Bizarre Combo Rulings From EU Court Of Justice: Dentists Don't Have To Pay Music Royalties, But Hotels Do
from the see-if-you-can-figure-it-out dept
Over the last few years, collection societies have become ridiculously aggressive in trying to get just about anyone to pay up for playing music. The results have been rather crazy, with auto garages being told that they have to pay up because the mechanics out in the garage had the radio on loud enough that customers in the waiting room could hear it. Ditto for a police station where some officers had a radio on in the back, but which some of the public could hear in the front. Then there was the demand that a grocery story pay up because a shop assistant sang while stacking cans. And the craziest of all: the time when the owner of a horse stable was told to pay up because her horses liked listening to music.A lot of this comes from the simple fact that these collection societies are really just trying to squeeze as much excess revenue as they can out of any location they can find. It's gotten to the point where the "copyright investigators" are really sales people, and are given incentives just like a sales person. They have revenue targets with bonuses for extra revenue they bring in. This gives them incentives to do all sorts of crazy things... like randomly calling up small businesses and if they hear any music in the background, demanding a license.
Thankfully, it appears that the EU Court of Justice is pushing back on some of that. It recently issued two rulings about royalty collections -- but unfortunately it seems like the two rulings conflict with each other in some ways. In one, it is determined that a dentist's office does not need to pay a royalty because patients don't go to the dentist for the music:
Finally, it cannot be disputed that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, a dentist who broadcasts phonograms, by way of background music, in the presence of his patients cannot reasonably either expect a rise in the number of patients because of that broadcast alone or increase the price of the treatment he provides. Therefore, such a broadcast is not liable, in itself, to have an impact on the income of that dentist.Of course, you could make the identical argument about music playing in all sorts of places. But, at the very least, it certainly suggests that the music playing at an auto mechanic's garage or a police station are not subject to royalty collections under EU law.
The patients of a dentist visit a dental practice with the sole objective of receiving treatment, as the broadcasting of phonograms is in no way a part of dental treatment. They have access to certain phonograms by chance and without any active choice on their part, according to the time of their arrival at the practice and the length of time they wait and the nature of the treatment they undergo. Accordingly, it cannot be presumed that the usual customers of a dentist are receptive as regards the broadcast in question.
Consequently such a broadcast is not of a profit-making nature...
But then there's the other ruling. The exact same court. The exact same panel of judges. The exact same day. Very different ruling. This one involved a hotel, and the question of whether or not music playing in the hotel rooms is subject to collections. And here, the court comes to the opposite conclusion, and says that the hotel must pay.
In a press statement, the Court said that since music in hotels is broadcast to an "indeterminate number of potential listeners" and is "of a profit-making nature" hoteliers are liable for royalty payments. It added that broadcasting music constitutes an "additional service which has an influence on the hotel's standing and, therefore, on the price of rooms."I'm having difficulty figuring out the difference here. The article linked above notes that these rulings hinge on "the concept of public" which is based on "'an indeterminate number of potential listeners and a fairly large number of persons,' alongside the question of a profit motive." However, it seems like a total judgment call in either case as to whether or not there is a "fairly large number of persons" and just where "the profit motive" comes into play. Both dentists and hotels have a profit motive, and both play music in part because of that reason. But it's arguable as to whether or not the music has a direct impact on actual profits in either case. In the end, the pair of rulings just seems to leave everything a lot more confused, rather than clarified in any way.
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: collection societies, dentist offices, eu, hotels, music, pros, royalties
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The difference
The difference is simply the degree to which it's deemed that music contributes to the appeal of a service. I'm not saying that I agree with the judgement about the hotel, but I can see the logic of accounting for how the availability of music affects drawing in customers. Having music at a bar draws more people in. If you surveyed bargoers, you'd have a relatively high percentage of people that would say having music would make them more likely to patronize a bar. But not so with a auto shop, police station, or a stable. But...the hotel? Probably somewhere in the middle. Again, it's subjective, but I think at least the scale being used is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The difference
... and if so, one would presume that the music in hotel rooms, like the TV, has various channels to select, or can be turned off or on by the guest as desired, unlike the dentist's office (although that would be grand - in light of what usually gets played at dentists).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference
Would make for an interesting case regarding infringement
"without monetary gain" which is mentioned now in the ridiculously long timed FBI anti-piracy warnings on DVDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time of day
I believe the hotel was close to closing time, everyone wanted to go home, and they just decided to say, "Screw it, tax the hotel"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time of day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time of day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do some hotels not have radios in them? I've never once seen an ad for a hotel saying I should pick them cause they'll have a radio/alarm clock, I thought that was standard across the board and so it would in no way be a deciding factor in where someone stayed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you see hotels adversing that if you get a room you have access to a bed and a fridge ? Or do you think you need to be told that ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a side note, I've had to travel a bit for work, staying at various hotels. For the life of me I can't recall ever hearing any music, most likely because it was "muzak" and easily ignored anyways. Can't see how it add's any value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From that I would assume they are talking about the radios in individual rooms, not elevator music or music in a lobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, but only if they just play the "Dentist!" song from Little Shop of Horrors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like the term "phonograms"...
A little off the subject, but it's a lot like the name "Grammy Awards." ...because they're giving awards to the best "gramophone" recording? Huh?
At some point, they should have renamed them the "Phonies" at least, but that would have hit too close to home I suppose.
Now, they could name them the "Seedies" (CD's?), which has a certain ring to it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I like the term "phonograms"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I like the term "phonograms"...
drum roll
.....
.....
....
....
...
...
It's a tie between the MPAA/RIAA (and the UK counterparts).
Would be a great award show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/10570810083.shtml
At 600 comments, its quite a read, but that quote from the judges decision captures much of what a lot of people were trying to say counter to what he was saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, my feeling is that in terms of the contribution to profits, the music is probably doing a lot more at the dentist's office (where helping alleviate a stressful experience through good music, nice decor, etc. is potentially rather important in retaining patients) than at the hotel (where the "indeterminate number" of listeners is most likely very low in reality).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Hotel radios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bizzare is Mikes mania
You go to a hotel for the overall ambience for a level of comfort and convience, part of that experience is nice carpets, clean room, carpet, heating, aircon and yes entertainment, in room movies, radio, TV, internet ect.
That is why you pay to go to hotels, you are paying for those things, it is reasonable that the people who made the carpet, created the movies, built the fridge should be able to make a living from their efforts..
You go to a dentist NOT for the ambience, not for the convience and for the accomidation, or the entertainment.
You go to the dentist to receive medical treatment, notice the distinction ? You dont pay the dentist for the music he plays, you pay him to fix your teeth !
The dentist is not providing you entertainment in return for money, a hotel does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizzare is Mikes mania
How about the argument that the music is more necessary to relax people at a dentist's, whereas the hotel is somewhere the ambience and enjoyment is usually a lot higher, and it's somewhat more likely you've chosen to be there?
We're having a civilised debate here, so how about you try really really hard to prove that you can be civilised, instead of proving why we sent all our gutter scum to the Antipodes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizzare is Mikes mania
Good, so since the hotel already paid for the fridge and carpet once they should only need to pay for the music once. Unless you're telling me the hotel needs to pay a fridge and carpet license for every time someone uses them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bizzare is Mikes mania
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bizzare is Mikes mania
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that buzarre as it sounds
If you're tutor that have more than 9 students in the same lesson, the place will be recognized as school and will be required to get a permit from educational department in order to run legally.
I think the ruling can be simplified to "headcounts counts".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the hotel can charge higher prices ergo incurring a direct benefit from having radios in the guest rooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd like to know this, too. The radio station is already paying to broadcast the song to everyone within range. I realize that this payment is tiny, but that's a contract issue between the stations and the music companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CC to the rescue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
Unfortunately, until the "copyright investigators" are no longer given incentives to find more and more victims then it won't stop. Yes, some action should be taken but charging hotels is not it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]