Belgian Collection Society SABAM Caught Taking Cash For Made Up Bands It Didn't Represent

from the stay-classy dept

Thu, Feb 10th 2011 8:34am — Mike Masnick

We've seen all sorts of ridiculous actions from various music collection societies over the past few years -- from PRS trying to charge a woman who played the radio for her horses to ASCAP claiming that a legally licensed ringtone also should require another license for being a "public performance." Apparently a satirical TV show in Belgium decided to see how far they could push the Belgian collection society, SABAM. While SABAM chose not to charge them for a ringtone "performance," it did send them invoices when they said they were going to have totally made up bands performing made up songs. Neither the bands nor the songs were actually covered by SABAM since they didn't actually exist. Yet, the invoices still came:

Making a telephone call to SABAM from a public toilet, a Basta team member looked at the manufacturer of a hand dryer and explained that Kimberly Clark would be performing at an upcoming event. That would cost 134 euros minimum said SABAM.

Next the playlist. What if Kimberly Clark sang songs not covered by SABAM? Titles such as 'Hot Breeze', 'Show Me Your Hands', 'I Wanna Blow You Dry', 'I'm Not a Singer I Am a Machine' and the ever-timeless, 'We Fooled You', for example.

Five days later the answer came from SABAM. All of the songs were "100% protected" and so Basta must pay 127.07 euros.

Concerned that this might be a one-off mistake, the Basta team tried again, this time taking brand names of products from the supermarket including Suzi Wan, the name of a Chinese food wok kit, Mister Cocktail and the Party Mix, which is a hybrid of a drink and some party food, and Ken Wood, the food mixer.

They got bills from SABAM for these 'artists' totalling more than 540 euros.

The group who did all this, Basta, then wondered who was getting all of this money, so it took the food they used in that second experiment and brought them to SABAM offices to sign up to collect their money. No such luck. Though, once exposed, SABAM found it in their hearts to return the money.

There are some other amusing parts to the show, including a fun bit that mocks SABAM's inability to understand zero. Apparently, the fees for parties are based on venue size, and the smallest size range is for places that range from 1 - 100 square meters. So, Basta set up a party in 0.99 square meters, and told SABAM about it. Rather than recogizing the put on, SABAM insisted that the "1" really meant "0" and handed them an invoice for 82 euros.

Nice to see collection societies around the globe living down to their reputations.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: belgium, collections
Companies: sabam

65 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brian Schroth (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:48am

Well, this is much worse than that time they were caught taking cash for made up bands that it did represent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:53am

.99 meters
That's a pretty small venue - that's taking connecting with the fans a bit TOO seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rabbit80, 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:56am
  
  Re: .99 meters
  They had a number of balconies and did it vertically!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:01am

Someone should do it to ASCAP since I'm pretty sure they don't check anything too.

Most impressive is how collection agencies hate computers, because if they used them they actually would have to pay something to someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Robinson, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:07am

At least PRS/MCPS aren't as bad as that.
When I helped a band get a CD duplicated a few years ago and we applied to the PRS/MCPS for a licence (yes they had to apply to licence their own work before the CD duplication plant would produce their CDs) at least they did reply with a "we do not represent this music" type letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:08am

The episode in which they expose the callgames is much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:15am

This again raises the question: "Who are the pirates?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:22am

This is hilarious...
This is hilarious, but at the same time it isn't. Shouldn't the collection society be charged with fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:23am

Hot Breeze:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2uH0lBJrcg

Show Me Your Hands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrKJ77E-4cc

I Want To Blow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyaOy2GTt0Y

I Am Machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Aeq_r0AUs

I Fooled Your This Time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQK-OM9TfEQ

I can find reasonably close songs on this, which may explain some of the errors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 10th, 2011 @ 9:23am
  Please, you are clutching at straws here; Do you work for SABAM by any chance?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:06am
  
  Re:
  Close is not good enough. The songs you mention are not by Kimberly Clarke and most titles are different. Any check in a decent computer system would show them not to be registered with SABAM.
  
  It's a collection agency's duty to distribute earnings amongst the rightful artists, who were they going to distribute this to if it didn't match any of their records???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    No wait, what, you are saying that artists never cover songs by other artists?
    
    Oh my god, someone shoot the cover bands.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Johnny, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So how do they know which artist was covered and who to pay out to?
      
      I am assuming that info would be required to be filled in on the form if it were a cover. It clearly wasn't in this case.
      
      You can twist it every way you want into what-if scenarios, but it's clear that SABAM was only interested in invoices and didn't give a sh*t about knowing who had to be paid out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Seriously? Come on
      
      The long and the short of it here is that this collection society exists to manage the rights to music, and they completely failed at that. A few similarities between song names does not change the fact that they are apparently unable or unwilling to accurately keep track of their own business.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    They are going to invest in brainwashing for school kids.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  That wasn't the point. The point is that the Collection Society was collecting money for a person that did not exist. Where I come from, that's obtaining monies by deception, and is illegal throughout the EU.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ... obtaining monies by deception, and is illegal throughout the EU.
    
    No, it is not illegal.
    
    You know that your made-up pretend �law� will not be enforced in this case. Therefore, it just isn't �illegal� to do that. Bitch and moan �all you want� about what you fantasize the law should be. But the actual law is what it is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Charging someone money under false claims is not illegal in the EU?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm not that familiar with EU law, but are you saying there is absolutely no way this could qualify as fraud of some sort?
      
      Please elaborate, because it certainly seems possible (even if unlikely). I'm assuming based on your tone that you can actually cite some relevant legislation here...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... cite some relevant legislation here...
        
        The first law of political power.
        
        �
        
        �
        
        (Prove me wrong. Find an interested prosecutor. Except that you won't. And not only do I know that you won't, but you know it too.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > > ... cite some relevant legislation here...
        
        > The first law of political power.
        
        So basically you're asserting that the system is corrupt and those with money and power are above the law.
        
        Glad you've finally come over to our side! Welcome!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Glad you've finally come over to our side!
        
        Why on earth would you ever imagine that I'm on �your side�? You're not on my side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Why on earth would you ever imagine that I'm
        > on �your side�?
        
        Because your comment supports "our" side's position.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, the question here is not whether they are likely to be prosecuted, but whether this counts as fraud.
        
        I agree there is basically no chance of this being prosecuted, but lets look at your original (highly childish and bitchy) quote:
        
        You know that your made-up pretend �law� will not be enforced in this case. Therefore, it just isn't �illegal� to do that.
        
        You are asserting that this doesn't run afoul of any laws. Well, it sounds to me like it might, so show me the legislation if you are insisting so vehemently that fraud is a "made-up pretend law"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If this was the UK it seems to fit this provision very well
        
        http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/4
        
        I can't believe Belgian law is that different.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can't believe Belgian law is that different.
        
        Belgium... the UK... the whole EU. And, beyond that, all North America. Japan. Korea. Both Koreas. China. The New Russia and the old Soviet Union... It doesn't matter what some moldy text says. It matters how the law is applied: And who gets it applied unto them.
        
        That's the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So basically you realized that you are wrong and have nothing to back up your assertions about the law, so you have changed your stance and now say that all written law is meaningless. Nice save!
        
        And um, if you have ever EVER read a court ruling or a legal opinion or, well, anything, you would know that the 'moldy text' is indeed very important. It can be manipulated, and it's not black and white, but it's far from meaningless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Belgium... the UK... the whole EU. And, beyond that, all North America. Japan. Korea. Both Koreas. China. The New Russia and the old Soviet Union... It doesn't matter what some moldy text says. It matters how the law is applied: And who gets it applied unto them.
        
        That's the law.
        
        Now you sound like a 1930's gangster running a protection racket with the police force all bought off ...Oh wait yes - now I understand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        YES, it IS illegal to take money on pretences. Of course it is. Even a child can work that one out.
        
        And yes, it is true everywhere in the world... except TAM Town, where taking money on pretences is the norm. Exhibit A: The Music Industry.
        
        Oops, sorry, small correction, TAM's BOSS' town. TAM just cleans the toilets but his boss promised him the kingdom of a small island once he's helped him take over the world and he really, really means it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, it is not illegal.
      
      You know that your made-up pretend �law� will not be enforced in this case. Therefore, it just isn't �illegal� to do that. Bitch and moan �all you want� about what you fantasize the law should be. But the actual law is what it is.
      
      Well it definitely used to be illegal in the UK
      Visit this page for details. That particular wording has now been replaced by the fraud act 2006. But the substance of the law is unchanged. The behaviour of SABAM would still be illegal in the UK under the fraud act. It would constitute fraud by failing to disclose information. I would be extremely surprised if the law elsewhere in the EU is different.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  There are many songs with duplicate titles - if SABAM knew what they were doing they would have come back with a question about who the composer was when the title quoted matched (or nearly matched) one in the database that they don't actually seem to have. The fact that they didn't tells yoiu that they just don't check these things at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re:
  I can find reasonably close songs on this, which may explain some of the errors.
  
  If you can find some reasonably close songs just using the public internet in a few minutes how come a professional collection society can't do it on its own private database in a few seconds!
  
  I think you just made the point rather well!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:15am
  
  Re:
  "....reasonably close....."
  
  That's the comedy post of the week, right there. Did he really just go and search around for these titles, providing links as well? Dude, you seriously need counselling, it really is pathological with you.
  
  +1 to the number of people BASTA made look stupid.
  
  PURE COMEDY GOLD!!
  
  BTW: SABAM did no searching or checking for any songs so there was no error. The only search they made was of the price list.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:29am

Not to mention of course the singer Kim Clark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1yjTxjVPHU

Or Kim Clark-Champniss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jL30Z1R09Y

Nope, no chance for any confusion at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  Which is why they did the food names afterwards. Did you finish the article?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  The sole function of a collection society like this is to represent artists and collect dues for the artists they represent. Pretty much the ONLY thing they have to do is know which artists are on their roster - and they failed at that. Confusion, even if it was legitimate, is no excuse. And frankly I doubt it was legitimate: lots of artists and songs have similar names, and if their approach (which took 5 days I might remind you) was to say "oh yeah that sounds kind of familiar, I remember a song with something about drying or whatever" and then send off a bill - well, they clearly aren't doing a very good job (or even trying to)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    You are so cute when you try to be mini-Mike. You even manage to make great leaps of logic in a single bound!
    
    which took 5 days I might remind you
    
    Are you suggesting that from the moment of the phone call, at least one person worked non-stop for 5 days to process this application, spending 40+ hours to review it?
    
    Come on!
    
    Don't you think it is more likely that it went onto a form, someone did some computer matches 4 days later, gave it to a biller, who generated an invoice on the 5th day?
    
    On one side you make them sound careless and working from memory, and on the other side you suggest they took 5 days so they researched it carefully.
    
    Which one is it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are so cute when you try to be mini-Mike. You even manage to make great leaps of logic in a single bound!
      
      Really? Really? This is such a clear case of negligence on their part, but oh no no no, I'm "mini-Mike" for thinking a collection society should be able to keep accurate records.
      
      Look, I'm not saying this was some malicious act, but no matter how you slice it, they were negligent. Why are you excusing them fucking up their own record keeping? Even if you support rights agencies like this, you should want them to be able to do their job properly. In this case, they clearly screwed up.
      
      Maybe it was systemic, maybe it was accidental, maybe it was a fluke. Nonetheless, they failed to accurately check a short list of songs against their artist roster. Why are you so desperate to excuse that? Good companies, good managers and good employers don't make excuses for failures - they accept responsibility and try to fix the problem.
      
      If the people who support rights agencies are also satisfied with them doing an inaccurate job, well, that's just one more reason I don't support them in the first place.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (p.s, the attempts to brand anyone who agrees with Techdirt's stance as some sort of cultist or sycophant is getting old. It's a pretty pathetic way to try to win an argument.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To be fair, it is all they have left.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I could say the sky is blue, if Mike said green, you would say green. It's not hard to follow.
        
        Can you please point to any of your comments where you don't agree with Mike?
        
        Help me out here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm for inaccurate record-keeping as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you point out any of his comments where he agreed with Mike where Mike was wrong? Of course pointing out without your usual "I am right and you are wrong" basell bullshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you point out any of your comments where you agree with Mike? If Mike said the sky was blue, you'd insist it was green.
        
        See: that sword cuts both ways. You can't invalidate my opinions just by pointing out that they are often aligned with someone else's.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Proof that right or wrong are irrelevant to TAM.
        
        Only Mike or NotMike matters in his psychotic little brain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (I also rather like how you completely ignored the comment above, where I explain very clearly why you are wrong about SABAM - I guess you know when to quit, at least)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Despite what you might think, this sort of thing is completely unacceptable. You do not bill someone for something that might possibly be close. If you cannot prove the charges are valid, then you should be brought up on charges of fraud. Willful, at that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  If there is uncertainty then you don't just say "yes yes and take the money" you cross check. They didn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re:
  So you found two artists with the same name. If SABAM can't tell the fake artist with fake songs apart from real artists with different songs and real songs with different artists, how the hell are they going to keep Kim Clark and Kim Clark-Champniss separated? How many times has Kim Clark been payed when Kim Clark-Champniss should have been?
  
  Why do people trust these groups any more?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:43am

Only one question
Why aren't these bozos (the executive staff of SABAM specifically) in jail for fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:15am
  
  Re: Only one question
  because, they are the guardians of our musical heritage and culture. imprison them and anarchy and chaos are sure to happen followed quickly by the earth imploding upon itself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Only one question
  Why aren't these bozos (the executive staff of SABAM specifically) in jail for fraud?
  
  Don't be silly.
  
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:21am
    
    Re: Re: Only one question
    Why not? You are all the time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg G (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:14am

Hmmm@'I Wanna Blow You Dry'

Now there's a video that needs to be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re:
  The "you" in question is of course a large hairy dog...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  They already made it! Unfortunately, once they reviewed the finished video, they realised they had actually recorded "I'll Towel You Dry A Bit" by mistake and hadn't noticed it was a completely different song because it was............... wait for it............. REASONABLY CLOSE AHAHAHAHA!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:27am

SABAM steals
Another interesting moment is when the SABAM tears down the poster of the first party and takes it with him.

That's theft (in the real meaning of the word).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: SABAM steals
  Theft would be a tad harsh, but criminal damage wouldn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:11am

Does anyone else find it *really* funny that TAM (at least i'm pretty sure it's him) is actually trying to defend SABAM here? Because... wow.... desperation ftw!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re:
  More pathetic than funny, really. :-(
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:05pm
  
  Re:
  You're confused. He's not defending SABAM, he's disagreeing with Mike.
  
  I really want Mike to slip some pro-IP statements in an April Fools Day post just to see how many AC's disagree with him. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Colin, 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:52am
  
  Re:
  I've marked all of his comments as "funny". I don't think I'm using those buttons correctly...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny, 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:32pm

Some points
For those who couldn't watch the show due to not being able to understand Flemish, a few points:

- The BASTA team, sent 5 or 6 playlists worth of non-existing artists and non-existing songs, they got an invoice in each case. In other words, this was no error, nor was it a 1 time mistake, it's systematic.

- As for the "reasonably close" comments, the SABAM invoices stated that the works were "100% protected", the camera shows this several times during the show. That statement implies that it was checked by SABAM. While evidently they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ash, 31 Mar 2011 @ 6:40pm

Re: Agreeing with Mike
"Can you please point to any of your comments where you don't agree with Mike?"

Only if you can point to YOUR comments where you AGREE with Mike.

Oh wait, you can't - Because you're an Anonymous Coward...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bergman (profile), 21 Feb 2012 @ 7:49pm

If they charge 82 euros for a 0.99 square meter party, what's the fee for an infinite number of angels dancing on the head of a pin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]