter. (And the whistling ended.)

Well, I agree! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627922)

What if, by reading this comment, you failed to pick up a billion buck bill before it vanished. What if... that billion buck bill could have been used to bribe the evil cabbage patch kid that is coming to tickle your ass? It's too late now. You ran into the nearest car to try to ensure your own safety, but you were completely surprised when you discovered that your ass got caught under the front seat of the car! An ET doll appeared out of nowhere, fell into pieces, crawled under the front seat, and is now approaching your ass in order to inflict horrible tickle upon it...

You're in this scenario right now.

Give em an inch (2)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627924)

SABAM already has a system in place to extract fees from businesses for having radios in the work area for businesses with more than 9 employees

how nice for them

Who did they throw money at in order to get such a nonsensical perk?

Re:Give em an inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628486)

SABAM already has a system in place to extract fees from businesses for having radios in the work area for businesses with more than 9 employees

how nice for them

Who did they throw money at in order to get such a nonsensical perk?

This seems relatively common in Europe. It gets worse. At the same time they also collect from the radio stations, from anyone who plays music in public, from the artists themselves,... They also collect a tax on any medium which can carry music (HDs,empty DVDs/CDs,mp3 players, etc) to compensate for illegal downloads. Even schools and daycares now have to pay.

What about talk back radio? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627928)

And what if you don't listen to music but talk back radio instead?
How are they going to tell the difference?

In Germany this is law for years (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627932)

You have to pay a fee for every radio in a business car.

Re:In Germany this is law for years (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35627982)

This comes as no surprise from the people who brought us "shitting on glass tables while people stare up at your asshole".
Seriously the german people are fucking retarded and disgusting to boot.

Re:In Germany this is law for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628368)

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking moron...

Re:In Germany this is law for years (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628230)

Gee, I work in Germany, and take the train every day to work . . . so it is business. And I work on the train . . . BahnCard First 100 :-) So if was to turn on a radio, would I have to pay for that . . . ?

Re:In Germany this is law for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628280)

no, only in buisseness car. do not try to understand law:)

Re:In Germany this is law for years (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628288)

You have to pay a fee for every radio in a business car.

Okay, so Germany, Belgium, and apparently Denmark (from a different post) have these weird laws.

Next time you guys want to pick on us in the US for some stupid thing we're doing, please remember this story - none of us have an exclusive in the dumb laws market.

Double dipping? (2)

axxter (128054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627936)

Assuming Belgium radio royalties for broadcast music works on a similar basis to elsewhere (and I believe it does) then the radio station has already paid a royalty for broadcast. Claiming a second royalty seems extremely dubious.

BS (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627940)

The radio station broadcasting it already paid the royalties for a license to broadcast it.

Double dipping hogwash.

Money (2)

SimonInOz (579741) | more than 3 years ago | (#35627976)

We always come back to the same thing - money. Radio stations make money - like Google, like free-to-air television - with adverts. Therefore they want to get the maximum exposure to their transmissions possible. It is in their interests to achieve that by including a decent DJ, reasonable news, maybe some talkback - oh, and music. It is, surely, the radio station's responsibility to do that legally.

Let's use a car analogy ... ok, truck analogy.
I buy a truck from Ford. Off I go, driving about. Sometimes at night.
I don't expect the manufacturer of the headlights to come along and say "Hey, you are using my lights a lot, you have to pay me extra money".

So why the heck should it happen here?

And why pick on truckies (not a group, actually, I'd choose to pick on, but there you go)? Why not - well, anyone?

Re:Money (2)

CaseCrash (1120869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628072)

And why pick on truckies (not a group, actually, I'd choose to pick on, but there you go)? Why not - well, anyone?

Because truckers are working while they're listening and they already have legal precedent for charging fees for workers listening to the radio.

Re:Money (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628182)

Because truckers are working while they're listening and they already have legal precedent for charging fees for workers listening to the radio.

But the difference is, when its in a shop or mall or something, its a performance of sort, because your playing strangers music so whilst I *still* think its dubious its more to do with playing music in a publicly available place. A truck, even though its a workplace will have precisely one, at most two, people, in a private space , no different to listening to music in the car on the way to work, or driving to a meeting.

Personally however I find even the music-in-store claim dubious. As has been pointed out many times, its double dipping cos the radio station has already paid out.

Re:Money (5, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628084)

And why pick on truckies (not a group, actually, I'd choose to pick on, but there you go)? Why not - well, anyone?

Because that's step 5 of their plan.
Step 2 will be taxi's and public transport.
Step 3 includes ALL business cars during business hours.
Step 4 is to tax all vehicles used to commute to work.
Step 5 is just to tax every vehicle.
It takes some time for each of these steps to go from "completely unreasonable" to "just a bit les reasonable than the previous law".

Re:Money (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628394)

Taxis already pay SABAM. Hell, even kindergartens have to pay up! Because, you know, the lyrics to some of the songs they are singing are copyrighted!

Re:Money (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628364)

I don't expect the manufacturer of the headlights to come along and say "Hey, you are using my lights a lot, you have to pay me extra money".

No, it's more like the headlight manufacturer is going house to house knocking on doors and trying to extract money from the people who did anything whatsoever while you shined your light at them while driving past.

Fuck the middlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628012)

Let those lazy bastards get a real job, then we'll talk.

SABAM? You got to be kidding... (3, Funny)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628032)

I just couldn't get the image of some suit having to say "SABAM!" in order to turn into a super-copyright-dues-collector in red tights with a yellow lightning bolt.

Oooops, I guess now I have to go pay DC Comics their pound of flesh.... will it never stop?

I haven't heard a new song in 2 years (3, Informative)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628042)

Im a middle aged senior management IT guy and last year I realised I had not heard a new song on the radio in two (2) years even though I listen to 9 hours of radio a week. You see I listen to podacasts as my free time is split up all over the place so normal radio programming does not meet my needs as I would miss half the program when I get called away. But at the same time I have heard lots of adverts in the last year. If I was a musician I would be worrying because there is a medium to high income group of professionals now who thanks to the stupidity of the record labels "never ever can hear their music". So my money stays in my pocket and mu CD collection of years gone past gets taken out and played every now and again, pretty dumb in my view and a really stupid way to promote a product that needs to be heard before it can be sold.

Denmark has been doing this for years (4, Interesting)

Menkhaf (627996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628070)

KODA, the Danish equivalent of RIAA, had a case in Højesteret (Danish High Court) in 2003 that basically said that when you're at work, the broadcast licence rules for companies is in effect, even if you're a single trucker in a truck.
Only a few articles in Danish media covered it then. Here's the official statement from KODA at the time and a [archive.org] Google translation here [google.com]

(weird links in preview -- wonder how they'll look when I press submit...)

Re:Denmark has been doing this for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628414)

What's even more fucked up in Denmark is the retarded media license. Ok I understand that they want to rip you for owning a TV and watching their shitty channels, but why am I forced to pay a media license just for owning a smart phone or a laptop capable to connect to the internet?(even if you don't have internet, you have to pay) Denmark is by far the worst country regarding this and the way I see it, their practices are a violation of basic human rights and freedom of information...

listen... (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628088)

To the sound of a business model in death throes. One day we will hear the death rattle, the conciliatory tones of the record industry industry executives saying they were too aggressive, should of adapted sooner and that they are changing the way they do business so it's of benefit to the consumer.

Nice to see this silliness is global (1)

naota-kun (705771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628112)

I await the day that I'll be billed for waking up with a song stuck in my head. After all, if I can murmur more than a verse in the shower, I'm robbing the labels and mocking them with my nudity. God I suck.

Simple response (3, Informative)

Desert Raven (52125) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628120)

If I was representing the truckers, I'd say "Sure, no problem, we just won't transport any loads carrying your goods anymore."

See how quickly they decide a few dollars in licensing revenue is not worth losing all retail sales.

Re:Simple response (3, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628136)

One also has to wonder why the ISPs haven't done that yet.

Re:Simple response (5, Interesting)

deniable (76198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628274)

Then see how fast big content gets on board with net neutrality.

Re:Simple response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628252)

SABAM wouldn't care. They don't actually produce anything. All they do is extort royalties for artists they claim are registered with them.

BTW: the transport companies already caved. They agreed to pay, provided that they can subtract some of the fees from the totals that they are already paying for their offices.

Re:Simple response (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628268)

They don't sell any goods. They collect royalties and distribute them 'fairly' to the artists / rights holders. Other than threat letters, they probably don't ship anything.

9 People in a truckers cabin? (1)

sirlark (1676276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628162)

That's a loot of hookers!

Re:9 People in a truckers cabin? (2)

naota-kun (705771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628178)

Hookers, you say?! Now it definitely is a workplace. Let the fees flow!

Re:9 People in a truckers cabin? (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628374)

If you are listening to the radio with your hookers, you are doing it wrong.

Agencies demand payment when your phone rings (4, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628208)

ASSCAP, Asscrap, Monday (NNN) — After its recent successes suing girl scouts over singing copyrighted songs around campfires, the American Super-Society of Composers, Authors and Performers has filed a brief in a lawsuit against AT&T arguing that its members deserve payment every time a mobile phone rings [newstechnica.com] .

The owners of the musical compositions are already paid for each ringtone download, but this does not cover ASCAP public performance royalties.

"The musicians and songwriters are the true creators of objective value in society," said ASCAP spokesdroid Ayn Rand. "They deserve your support. How would civilisation survive without Crazy Frog or the Nokia Tune? Which changes one note from the 1902 'Gran Vals' by Francisco Tárrega, so is completely original and deserving of royalties.

"To this end, we are bringing suits against those individuals who, having purchased RIAA-licensed ringtones, do not then silence them when in public. Statutory damages of $80,000 should have a salutary effect on our coffers and, of course, our public image."

Further lawsuits will then be brought against those who silence their mobile phones. "4'33' by John Cage is a copyrighted work. Without the money going to his estate, he may never write another measured piece of silence again." This will be followed by suits against those whistling or humming music in public, then those thinking about music in any form without a licence.

In support of their position, ASCAP pointed to vast public outpourings of sympathy from millions of people who never wanted to hear a tinny thirty-second burst of cheesy synthetic R&B coming from a phone ever again in their lives.

Re:Agencies demand payment when your phone rings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628442)

"deserve payment every time a mobile phone rings"
As some of the population is trying to bypass this by using the vibrate function which with some tweaking can copy the rhythm of a son, we'll be suing them soon. This will apply to any vibrating device.

Bah. (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628226)

I'm sorry, if you don't want anyone to listen to your music, don't broadcast it.

This is like people who post shit on the web and get butthurt when people link to it. If you don't want people having whatever it is you're serving, don't put a computer on the web that doles it out in response to a HTTP GET request.

If you don't want people listening to your music, don't broadcast it as an unencrypted FM signal. You should not be able to broadcast something in the clear and then put conditions on who can tune in.

Re:Bah. (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628388)

I would say "if you don't want your content available for free on the internet, then don't make it available without authentication." I know that is what you said, but it is less clear.

It's not that they "don't want something." It's that they want more. They already get money from radio stations for "publicly performing" the music. Now they want to charge the audience for listening too. They are just expanding their collection efforts the same way governments seek to justify collecting more money by taxing the same things over and over and over again the way they do with gasoline and other things.

Will the RIAA and the like ever see "enough money"? The answer is obviously no, they won't. And if they are allowed to continue without limits, they will consume ALL money. So naturally, if they are to exist, they must be limited in some way at some point. The answer to all of this is drawing that line and not letting them push that line any further.

And now for something somewhat different. (1)

sharkbiter (266775) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628256)

As the product requires less and less physical storage (IE: CD, DVD and etc.), We will see the Music and Movie industries attempting to charge us by the byte and not for the media that carries it. I can see why they are going after anyone who shares their product over the Internet as it's a medium and not their Intellectual Property.

Want to listen to the radio? That will be $xx.xx per minute. Your radio will report how long you've been listening and where you've been listening and what you've been listening to. How will you know what station to listen to? By each station allowing you to listen to them for a few minutes and "tease" you into listening to them for a fee.

The Internet is bringing on big changes in the way that we amuse ourselves. If we can put all of our entertainment choices on a mobile removable media device after directly downloading it from the net, how will the entertainment companies be able to charge us multiple times for it?

This is the endgame of all endgames. The entertainment industry has seen the future as far back as the introduction of MP3. You no longer have to go into a brick and mortar building to purchase a physical medium that holds their product while they hold the "copyright" to the product itself.

I can't wait for the proliferation of microphones in public places to catch you whistling a popular tune and charge you a royalty fee for it. ;-)

Re:And now for something somewhat different. (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628370)

I can't wait for the proliferation of microphones in public places to catch you whistling a popular tune and charge you a royalty fee for it. ;-)

In that case, let's walk up to each, and say "Fuck you, guys!" loud and clear. It might not achieve much, but at least we'll feel better about doing it...

SABAM (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628286)

They were caught on TV a few weeks ago, a TV program asked for a price to play some music in some kind of event and they sent a list with the bands. SABAM sent them the pricing back. So far so good excepting for the fact that they were charging royalties for the bands "Kenwood" and "Kimberly Clark".

Re:SABAM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628390)

So far so good excepting for the fact that they were charging royalties for the bands "Kenwood" and "Kimberly Clark".

Interesting - my wife is a senior manager at Kimberly Clark global. I've forwarded this to her and it should end up with the legal team for researching... someone has to feed the lawyers!

Re:SABAM (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628422)

Don't be too hard on them, they would have given a refund if they had been explicitly told that the "artists" in question were not members of SABAM. You can't expect them to verify this when calculating the price, right? It was an honest mistake! Honest! Really! Scum's honor!

SABAM are ********** ! (3, Interesting)

pep939 (1957678) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628346)

They are the worst administration in our country... I have experienced people around me saying the worst things about the SABAM and its dumb rules on countless occasions. They are the bureaucratic death of the true love for music. Worst thing is, more often than rarely, they don't even pay the artists, or they ask fees for non-existing/unregistered artists!

This flemish [BE] TV crew exposed them some time ago... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZAsa9QmQO8 [youtube.com] /p

Do Belgian radio stations pay? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628352)

At least in the US, radio stations have to pay to play (perform) music to an audience. I suspect that is pretty much the same everywhere. That "performance for an audience" has already been paid for. How can they justify also charging the audience as well?

Nice (2)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628356)

Nice to see that it's not just the RIAA that's batshit crazy.

In Israel, all vehicle owners pay for radio. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628366)

In Israel, when one goes through the yearly test (to show the vehicle is still in working order, and fit for use on the road), the owner has to pay for the privilege of having a radio in the vehicle. The money goes to cover the expenses of the government owned radio & TV stations.

It does not, however, go to cover any kind of expenses of privately owned radio stations.

Double taxation (sort of) (2)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 3 years ago | (#35628378)

This is double taxation sort of. Most people pay fees for listening to music at home and then more fees need to be paid in order to listen to the same stuff somewhere else.

Already in the Netherlands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35628428)

I think this is already the case in the Netherlands, because if you listen to the music while you are working, you have to pay money to Stemra. Even if you have bought the cd.

See renumeration: http://www.bumastemra.nl/en-US/MuziekgebruikOpgeven/WanneerBetalen.htm [bumastemra.nl]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?