Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms
from the oh-come-on-now dept
We've seen all sorts of ridiculous claims by performance rights collection societies trying to demand performance rights for things that clearly were not intended as "performances." There was the woman stocking shelves in a store who was singing without paying. There was the owner of a horse stable who played music to her horses. There was the attempt to say that your mobile phone ringing with a ringtone was a public performance. Basically, they're willing to claim just about any music playing is a public performance that requires yet another fee.Niall.e points us to a legal issue in Europe, where the Irish High Court has asked the European Court of Justice to weigh in on a claim by the Irish collection society Phonographic Performance Ireland Ltd (PPI), which is claiming that music played in hotel rooms for guests requires a performance fee. Yes, you read that right. PPI is claiming that since the hotel provides radios and televisions in the guest rooms, they need to pay a performance right fee on the usage of those devices.
PPI can't honestly believe this is a public performance that deserves a performance right. This is just a blatant money grab to try to force someone else to pay up. What's next? Auto dealers will have to pay a performance fee for having radios installed in cars?
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: hotels, ireland, performance rights, radio
Companies: ppi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why, that's a brilliant idea! Could also charge a extra levy for radios that can be connected to iPods!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How collection agencies promote the progress of the useful arts in cases like the ones described, I have no idea.
Are the robot musicians here yet?
"What do you mean I have to pay a fee for music performed by humans? This is a human performance-free zone. Nothing but robot music is played here."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Is a piece of the US constitution, the article is talking about ireland ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do I feel that Ireland and the rest of the world will soon be put into a position that forces the view that copyright laws should be strengthened? Lengthened?
That is pretty quaint, though, each country dealing with IP in their own way.
For now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I hate to say it, but yes the just might honestly believe this. It all falls down to what the definition of the broadly termed "public performance" is, and these collection agencies are focusing it to mean "anything not private" rather than "those things that are public".
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that this is completely ludicrous, but to keep the debate focused on the facts of the matter I would recommend avoiding a blanket statement as the above.
These people may be arses, but they may actually be being true to their arseness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree.
I think the better way to describe it is that they currently find it cheaper to file lawsuits than to accept that it is completely absurd to make the arguments that they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree.
I think you've got that backwards. Acceptance would be free, lawsuits are not. Thus, acceptance would be much cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree.
Again, I'm not saying that this actually is the way they are. I'm just saying that making a bold statement about their intentions, when there is a clear way of seeing their intentions as being otherwise, simply will derail the whole point to the conversation.
You will not have a productive debate when you start off by stating unconfirmables about the other side of the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the case of radio and TV it is clear that the responsibility for paying a fee lies with the broadcaster and not those receiving the broadcasts. Any argument to the contrary is absurd because they already collect money from the broadcasters. If a hotel were playing its own recordings then they might be liable.
If they honestly believe it, despite the law being listed on their website, then they seriously lack reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: - No its the ratchet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: - No its the ratchet
I'm not so sure, on closer inspection they may have some basis under EU law. I don't see how they can win this case but it may get Irish law changed to comply with EU law. As soon as I get time I'll try and track down the offending statute in the EU, though I'd still be surprised if it applied to hotel rooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: - No its the ratchet
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing:
(i) the broadcasting of their works or the communication thereof to the public by any other means of wireless diffusion of signs, sounds or images;
(ii) any communication to the public by wire or by rebroadcasting of the broadcast of the work, when this communication is made by an organization other than the original one;
(iii) the public communication by loudspeaker or any other analogous instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds or images, the broadcast of the work.
Which would strongly suggest that they actually have a case, hotel rooms and all. I need to go and throw up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you implying that hotel rooms in Ireland are not private? You think that tidbit may impact their tourist trade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The case is Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. (866 F.2d 278), from the 9th Circuit. The court found that in-room videodisc players did not constitute a public performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just want to kill the part of the recording industry that refuses to enter the 21st century. And the part that supports secret treaties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There, fixed it for you.
I don't for a second doubt that the RIAA, MPAA, et al are pushing to have a special tax applied to all sales of used music, movies, etc. Each time the disc is sold it a few bucks goes to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Car Radios
I don't know about that if people are *buying* the cars before turning the radio on, but it sure seems like it would apply to car rentals and leases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Car Radios
Let me clarify that. It is the owner of the venue that is liable for the performance fee. In the case of someone buying a car, as long as the dealer doesn't let them turn the radio on before purchase, then the new owner would be liable for the fee. In the case of a rental or lease car, the owner (rental or lease company) would be liable for the fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Car Radios
The 'venue' in the case of broadcasting would be the studio that the broadcast is transmitted from. There is no distinction in the law between listening to the radio at home and listening to the radio in a public place. Receiving a broadcast does not constitute a liability unless the question of copyright is over the broadcast itself (such as with cable television).
Of course, that isn't to say collection societies won't demand fees for such 'performances' anyway, the PRS in the UK is notorious for charging for radio 'performances'. They just don't appear to have any basis in law to do so. The only case in the UK so far has been the PRS v Kwik-Fit for radio in the workplace, but Kwik-Fit apparently lost their nerve before the case was finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
You either don't know what you're spouting off about or you're just making crap up. Public places (venues) that provide radio and television entertainment have to pay fees for the privilege. This is well established in law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
Venues certainly do pay fees and I just gave an example (Kwik-Fit). There is a distinction between doing so and having to. If it is well established in law then you should be able to point me to some example of that. Having read the statutes for Ireland copyright law I can find nothing that prohibits the reception of a non infringing broadcast. The key term in the statute is 'sound recording', for which the reception of radio is plainly an exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
In my defence, that law is really fucked up. I'll have to start reading all the Europe copyright law to find out where this idiotic idea came from. Usually I'm against copyright on general principle rather than legality but here I'm inclined to wonder what the legislators were smoking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
Heh, nice straw man attempt there. Nobody's saying you have to pay to *receive* such a broadcast. But if you rebroadcast it in a public place then you're liable for the public performance fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
Eh? They aren't rebroadcasting. What are you on about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
I believe that the court's opinion probably outweighs yours on this. The Scottish Court of Session rejected Kwik-Fit's application to dismiss the copyright infringement proceedings brought against it by PRS (reference). So the court apparently thought there was a "basis in law" there, despite what you may think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
Kwik Fit moved for dismissal on the grounds that there was no basis for a suit, the same as vivaelamor's claim. The court disagreed and found that there was indeed a basis for a suit and thus refused to dismiss on those grounds. It was after realizing this that Kwik Fit "caved", as you put it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
The judges opinion actually suggests that he was sceptical as to the plaintiff's ability to win the case:
"At this stage, certainly, such an outcome cannot be ruled out, especially in circumstances where the true scope and application of the law regarding the "playing" or "performance" of copyright works "in public" have not been explored in argument. On relevancy grounds, therefore, the pursuers are in my view entitled to the inquiry which they seek. Having reached that conclusion, however, I am not to be taken as accepting that, on proof of the averments in question, the pursuers would necessarily succeed in their claims against the defenders. In the course of the debate various hypothetical situations were figured in which charges of copyright infringement might arguably go beyond the contemplated scope of the legislation and/or offend against common sense. Whether, in the event, any such difficulties materialise in this case will depend on how the evidence turns out at the proof."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
But still did not believe that there was not "any basis in law" to bring a suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
I never even suggested that they didn't have any basis in law to bring a suit. I stated that they appear to have no basis in law to charge the fees they did, which in the absence of any case law was entirely correct. A judge's opinion on whether a case should be heard is not case law and would certainly not be a legal basis to charge fees.
You could certainly quibble with me over interpretation of the law (which seems to be a poor adaptation of the Berne convention and ripe for contention), but arguing over something I didn't even say is silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
Now let me get this straight. You're saying that they had no basis in law to charge the fees, yet they had a basis to sue for the fees anyway. So they had a basis to sue for fees they had no basis to charge in the first place. Uh huh, you bet. That's one of the loopiest arguments I've heard in quite some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Car Radios
That is how the system works. Until a precedent is set there is no proof as to how the statutes will be interpreted; often the first case is called a 'test case'. You don't need a legal basis to charge fees and I never suggested that you do; nor do you need a legal basis to bring a suit, though you may get in trouble if you clearly intended to waste the court's time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Car Radios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened to Mr. Riley?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
same in uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxis?
This is just getting ridiculous . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taxis?
> yes they do in the UK. If only in the drivers side then no.
Because there's no way sound could travel from the front seat of a car to the back seat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Taxis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Taxis?
No, they were *asked* to pay. They declined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
I'm all for getting paid for one's work, but at what point does hotel music turn into such a valuable commodity that needs to be policed like this?
Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public?
Then I would say it's not a "public performance".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public?
Then I would say it's not a "public performance".
The guests aren't the ones giving the "public performance" and that's why they aren't being asked to pay the fee. The hotel is the one offering rooms to "the public" and including entertainment in the package. That's why it's being called a "public performance".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public?
Blockbuster makes videos available to the public to rent, but does that make watching a movie in your basement a public performance? Record stores sell CDs to the public, but does that make listening to a purchased CD a public performance? And what about the car example? Should auto makers pay royalties because they sell cars to the public with entertainment systems in them?
It's not a matter of who the customers are. The question of public performance should have to do with the nature of the actual performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public?
If blockbuster were showing the rented movies on their premises then, yes, it would be a public performance subject to fees.
Record stores sell CDs to the public, but does that make listening to a purchased CD a public performance?
I once knew someone who ran a record store and they had to pay a fee in order to play music over the speakers in the store. So there's your answer. And yes, other stores that play background music have to pay fees too. That includes automobile dealers.
It's not a matter of who the customers are. The question of public performance should have to do with the nature of the actual performance.
It's a question of the location of the performance and whether that place is open to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I'm hearing an ad, I've already paid for the performance with my attention - attention that has already been converted into cash by the media company that (a) counted me as part of its audience and (b) licensed the music they played accordingly.
The record companies are, in essence, subcontractors who are now stepping way out of line. Dealing with them is like dealing with a tire company attempting to bill you directly for the tires that already came on the new car you already bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's just the way it is. For example, restaurants and bars have long had to pay licensing fees in order to play music and television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we also need ot start charing royalties on the following
this means that every user of hammers must PAY per use.
THATS right we want you to pay everytime you need a hammer. NOT going to pay well were gonna think of the children and put cameras all around you , create the world wide hammer organization to police you and make even more insane hammer laws
thats right you scamming home builders were on to you now. ITS time to make the WWH
and WWE people are going to be hired to get you to pay
Don't worry a donation of every bit of your money will be paid also to the WWF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats next?
All of this comes from people who are allready well of (making enough money to support themselves). I have a college degree and Im in poverty and cant find a job, and these mother ****** millionares want to make more money off me.
Companies like these make me sick. I wont be buying any more electronics (computers, televisions, etc...). **** the digital revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats next?
Actually, they've been talking about charging public performance fees for ring-tones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is actually great ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
capital idea
We would like the royalties to this idea, it nothing short of wonderful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEY if its performance then why aint i gettin paid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Performance Fee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Performance fees
As a composer and an Artist I've had enough. None of these fees ever get paid to the Artist's. As the part-owner of an Online Radio Station I can testify that in 5 years of being a legal Radio Station and paying our fees on time to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, we have never been asked to send a list of songs played on the station. When we asked about this the answer was that all songs on the Radio is covered by one of the above agencies. That's a lie. My music gets played on the Radio Station and I don't get paid because ASCAP, BMI and SESAC don't recognize anyone but the big 5 as being registered. Go to one of their web-sites and try to sign up as an indie. Hah!!! What a joke. The entire system is corrupt and will die a flaming death after enough people get sick of it.
I want the government that I paid a Copyright fee to to actually protect me. The way it works now is a shell game. The government takes the money and then leaves you hanging. The backlog in the Copyright Office in the United States is a joke. It takes months to actually get a piece of paper proving your copyright, thus leaving us with the only option which is the poor man's copyright. When I called the Copyright Office after waiting 6 months I was told to use the poor man's copyright by the guy on the phone and was told it was legal.
My point is: Why do I need the Copyright Office when all I need to do is burn a write-once, read-many CD or DVD. It burns the file date on the CD/DVD and I can find no way to change that date once it is burned into the CD/DVD. So using the poor man's copyright by burning a CD/DVD of your work, sealing it into an envelope and then mailing it to yourself to get the postmark. This is an almost immediate copyright and allows easily for revisions.
Why would I wait 6 to 9 months to pay an agency who doesn't even protect me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enter the above lawyers
PRIVATE
as in none of your fraking business
this is the hollywood mentality that nothing is sacred
that you shuld be wearign a camera up your ass and around ozzy osbourne style
99% of real people would and do find that massively offensive and not only offensive but annoying , degrading and dare i say it CRIMINAL.
and did that store BUY the cds or dvds ...YES
Another thought
SO
landlord rents a room to me.
if i am playing tunes YOUR saying its now a preformance
if he gives me free cable its now also a preformance
and he should pay even more
that cable has audio channels and sound.....
no and when the revolution comes the lawyers WILL be the first to go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it's double dipping, Alex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAM's mom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Car stereo tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@AC #54
I don't think TAM or their mom have commented in this thread unless you know something I don't know. Perhaps you think Tam's comments are similar and you've blocked us both. Wow, that's so sad.
So, who is this Anonymous Coward that keeps trying to pull a TAM on someone? I expect better from you.
Hey Mike, look into this, or else I will have to register MikeAfterDark.com or MikeDirt.com and set up a site where we can talk about this kind of stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @AC #54
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what is going to happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I'm sayin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]