SABAM Wants Truckers To Pay For Listening To Radio 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.'"
The supplied translation link... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
a more accurate translation would be "absolute nonsense", the translation is rather poor realy
Re:The supplied translation link... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a second. This article doesn't make sense even if it is translated correctly.
It's really easy for those copyright owners to protect themselves from these people who, from the copyright owners' perspective, apparently, are "stealing" from them or somehow hearing the songs unfairly. It's really easy to do that, and we already have a system set up for that. We don't need a new governmental or semi-governmental program to protect the copyright owners in this case, because we already have that system.
The system is called DON'T FUCKING BROADCAST YOUR FUCKING SONGS ON THE MOTHERFUCKING AIR IF YOU DON'T FUCKING WANT PEOPLE TO FUCKING LISTEN TO THEM YOU FUCKING FUCK. Fer fuck's sake, honestly.
Oh, really? You are being so injured by people listening to your broadcasts? Well here's what I suggest you do to fix that: NOTHING. DO NOTHING. DO NOT BROADCAST YOUR SHIT, AND PEOPLE WON'T HEAR YOUR SHIT. Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:3)
Artists do want people to listen to them. Actually I think SABAM does too really, otherwise there would be no-one to pay them. The problem is that because they are a business any amount of income is never enough. There will always be pressure to increase revenue so they have to keep thinking of new and increasingly stupid ways of making more people pay them.
It has nothing to do with broadcasting, artists wanting to get paid, the rights or wrongs of the copyright system. Some idiot manager at SABAM decided h
I'd be fine with this, as long as... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, 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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
"The industry is dying."
Not fast enough. It needs to be shot in the face.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that will do it. Just to be safe, we should use silver bullets and drive a stake through its chest.
Insert obligatory 'nuke from orbit' quote here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I really think that's vanishingly unlikely. What, the world supply of talented musicians has just dried up?
What I think is more likely is the beancounters and the svengalis running the record companies have become so obsessed with finding the Next Big Thing there's nobody left working at a record company who understands the idea of nurturing talent over the course of many years. Which means they've become remarkably talented at finding and pushing the next Rebecca Black (intentionally stupid example before anyone points it out) and remarkably bad at developing a strong pool of musicians who start out with a hell of a lot of promise but still very rough around the edges.
Don't believe me? See if you can dig out early studio recordings by Blondie. I mean really early - the stuff that never made it to a release. Debbie Harry sounds dire, and if she was on the X factor today Simon Cowell would probably tell her to go and become a truck driver.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's more a problem of them getting dependent upon payola and not being able to come up with an alternate business plan. The record industry was never about promoting quality music, it was always about control and telling people what they liked. They'd much rather spend a few hundred grand recording an album and a few million promoting some worthless group than to spend lesser sums of money hoping that one will make it big.
Under the old system they could just get an artist enough playtime that peopl
Re: (Score:3)
Not only the record industry is hunting for the short term "big thing", every industry is. Nobody is looking beyond the quarter, much less the year, 5 year or decade.
Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, comparing this to RIAA is missing the mark. This would be ASCAP in USA, iirc. Basically, the argument is that if a radio is being played in a bar then the bar benefits from said music (it replaced live entertainment after all). And so should share the profits with the artist(s) involved in making the music being played.
The basic mixup right now is that we have the actual creators (authors, artists) and the middle men distributors (publishers, record studios). Likely what your seeing is that the latter pushes for more stringent copyright in the same of the former, while shafting the former 6 ways to sunday.
Modern day copyright got its start for two reasons.
1. to maintain a lucrative monopoly that printers (the stationers guild) held in London thanks to a censure law passed under a previous monarch.
2. to provide authors a share in the profits from the sale of printed copies of their works.
the issue in Belgium is about point 2, largely thanks to the in-material form of creative works. If it had been a bar stool or glass, it would have been a one time sale and that would be it. But as recorded works can be "reproduced" a infinite number of times, the thinking soon becomes very complicated indeed. We are reaching the point where the thinking is the equivalent of a carpenter insisting on a share of the rent for life + 70 years because he was there to set up a dry wall one day.
Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (Score:4, Interesting)
Horrible rentseeking behavior needs no product (Score:3)
It won't work. These useless rentseekers even see no contradiction in charging you for songs you have written and recorded yourself.
It was stupid in the 1980s when they started charging radio stations and it's become progressively more stupid since but they see nothing wrong. They just see marks to milk without giving them anything they don't already have.
Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (Score:5, Insightful)
It used to be that these companies kissed the ass of Radio stations. Who knows, they still might.
Now they buy radio stations.
Here is what I propose... play garage band songs, and songs by people who dont want to nickle and dime the consumer to death
Here is what I propose, put an end to payments based on where music is played. I bought the record and I should be able to play it where I want. Yes, I know the law says otherwise. I think that law is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 lo
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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:Ah thanks, but this is slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think he means the guy flipped him over and inspected his genitals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ummhhhhh. I know this is /., and all, but are we collectively sure that females do not possess any genitals?
I just need some clarity on this matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much. The poster is trans if I recall. So its understandable to feel flattered when someone gets you right.
Re:I'd be fine with this, as long as... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
I have found my bike on the ground twice due to some stupid car trying to take the 3/4 of the spot available.
If you have paid full car price for a car size spot, park it transverse or diagonally in the spot, so that not even total morons would think of squeezing in into the remaining space. You could also park it in such a way, there is no doubt another car can't squeeze in, but you could leave enough space for another scooter to squeeze in and use the remaining space for free!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Advertising revenue
2. Free promotion of new music
Re:Radio (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
They want the ad revenue AND the monthly "rent"
Which is why I don't watch TV anymore. Oh, I watch TV series ... by buying* the episodes on DVD. No commercials, no monthly fees.
* Or in some cases, borrowing them from my local public library. I'll let them worry about the copyright licensing issues of that.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, whereever people are paying for copyrights to listen to music on the radio, they should get a monetary reward for the commercials they are listening to. For a room of 9 people, you should be paid the equivalent monetary value of 9 people listening to ads. This money would be subtracted from what the advertisers are paying the radio station. They, in turn, can subtract it from the royalties they are paying to the labels.
There might be an easier way of solving this, I just can't put my finger on it.
Fuck 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
Give em an inch (Score:3)
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?
Double dipping? (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
The radio station broadcasting it already paid the royalties for a license to broadcast it.
Double dipping hogwash.
Money (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 musi
Re:Money (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
SABAM? You got to be kidding... (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Denmark has been doing this for years (Score:5, Interesting)
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...)
listen... (Score:2)
Simple response (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Simple response (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Agencies demand payment when your phone rings (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
"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.
Any vibrating device?
Nah, too easy.
Bah. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Do Belgian radio stations pay? (Score:3)
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 (Score:3)
Double taxation (sort of) (Score:3)
Belgian BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Truckers have a hard enough life already (Score:3, Funny)
Pay Me Twice, Shame On You... (Score:3)
Isn't broadcast radio already paid for by advertising? I thought the process went like this: Advertisers pay radio station, who uses a portion of said revenue to pay for licenses to broadcast songs. Beyond that, I fail to see how it should matter how or where anyone within broadcast range tunes in. The local recording industry already has their money. If they want more, maybe they should renegotiate with the radio stations or pull their licenses and start their own radio stations, cutting out the middleman.
Beyond that, I believe they can very well fuck off. How the hell are they going to enforce this, stick a microphone in every truck cab to hear what the driver's listening to?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:That's just unfair (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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!
That would be easy, just check for the trucks with a 19 inch rack, plus the air conditioning units needed to cool that beast. All in all, a 1.6 kW transmitter plus support equipment would weigh over a ton and fill a room.
Not to mention the antenna, when you have over a kilowatt of RF power you need to be sure you have an efficient antenna, otherwise the power would be dissipated all over the place instead of being radiated. Consider that a typical kitchen electric oven uses that range of power, you don't wa
CB vs Ham (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, 10m is the 28MHz amateur radio band (10m being the wavelength). Ham gear is more powerful, and can drive larger linear amplifiers (the 'kicker' in CB parlance). A 1600W linear is going to need around 100W of drive, so the ham radio would work nicely. I think the legal limit of a CB is something like 10W, which would underdrive the linear.
The US obsession with RF power never ceases to amaze me, especially when I'm using 5W to talk to an operator running 1500W. The QRP mantra: power is no substitute for skill.
As you say, I can't believe I am biting at the troll ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "The US obsession with RF power never ceases to amaze me"
It's a bit like their obsession with cubic inches in engines. Non-US engine designers are always amazed at how little horsepower the USA engineers get per unit of engine capacity.
(I'm guessing it's something to do with the American consumer demanding high torque at low revs and the engineers not daring to try and educate those consumers about how gasoline engines work. The result is jaw-droppingly inefficient gas guzzlers for no reason other than
Re: (Score:3)
(I'm guessing it's something to do with the American consumer demanding high torque at low revs and the engineers not daring to try and educate those consumers about how gasoline engines work. The result is jaw-droppingly inefficient gas guzzlers for no reason other than ignorance).
If you compare the torque output of an American engine to a non-US engine of the same displacement, you'll frequently find that they're equal, or the US engine is higher in some cases.
This results in lower horsepower figures, sure. But engines don't create horsepower. They create torque. Horsepower figures are merely the result of a mathematical calculation based on torque and RPM.
Now lets compare your "jaw-droppingly inefficient" US sedan to a - presumably efficient - non-US sedan:
2011 Chevrolet Impala 3
Re:That's just unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, I know NOTHING abotu CB radio but I figured out what "10m" meant and I intuit that a 1600W transmitter is much more than legally allowed by the FTC.
Umm, nope (Score:3)
"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.
Re:That's just unfair (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
So, if I listen to my iPod at work, my employer needs to pay for a license for the music? That's absurd.
Actually, SABAM just assumes that you have a radio , so you have to pay.
Even my hairdresser had to pay SABAM because his radio was playing.
I can think of at least two reasons why this is absured :
- a trucker listening to music is no different than someone who drives a regular car.
- watching and listening tax (kijk en luistergeld ) was abolished a long time ago. If there was a good reason to abolish it th
Re:That's just unfair (Score:4, Funny)
Well %$#^* Belgium!
Pardon my French.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's just unfair (Score:5, Funny)
Well %$#^* Belgium! Pardon my French.
That should have been "Fuck B-----m!".
Mask the expletives according to their nastiness.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, "oh Belgium!" does sound like a pretty nasty expletive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yay! Nice to see somebody still understands obscure HHGTTG references on Slashdot!
"Belgium", according to the original radio series, is of course the most unspeakably rude word in the universe.
Something one might utter on hearing a story like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I used to be a taxi driver here in .au, many years ago something similar happened with a big fuss from APRA/AMCOS [apra-amcos.com.au] going after hair dressers and the like for playing music in their stores. I phone APRA for clarification and was told that playing music in my taxi was not considered a public performance, (as the passenger could ask for it to be turned off/ stations changed etc). Strange how different countries can see the same thing in a different light?
Logical conclusions... (Score:3)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Jesus was celibate. But I may be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Quote explains it all. (Score:4, Funny)
Do you know why truckers keep a dog as a traveling companion?
Because a sheep would be too obvious.