Royalty Collection Agency SABAM Demands 3.4% 'Piracy License' From Belgian ISPs

from the this-still-looks-more-like-'rent'-than-a-'license' dept

Thu, Nov 10th 2011 12:59pm — Tim Cushing

It's been a rather quiet few months for SABAM, the Belgian music royalty collection agency perhaps best known (around here, anyway) for its outlandish tactics, including attempting to charge truck drivers a licensing fee for listening to the radio in their cabs and collecting fees for completely fictional bands.

SABAM has thrust itself back into the news today with a return to form, having issued an announcement stating that it will be charging internet service providers for what is, in essence, a "piracy license:"

The music group is claiming 3.4 percent of Internet subscriber fees as compensation for the rampant piracy that they enable through their networks.

SABAM pulls this 3.4% figure from an interesting source:

Sabam base their claim on a provision in the Copyright Act of 1994, which states that authors should be paid for any "public broadcast" of a song. According to Sabam, downloads and streams on the Internet are such public broadcasts, and they are therefore entitled to proper compensation. This 3.4 percent share is the same amount as the copyright fees on cable television.

Of course, this just means that all internet users, whether they infringe or not, will be charged extra for their internet service. Not only that, but a 3.4% flat rate assumes every transmission over the internet involves copyrighted material under SABAM's control. And SABAM has made it clear that, although it is using this fee as some sort of "piracy license," it is by no means saying that all users are now free to start (or resume) pirating content.

But even in the event they begin to receive payments, Sabam stresses that any compensation would by no means legalize piracy. The license fee is only meant to legitimize the ISPs part in transferring these unauthorized files.

Of course, this sort of action, if approved, would open the doors for nearly every other group of rights holders to pile on, turning the Belgian internet service into an incredibly expensive luxury, one that punishes the entirety of the population for that actions of a minority.

Even worse, it appears that SABAM is only pushing this "license" forward because it would rather just collect money than explore new options:

The decision of the music rights group to claim a share of subscriber fees comes after they were unable to reach a workable solution in direct talks with ISPs. The ISPs say they would rather focus on offering legal alternatives than quibble over piracy, a point also noted by Minister of Economy Vincent Van Quickenborne.

“The timing is unfortunate, just as Belgacom and others come to the market with a range of legal streaming services,” a spokesman for the Minister said, adding that his department would look into the legal issues.

This is just another example of the "take it out on the ISPs" thinking that tends to rise to the surface way too often with certain rights holders. Ultimately the costs will be passed on to the end user, which turns this from "us vs. the ISPs" into "us vs. our customers," and is that any way to build a relationship?

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, collection agency, piracy license
Companies: sabam

29 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Steven (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:18pm

As bad as I think this kind of fee/tax would be i'd enjoy seeing some country actually put this in place and then see a court case ruling that files over that network are not infringing as the license has been paid.

I know it'll never happen, but it'd be fun to watch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:23pm

double and triple dipping
So ... Internet radio stations pay royalty fees. The ISPs must now pay royalty fees. And they are saying that the end user may still end up having to pay them too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:26pm

Shills chime in 3... 2... 1...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:31pm

I just love this new age thinking from the likes of SABAM. No longer do you have to have to promote your work or try and sell it in any way. Nope! All you have to do is create it, sign up with SABAM, and just get a cheque every so often.

One thing I'd like to know is how will they split the money? Will it just be the bigger names?
This tax will not go down well at all. In the UK and Ireland, we pay a TV licence fee, that funds the BBC and RTE respectively. We have to pay this fee even though we don't watch those channels. (In my case, my TV is connected only to my console and my PC. No digital or over the air connection). If you're so concerned about getting money in return for your content, then try and sell it to me. Persuade me to pay for it. You do not have the right to just out right take the money off me, even when I actively make the choice to not watch your content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:32pm

Re:
asshole already chimed... Hi weneedhelp!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 1:57pm

Sweden may be the first country to abolish copyrights :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 2:04pm

Re: Re:
You have read some of my posts I see... Fuck you very muck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 2:33pm

Another example of radical socialism turned into a form of corporate welfare.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Musician, 10 Nov 2011 @ 2:39pm

It's pretty laughable that some people believe the spew that these royalty collection firms come out with, as if they're actually doing good.

I just got screwed out of a nice gig because BMI is suing the club that we played at, even though we play no BMI music whatsoever. BMI simply lies and say that it was, and they have a legal staff.

I know someone who actually became a member of ASCAP, trying to be legit. Guess what? Even though she's played on radio and have been for some time, ASCAP hasn't paid her one penny. So she's suing ASCAP.

So there we have the fun results of this #$%#%#$: put clubs out of business, and don't pay any musicians except those at the top of the food chain.

Oh, and now some asses trying to charge truck drivers. Nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous, 10 Nov 2011 @ 2:47pm

'Sabam would rather just collect money than explore new options'

please enlighten me as to the difference(s) between Sabam and any of the rest of the entertainment industries or their 'collection agencies'. none of them are interested in 'exploring new options' or adapting in any way, shape or form, to the 21st century. none are interested in catering for fans. the only things on their agenders are getting as much money as possible by screwing their customers over, being in control, blaming as many 'other sources' as possible for their failing to modernise, whilst getting as many of the 'other sources' to pay for what they themselves should be doing, keeping their own house in order!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffhole (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 3:18pm

SWEET
So, if I were Belgian and had an internet connection and this licensing went through and got paid...I could download everything I wanted to. 'Cause it's licensed. Rad. GG SABAM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 3:49pm

So, this is just like radio or cable licenses for music, only if they were allowed to fine/sue/jail them for playing the very songs they just licensed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 8:02pm

All of the ISPs should go dark to help motivate people to stop this. I think blackholing the entire country should raise some eyebrows and generate some public interest in these things.

People will just lament 3.4% its just 3.4%... and when as is the practice that just isn't enough it will increase and increase and increase.

If the law wants to prop up these industries so badly, they can deal with the outcome. Your going to burden the ISPs and the people, well this is what is going to happen. ISPs are going to close and your people will be asking at election time who is going to bring the internet back to us with sane laws?

Its not a pretty or polite solution, but given how much is being shoved onto 3rd parties to support a small group of companies failing business models I see no reason for the 3rd parties to accept it. Take your ball and go home, let the people focus their anger where it needs to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:31pm

3 of 4 % as a whole would screw them....
If the ISP decided to give 3 or 4 percent in total and divide that amongst anybody that came calling, that would show them.

2 rights holders each get 1/2 of the 3-4%
3 rights holders each get 1/3 of the 3-4%
4 rights holders each get 1/4 of the 3-4%

...and so on. I know... You're all saying they shouldn't get anything, but think about it for a second... The current beneficiaries would immediately sue any newcomer for their alleged share of this pot, instead of suing the ISP for not paying. It instantly turns it into the rights holder's legal problem, and to the ISP it's just a budgetable cost of doing business. They would pass it on to us of course, but it would never get any bigger as a percentage of the ISP's revenues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 10 Nov 2011 @ 9:57pm

"This 3.4 percent share is the same amount as the copyright fees on cable television.

But even in the event they begin to receive payments, Sabam stresses that any compensation would by no means legalize piracy. The license fee is only meant to legitimize the ISPs part in transferring these unauthorized files."

That's like saying I can't watch tv after paying for cable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 12:25am

Re:
How much should Sabam pay for providing material that can become unauthorized?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killercool (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 12:45am

Of COURSE piracy would still be illegal!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killercool (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 12:50am

Of COURSE piracy would still be illegal!
It's just, with everyone paying a licensing fee, would it really be possible to claim ANY music downloads as pirated?

That's like saying, "It's illegal to drive on a road without paying your road tax!"

Well, duh. That's why it's included in the price of gas. And ethanol.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 3:08am

Re: Re:
I need you to elaborate.

Or I need to come back and reread.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Butcherer79 (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 4:39am

Let me get this straight...
Just so I've got the gist of this:
This 3.4% piracy fee is the standard rate that public broadcasters pay for all content.
SABAM by no means owns all content that is broadcast but still wants the full 3.4% (possible fraudulent claim).
Even though, in theory, users are paying for the content, streaming/downloading the content will still be considered piracy, for which presumably the user and/or ISP would be sued.
Appears to be much like an oxymoron to me: you will pay for this content license which in no way grants you privilege to said content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 5:22am

Re: Re: Re:
"The license fee is only meant to legitimize the ISPs part in transferring these unauthorized files."

So what is the fee for Sabam for providing material that can become unauthorized?

Think chicken and egg. If you don't create the file, it can't be made into an unauthorized copy, that in turn you demand payment from all ISPs for.

If they want to demand payments for the ISPs helping this unauthorized transferring of files, why does Sabam not have to pay a fee for creating the problem in the first place?

They seem unwilling to do anything to stop this other than demand payments from 3rd parties. What is their fair share to have to pay into the pool for causing the problem in the first place.

Mind you it might just be sleep deprived logic, but it makes sense in a sideways application of their own logic in demanding these fees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Butcherer79 (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 5:46am

Re: Of COURSE piracy would still be illegal!
or in England, you pay absorbatant fuel prices (currently 60% ish of which is fuel duty and VAT) and an annual road tax...
They like to make sure we know when they're bending us over over
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Mind you it might just be sleep deprived logic, but it makes sense in a sideways application of their own logic in demanding these fees."

I'm sure it is me.

Lack of sleep + excruciating pain = lack of comprehension

Whatever they charge us(82 500 for 2 1/2 minute song?) X number of employees/subs(companies are people, therefore employees are aiding and abetting) X number of ISP subscribers (sabam is profiting, Jammie wasn't).

Unrelated
nitronic-rush.com, Free arcade racing game for MS PC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dano, 11 Nov 2011 @ 7:22am

So Desperate
The recording industry fails to keep up with technology and then makes everyone a criminal or liable financially.

So desperate, sad and incompetent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:46am

Re:
All of the ISPs should go dark to help motivate people to stop this.

The prisoner's dilemma indicates that would be very unlikely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:47am

Re: 3 of 4 % as a whole would screw them....
The current beneficiaries would immediately sue any newcomer for their alleged share of this pot, instead of suing the ISP for not paying.

What makes you think that? They're already going to the wrong party for payment, why do you think they would suddenly switch tactics?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Nov 2011 @ 9:48am

Re: Re: Of COURSE piracy would still be illegal!
or in England, you pay absorbatant fuel prices

Exorbitant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Incassobureau, 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am

School Project
Thanks for all the information and comments. I was searching for this information about this collection agency and finally find this really usefull post. I need the information for my school project!

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Incasso, 10 Sep 2012 @ 6:59am

Incasso
Not just that, but a 3.4% as well for each transmission over the web involving copy- righted stuff under their control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]