EU Advocate General Declares That Hotels Don't Need To Pay Copyright License To Have In-Room Television
from the oh-ok dept
We've seen all manner of silly claims by copyright licensing groups as to what requires what kind of license in every kind of circumstance. These licensing groups have gone after children's charities. A UK collection society had the strategy of calling up local businesses and demanding payments should they hear music playing in the background. The Author's Guild once claimed that reading a book out loud constituted the need for a separate license, while ASCAP asserted with a straight face that the ring of a mobile phone was a public performance. This panoply of idiocy might be funny, except for the very real harm done through this kind of harassment.
Even the good stories in this vein weigh heavily in that they are necessary at all. For instance, the advocate general for the EU's Court of Justice recently wrote an opinion advising that hotels didn't need a copyright license just to have televisions within guest rooms. It's a good ruling, but conjures the frustrating question as to why it was needed in the first place. The answer, of course, is because a collection group was attempting to collect from hotels for just that reason.
On Monday, Court of Justice of the European Union advocate general Maciej Szpunar published his opinion on a case brought by the Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk, a royalty collecting and copyright management company comparable to the BPI in the UK or MPAA in the US. The collecting company had asked a local court to force a hotel to pay extra licensing fees because guests were watching TV in their rooms. Vienna's Commercial Court, in its turn, sought guidance from the CJEU on how EU copyright law should be interpreted in this case.
At issue in this case was an EU directive on rental and lending rights, which affords broadcasters the right to allow or not allow the rebroadcasting of their content to the public. Specifically, the law states that this right applies only when an entrance fee to view such content is levied by the rebroadcaster. What the collection society argued was that hotels were levying such a fee, because it included televisions in rooms for which they were charging guests. That isn't remotely how the law was supposed to be applied.
But Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk made the argument anyway, because facts and truth have no place in the realm of a collection society, where the only goal is to seek as much rent as possible in every circumstance, while providing as little value as possible. Again, it's a good opinion, but it's not a ruling in the case. That ruling will be taken up by the other justices on the court and they will take Szpunar's opinion on the matter into account. The general feeling appears to be that the court will side with Szpunar's opinion, which is also good.
But all I can think about is why is this necessary to begin with?
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: advocate general, cjeu, copyright, court of justice, eu, hotel rooms, hotels, licenses, public performance
Companies: verwertungsgesellschaft rundfunk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Many of these ideas have no place in our current society, and many of these collection societies exist only to make themselves seem needed while interfering.
The world is a global platform, it is time to stop mucking everything up with 150 collection agencies pushing different things in 150 different places and just clean it all up and trim off the fat. We needed to pay people to go around and light the street lights at night, but we got better tech... lets replace these societies with a simple spreadsheet & actually pay the artists what is collected in their name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am quite sure these "societies" see what is going on elsewhere and then sit around brainstorming until they can come up with some next ridiculous claim to power and cash prizes. Think outside the box! (Can a fart that reminded people of some melody be considered a public performance? And under which rules can we demand compensation? Is this a sheet music thing or a you stole my song thing? We demand 80% of the cut from your fart.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's a real sickness this constant desire for wealth that can never be used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, even that wouldn't be enough, they'd still insist that someone out there owed them more money and like the criminals they were were simply hiding the money from it's 'rightful owners'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because, as well established, these people are greedy assholes with no ability to consider anything beyond how to extort as much money as possible - from people who already pay them - with no consideration as to long term consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm betting that 75% goes to execs and Lawyers...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Seek as much rent as possible in every circumstance, while providing as little value as possible."
-Rule of Acquisition 79
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not "just to have televisions within guest rooms"
So if the TV only used a built-in antenna, or was just there for guests to display stuff from their own computers, this law wouldn't apply. I'm sure the copyright lobby would still complain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]