Belgian Collection Society Wants To Extend Its 'You Must Be A Pirate' Tax To Cover All-In-One Printers

from the coming-for-brains-and-eyeballs-next dept

We've covered copyright levies (a.k.a., "you must be a pirate/thief" taxes) several times here at Techdirt, with a majority of them pertaining to the cassette tapes of the digital world: blank CDs/DVDs, hard drives, removable storage, cell phones, internet connections, etc. The theory is that the only reason anyone buys storage of any kind is to have some place to put all their pirated goods. Hence, they must pay a "tax" to compensate artists for all the creative works they've ripped off.

This sort of taxation is stupid, but governments often fall for it because it's obvious that, yes, some people do store their pirated goods this way. That a large majority of people don't doesn't seem to matter. They, too, must pay a tax for the overall good of the creative world -- a "world" that is basically a bunch of industry groups and collection societies when you get right down to it. They're the ones pushing these levies, and they're the ones that derive the most benefit from them.

But Reprobel, a Belgian collection society, is currently going after Hewlett-Packard's Belgian wing, claiming that the company should be forced to pay a levy on the sale of… all-in-one printers.

Reprobel, a collecting society, had asked HPB to pay a levy for the sale of multifunction printers. Such a levy is due as fair compensation to authors for the copying of their work using the devices. Since Reprobel and HPB did not reach an agreement on the amount to be paid, HPB sued Reprobel so as to obtain legal certainty on the royalties due.

Reprobel's theory is more than a bit shaky. It assumes multifunction printers are used to copy hard copy books (and convert them to digital/physical form). Reprobel doesn't explicitly spell out the "harm" it is seeking compensation for (at least not in this article by Peter L'Ecuse), but it's assumed that copying and printing both theoretically aid in the pirating of printed material.

What's more surprising than this leap of logic is the fact that such a levy is already being collected.

Under Belgian law, the fixed part of the levy is paid by manufacturers/importers (Article XI.235 of the Code of Economic Law and is based on potential harm caused to the author. According to the Advocate General, such a levy is proportionate and the criteria used to determine the levy (i.e., the maximum speed for copying in black and white) objectively reflect the ability of the equipment to potentially prejudice authors.

So, the Belgian courts have already found in favor of these sketchy assumptions and have applied them to sales of standalone copiers. Reprobel is seeking the application of this levy to printers that also make copies. In addition, it's seeking another levy, supposedly based on "actual harm." (The current levy is based on "potential harm.")

The Belgian Advocate General is at least questioning a few of Reprobel's assertions.

[T]he Advocate General pointed out that it is likely that a private person using a multifunctional printer for his own personal use will cause less harm to authors than printers of the same speed used in libraries or copy shops. The Advocate General therefore believed that the fair balance would be better guaranteed if criteria other than the maximum speed were also taken into account.

Of course, the Advocate General's questioning begins with a questionable assumption: that printers/copiers are used to facilitate enough infringement that a levy is somehow justified. If Reprobel's worry is the mass copying of physical books, then it has had several years to gather data that supports its assertions about copyright infringement. Nothing in this report or the comments by the Advocate General suggest it has presented anything of the sort.

Using an all-in-one printer to make infringing copies of digital books is about the least efficient form of piracy imaginable. Using off-the-shelf all-in-ones to scan books into PDF form for distribution across the web is only slightly more efficient. And even if it's the latter form that concerns Reprobel more, there's evidence out there that suggests there's very little demand for pirated books.

Just 1% of UK internet users aged 12 and over read “at least some” ebooks illegally between March and May 2015, according to the Intellectual Property Office’s study into the extent of online copyright infringement in the UK. This compares favourably to other forms of entertainment, with 9% accessing some of their music illegally, 7% television programmes, 6% films, and 2% computer software and video games.

When researchers looked at “all internet users who consumed content online over the three-month period,” (rather than all internet users over 12), they found that 31% accessed at least one item illegally. Readers, however, still had the lowest incidence of illegal access, at 11%, compared to 25% for people watching films and 26% for people listening to music.

“More ebook consumers paid for some content (69%) and for all of their content (47%) than consumers of any other content type”, the survey found.

Reprobel appears to be interested in collecting fees (this is honestly where this sentence should end, but…) on the sort of infringement that went out of vogue well before all-in-one printers became mainstream.

The Advocate General does raise a couple of good points during its consideration of Reprobel's plea, despite giving far too much credence to its assertions.

[T]he Advocate General expressed doubts as to the admissibility of the dual fixed and proportionate levy. Indeed, given that the proportionate levy paid by the user is deemed to compensate for the actual harm, the Advocate General sees no reason to add a fixed levy to be paid by the manufacturer/importer to compensate for a potential harm caused by the same equipment.

If a proportionate levy is granted, the AG suggests that any compensation demanded by Reprobel for actual use should have any levies collected for potential use deducted. This will prevent Reprobel from doing too much double-dipping, even though the proposed levy is a double-dip in and of itself.

Furthermore, the Advocate General reminds Reprobel that not all copies of copyrighted content are infringing.

In particular, the Advocate General held that the system does not distinguish between copies of works that fall under the fair compensation scheme and works for which no levy is due because of an exemption foreseen by the InfoSoc Directive (e.g. sheet music copies can be made without any fair compensation being due).

Beyond the Belgian version of "fair use," there's the question of how Reprobel expects to apply a proportionate levy based on actual usage -- at least not one anyone's going to agree with. What percentage of actual usage is it going to automatically assume is infringing? And how is it going to collect this data?

The Advocate General says the fee could change depending on the end user's level of cooperation with Reprobel in the assessment of the levy. This would basically turn Reprobel into the BMI of the printed world -- an entity that demands fees from businesses utilizing multifunction printers. It would give it the power to basically charge a licensing fee for printer/scanner/copier operation. The AG's echoing of Reprobel's assertion that every sold multifunction printer will generate some sort of actual harm points towards Reprobel being granted this power. If this goes Reprobel's way, there will no need for it to prove actual harm. It will be free to collect on its assumptions.

Filed Under: belgium, copyright, copyright levy, pirate tax, printers, tax
Companies: hp, reprobel

Will Corporate Sovereignty Disputes Lead To Wars One Day?

from the even-if-they-don't,-they-hardly-promote-peace dept

Last August, we wrote about the most egregious corporate sovereignty award (so far): $50 billion against Russia, under a treaty that it never even ratified, in favor of the major shareholders of the Yukos oil company. Of course, as everyone pointed out, being awarded $50 billion was one thing, collecting it, quite another. Most people probably assumed that it would be practically impossible to squeeze that money out of a recalcitrant Russia, but we now learn that some serious steps towards that goal have recently been taken, as reported by Der Spiegel (original in German). In Belgium, the bank accounts of the Russian embassy were frozen, as were those of Russia's EU and NATO missions, while in France, something similar happened, with Russian accounts blocked at 40 banks.

Understandably, this did not go down well with the Russian government. The country's deputy foreign minister warned, "whoever dares to do that must understand that it will lead to reprisals," something his boss, Sergei Lavrov echoed. Meanwhile, Lavrov's own boss, Vladimir Putin, was also well aware of the situation, and was quoted as saying: "we will defend our interests using legal means."

A story on France 24 reports that Russia has already threatened to retaliate against state-linked foreign firms operating in the country, so that's one way that things could escalate. But more seriously, the relations between Russia and EU nations are extremely strained over the conflict in eastern Ukraine; the last thing the situation needs is additional tension caused by arguments over a massive fine. Even if corporate sovereignty doesn't actually cause a war -- well, let's hope not -- the Yukos award may turn into a hindrance to resolving an existing conflict. That's yet another reason to get rid of the whole deeply-flawed system before it causes more serious damage.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: belgium, corporate sovereignty, france, frozen assets, isds, russia, trade wars, vladimir putin, war
Companies: yukos

Court Rejects Argument That The Music Industry Deserves 'Pirate Tax' On Every Internet Connection

from the not-how-it-works dept

The legacy recording industry continues to seek any possible way to force people to pay, now that many people see no reason to continue to fork over money to the old gatekeepers. After years of seeking increasing "you must be a criminal" levies on hard drives, blank CDs and other media, there has been a more recent focus on just trying to get broadband access providers to add a "piracy tax" to all internet connections. Over in Belgium, the collection society SABAM has been leading this charge. Back in 2011, it suddenly started demanding 3.4% of all internet connection fees from ISPs in Belgium. When the broadband providers refused to just pay up, SABAM sued in 2013. And it's not going particularly well. The court has now rejected SABAM's claims, noting (correctly) that internet access providers are mere conduits and shouldn't have to pay for the actions of their users.

This is the right decision, though there's a decent chance that SABAM will appeal. Either way, this shows the incredible entitlement felt by some in the industry. They feel that if people no longer want to pay them, that everyone should be forced to pay. That's really quite incredible when you think about it. In most businesses, if customers are no longer interested in buying what you're selling at the price you're offering, you have to learn to adapt. But the legacy recording industry still seems to think the problem is with the public, rather than with its own business model.

Filed Under: belgium, internet access, piracy tax
Companies: sabam

Facebook's Updated Privacy Policy Breaches EU Law, Belgian Study Claims; Other Countries Investigating

from the must-try-harder dept

Europeans have a rather ambivalent attitude to Facebook. On the one hand, millions of them love using it. On the other, many people are worried about the huge stores of personal information it is building up on its users -- and what it does with it. This has led to various attempts by the Austrian Max Schrems to find out what Facebook knows about him -- and to establish whether its handling of his data is compliant with EU data protection laws. Separately from those efforts, the Belgian privacy commission has been investigating Facebook's privacy policy. It asked researchers at a pair of local universities to provide an analysis. Here's what they found, as reported by the Guardian:

A report commissioned by the Belgian privacy commission has found that Facebook is acting in violation of European law, despite updating its privacy policy.

Conducted by the Centre of Interdisciplinary Law and ICT at the University of Leuven in Belgium, the report claimed that Facebook's privacy policy update in January had only expanded older policy and practices, and found that it still violates European consumer protection law.

The report runs to over 60 pages (pdf). The key findings are as follows:

To be clear: the changes introduced in 2015 weren't all that drastic. Most of Facebook's "new" policies and terms are simply old practices made more explicit. Our analysis indicates, however, that Facebook is acting in violation of European law. First, Facebook places too much burden on its users. Users are expected to navigate Facebook's complex web of settings (which include "Privacy", "Apps", "Adds", "Followers", etc.) in search of possible opt-outs. Facebook's default settings related to behavioural profiling or Social Ads, for example, are particularly problematic. Moreover, users are offered no choice whatsoever with regard to their appearance in "Sponsored Stories" or the sharing of location data. Second, users do not receive adequate information. For instance, it isn't always clear what is meant by the use of images "for advertising purposes". Will profile pictures only be used for "Sponsored Stories" and "Social Adverts", or will it go beyond that? Who are the "third party companies", "service providers" and "other partners" mentioned in Facebook's data use policy? What are the precise implications of Facebooks' extensive data gathering through third-party websites, mobile applications, as well recently acquired companies such as WhatsApp and Instagram?

Unfortunately for Facebook, this is just the start of a much wider investigation across Europe:

The Belgian Privacy Commission is also part of a European task force, which includes data protection authorities from the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. [Leuven University's] ICRI/CIR and [Vrije Universiteit Brussel's] iMinds-SMIT will continue to support the Privacy Commission in the context of its investigation and future updates to the report will also be shared with their German and Dutch colleagues.

The Guardian notes that other European groups are scrutinizing Facebook's privacy policy:

Facebook is already being investigated by the Dutch data protection authority, which asked Facebook to delay rollout of its new privacy policy, and is being probed by the Article 29 working party formed of data regulators from individual countries across Europe, including the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office.

Looks like Facebook has a busy few years ahead of it -- and what applies to Facebook is also likely to apply to a host of other companies that offer online services based on gathering large amounts of personal data in Europe.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: belgium, data protection, eu, privacy, privacy policy, terms of service
Companies: facebook

Belgian Prosecutor Looking Into Reports That NSA/GCHQ Hacked Well-Known Belgian Cryptographer

from the sneaky-sneaky dept

Last year, we wrote about the NSA and GCHQ hacking into Belgian telco Belgacom using a "quantum insert" via man-in-the-middle attacks using "fake" Slashdot and LinkedIn pages. It has now come out that Belgian prosecutors are looking into reports that one of those attacks was directed at well-known Belgian cryptographer, Jean-Jacques Quisquater. According to David Meyer at GigaOm:

The Universite catholique de Louvain professor apparently fell victim to a “quantum insert” trick that duped him into thinking he was visiting LinkedIn to respond to an emailed “request” when he was actually visiting a malware-laden copy of a LinkedIn page.

“The Belgian federal police (FCCU) sent me a warning about this attack and did the analysis,” Quisquater told me by email. As for the purpose of the hack: “We don’t know. There are many hypotheses (about 12 or 15) but it is certainly an industrial espionage plus a surveillance of people working about civilian cryptography.”

Of course, looking into it doesn't mean very much at this point. There had been serious concerns about how the NSA and GCHQ used the attacks on Belgacom to then bug systems at the EU Parliament in Brussels. Whether or not they'll do something in response to "just" hacking a cryptographer remains to be seen -- but it should remind basically everyone in the world that the NSA/GCHQ don't seem to have any hesitation about hacking just about anyone.

Update: As noted in the comments, there are good reasons to believe this was not the work of the NSA/GCHQ, but potentially other government attacks...

Filed Under: belgium, cryptographer, gchq, hacking, jean-jacques quisquater, nsa, surveillance

Royalty Collection Agency SABAM Sued By Belgian Government Over 'Piracy License' Plans

from the getting-a-clue dept

Back in May, we wrote about how the Belgian music royalty collection agency SABAM was taking ISPs there to court over its demand for 3.4% of Internet subscriber fees as "compensation" for online piracy in Belgium. In yet another slapdown for SABAM -- it had previously failed in its attempt to turn ISPs into copyright cops -- the Belgian regulator says SABAM's plan falls foul of the EU's e-commerce directive, as IT World reports:

the Belgian government's FPS Economy (Federal Public Service Economy) agency, which has regulatory power, believes that Sabam is wrongly asking providers for compensation, said Chantal De Pauw, an agency spokeswoman.

While the FPS opposes any kind of illegal downloading, Sabam's solution penalizes Internet users and this is against the E.U.'s e-commerce directive, according to the authority. Providing Internet access is not the same as publishing protected works, the FPS said in a news release, adding that there are other ways to fight illegal downloads than posing levies on ISPs.

Even more dramatically, FPS is taking legal action against SABAM to stop it proceeding with its own lawsuit:

The FPS has ordered Sabam to stop its lawsuit, but the association has argued that they are operating within the bounds of the law, said De Pauw. FPS has therefore decided to sue Sabam in October to force it to stop its legal procedures against the ISPs, De Pauw said. If FPS wins the suit, Sabam faces penalties of up to €100,000 (US$137,600) per day if it continues its quest, she added.

SABAM has always been frustratingly out-of-touch with reality in its demands, but now that it is being sued by its own government, perhaps it will finally take the hint and drop its ridiculous and unjustified scheme.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: belgium, isps, piracy license, secondary liability
Companies: sabam

Belgian 'Royal Decree' Requires ISPs To Log All Sorts Of Info For A Year

from the invest-in-encryption-now dept

Theo Lietaert alerted us to the very troubling news out of Belgium, that a "royal decree" has been passed requiring Belgian telcos, internet service providers, information service providers, email providers, etc. to log a ridiculous amount of metadata for a year. The full decree (in French) includes an awful lot of information that will be tracked (though it's been published in a manner that's nearly impossible to read). Among the examples listed: how many emails you send, if you use a VoIP provider (like Skype), how long your calls are, how you pay your bills -- basically any and all (non-content) data that ISPs can collect, they are required to keep. And then they need to make it available to basically all law enforcement. That is, this is not just for anti-terrorism purposes, but for any government purpose under the sun, allowing them to troll through basically all of your internet activity.

The justification for all of this? Because law enforcement "needs" this data do their job better. This is not all that different than the excuses we've heard from those defending NSA surveillance, that this data is somehow "needed" because it might stop "bad guys." But that turns the privacy questions upside down entirely. As we've noted, law enforcement would, most likely, be able to stop a lot more crime if we were all required to have video cameras hooked up to a giant database installed in every room in every home. But we don't do that because it's a massive breach of privacy.

The ministers behind this abomination, Johan Vande Lanotte and Annemie Turtelboom appear to recognize that this goes "far beyond" what's allowed under the European privacy directive, but they don't seem to care, claiming that the privacy directive is "obsolete." The whole situation is fairly sketchy as well, since it was done by royal decree, allowing them to totally bypass Parliament, but is equally binding. I guess they're worried that Parliament (*gasp*) might actually protect the rights of the people.

This seems like a horrifyingly broad attack on privacy rights in Belgium, and while the Privacy Commission is reviewing the issue, it's possible that this will be considered the law in Belgium. If you're a VPN vendor, it would seem like a marketing campaign in Belgium might be appropriate just about now.

Filed Under: belgium, data collection, data retention, eu, metadata, privacy, privacy directive, royal decree

Royalty Collection Agency SABAM Sues Belgian ISPs In Pursuit Of Its Fantasy 'Piracy License'

from the clutching-at-straws dept

Back in November 2011, we wrote about the Belgian music royalty collection agency SABAM's demand for 3.4% of Internet subscriber fees as "compensation" for online piracy in Belgium. As Tim Cushing explained back then, this was ridiculous on just about every level. But SABAM doesn't let little things like that get in the way of its desperate attempt to avoid moving with the times and coming up with new business models. So after failing dismally to convince Europe's highest court that it could force ISPs to spy on their customers, SABAM has now moved on to suing ISPs instead, as TorrentFreak reports:

This week SABAM sued the Belgian ISPs Belgacom, Telenet and Voo, claiming a 3.4 percent cut of Internet subscriber fees as compensation for the rampant piracy they enable through their networks.

SABAM argues that authors should be paid for any "public broadcast" of a song. Pirated downloads and streams on the Internet are such public broadcasts according to the group, and they are therefore entitled to proper compensation.

One of the ISPs being sued, Belgacom, has a better analogy for what's going on here:

"A postman doesn't open letters he delivers. We are also just transporting data, and we are not responsible for the contents," Belgacom says.

That's the "mere conduit" principle, and as TorrentFreak points out, if that defense is overturned here, and the "piracy license" is imposed, the cost will inevitably be passed on to users, which means that people who buy music legally will be paying twice for the privilege. And of course, it wouldn't just be SABAM: the other copyright industries -- films, books, photos, software, games -- will doubtless all line up for their free handout, making online access prohibitively expensive in Belgium.

But along with all the other problems mentioned by Tim back in his 2011 post, there's another major flaw in SABAM's logic. According to recent work carried out by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, it's not even clear that the recorded music industry is being hurt by unauthorized downloads:

Perhaps surprisingly, our results present no evidence of digital music sales displacement. While we find important cross country differences in the effects of downloading on music purchases, our findings suggest a rather small complementarity between these two music consumption channels. It seems that the majority of the music that is consumed illegally by the individuals in our sample would not have been purchased if illegal downloading websites were not available to them. The complementarity effect of online streaming is found to be somewhat larger, suggesting a stimulating effect of this activity on the sales of digital music.

That is, streaming sites might even promote digital music sales; so maybe SABAM should be giving money to the ISPs, not asking for it....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: belgium, copyright, isps, lawsuit, piracy license, royalties
Companies: belgacom, sabam, telenet, voo

Belgium: We Want To Be The Champagne Of Chocolate

from the sweet dept

There have been attempts in the past to apply intellectual property protection to specific foods and drinks. Champagne sparkling wine is one of the more well-known examples of this and its application has resulted in problems in the past. Not terribly long ago, Lebanon took permission culture to the extreme and claimed they owned food copyrights (which don't exist) on ethnic foods like falafel and hummus, going so far as to plan to sue Israel for selling those same kinds of foods. This seeking to lock up widely known terms is quite depressing, since it's so often only about profiting by way of removing competitors. So depressing, in fact, that it makes me want to have a piece of chocolate to help me feel better.

But if it's Belgian style chocolate I'm looking for, my options may become limited if Belgian chocolate makers get their way. Their industry federation is seeking to have the EU protect the word Belgian, their flag, and their packaging from horrible, awful, foreign competitors, using a lesser-known form of IP, geographical indication.

They want the term "Belgian chocolate" to be their exclusive preserve and also want to crack down on foreign rivals dressing up their products as "Belgian style" or of a "Belgian recipe".

Geographical indication is something of a European thing, mostly, and one which the United States has actually pushed back on. One of the conditions a term must meet in order to be granted a GI is that it cannot be in common use already. Given that this entire story is all coming about as a result of foreign companies producing Belgian chocolate to meet high demand throughout the world seems to negate the entire endeavor on its face. Even more hilarious are the comments coming from these Belgian chocolate producers, who claim this is some matter of principal rather than profit.

"What makes us sad is that very often the copies are not up to the standard of the originals," Jos Linkens, chief executive of Neuhaus, told Reuters in an interview. "If top chocolatiers around the world copied us, perhaps we would be happy. We don't want the image of quality to suffer."

Uh huh. First off, that simply isn't a believable statement, given how much of the Belgian chocolate business growth has occurred in markets like Asia, where suddenly there are more competitors popping up to meet rising demand. This seems like a clear attempt to limit that competition. Secondly, if the quality of the so-called imposters aren't up to snuff, then your chocolate should win out anyway. Thirdly, if this idea that one had to protect certain styles or kinds of food on the basis of their reputation, the entire nation of Italy should have fire-bombed every Pizza Hut in existence long ago. They haven't, because the truth is that if you want good pizza, you go to the people who know what they're doing.

And if you want Belgian chocolate, you go to whoever makes it the best.

Filed Under: belgian chocolate, belgium, chocolate, geographical indication, trademark

Is Google Regretting Paying Off Belgian And French Newspapers Yet? Other Newspapers Demand Their Cut

from the like-that-wasn't-predictable dept

For years now, we've talked about how various newspapers (and local governments) around the globe were arguing that Google News was somehow unfairly cheating them out of revenues (even as they sent a ton of traffic to those sites, often to visitors who wouldn't have visited the pages at all otherwise). Back in December, we saw that Google "settled" a long running dispute with Belgian newspapers, with part of it being an "agreement" to buy a bunch of advertising to effectively pay off the newspapers. Then, in February, Google did a similar deal in France, this time to the tune of $82 million. Of course, it didn't take long for people to point out that this sets an awful precedent for the internet, as these legacy publishers now believe they have a legitimate argument that sites should pay to link to them.

And, of course, newspapers in lots of other countries were paying attention. While Google has insisted that those two deals "won't be replicated" elsewhere in Europe, it appears that newspaper publishers elsewhere in Europe would like to test that claim. Media companies in Portugal are first up to the plate, demanding that Google pay up:

"Our position is that the content has to be paid for ... We showed that our focus is to be paid for Google News using our news," he said, adding that the two sides planned to continue regular meetings.

A Google spokeswoman said the company "does not comment on private meetings held by its teams".

Maybe, next time, Google should stand up for its principles on deals like this, even in the face of political pressure. Because giving in and paying up only means that pretty much every country with a struggling media business (meaning, most countries) is going to come calling before too long...

Filed Under: belgium, france, google news, newspapers, portugal