Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Your Rights Online

SABAM Wants Truckers To Pay For Listening To Radio 337

Posted by Soulskill
from the tell-us-of-your-plight dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SABAM Wants Truckers To Pay For Listening To Radio

Comments Filter:
  • by NeuralAbyss (12335) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @02:28AM (#35627880) Homepage

    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.

  • Fuck 'em (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the real darkskye (723822) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @02:30AM (#35627890) Homepage

    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?

  • by jhoegl (638955) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @02:34AM (#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.
  • by Velex (120469) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @02:37AM (#35627918) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27, 2011 @02:45AM (#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!

  • by Captain Hook (923766) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @03:07AM (#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.
  • by Menkhaf (627996) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @03:12AM (#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:Money (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @03:15AM (#35628084) Homepage

    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:Radio (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dutchmaan (442553) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @03:26AM (#35628122) Homepage

    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.

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @03:35AM (#35628152) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by deniable (76198) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @03:58AM (#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:Simple response (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deniable (76198) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @04:09AM (#35628274)
    Then see how fast big content gets on board with net neutrality.
  • by pep939 (1957678) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @04:43AM (#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

  • Re:Fuck 'em (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dejanc (1528235) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @04:54AM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @05:28AM (#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.)

  • by Krommenaas (726204) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @07:17AM (#35628794) Homepage
    Belgian here. The sad thing is, trying to avoid the SABAM fees by only playing rights-free music in your business leads to all kinds of administrative hassle where you are forced to prove the music you play is rights free. Most people who'd be open to this alternative decide not to bother, which is of course the intention of the hassle. It's just another case of politicians serving business interests over their voters' interests.
  • by gstoddart (321705) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @11:33AM (#35630032) Homepage

    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.

    So, if I listen to my iPod at work, my employer needs to pay for a license for the music? That's absurd.

    I really hope someone moves to reign in these copyright people ... in their minds, there is barely a scenario in which I could listen to music and not owe them more money.

    Have friends over and put on music -- public performance, pay up. Drive with my windows down -- public performance, pay up.

    I can think of no defensible reason why someone sitting in a truck needs to pay extra for the music any more than someone who is driving in a car under any other circumstances.

    It's hard to care about these people's "rights" anymore when all they want to do is make sure we don't have any.

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

Working...