<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;hotels&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NYC Says Renting Out Your Place Via Airbnb Is Running An Illegal Hotel</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130521/12175523157/nyc-says-renting-out-your-place-via-airbnb-is-running-illegal-hotel.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130521/12175523157/nyc-says-renting-out-your-place-via-airbnb-is-running-illegal-hotel.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen this over and over again: new and innovative startups enter a market in a creative and compelling way, and a combination of incumbents and regulators get in the way of something cool happening.  Perhaps the most well known recent example of this is with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=uber">Uber</a>, but probably a close second is Airbnb.  Airbnb is the immensely popular system for letting people rent out their homes/apartments/spare rooms to willing guests for (usually) short stays.  Completely coincidentally, just this morning, I tried Airbnb for the very first time, trying to book a stay in Manhattan for an upcoming trip.  And... soon after I submitted my request, I saw this report that officials in New York City have <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57585377-93/ny-official-airbnb-stay-illegal-host-fined-%242400/" target="_blank">deemed Airbnb to violate the city's "illegal hotel law."</a>  Basically, they're arguing that people renting out their homes are running illegal hotels.  They originally asked the guy who rented his condo out to pay $7,000 for both violating that law and for zoning and building code violations, but then dropped the latter part, and lowered the fine to $2,400 for just the hotel part.
<br /><br />
Of course, laws like the illegal hotel law are supposed to be about public safety, and to maintain certain health and safety standards.  But, the reality is that, like so much regulation these days, it's turned into a way to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/00031719500/why-you-cant-braid-someones-hair-utah-money-without-first-paying-16k.shtml">keep competition out</a>.  Laws to protect hotel visitors certainly made some amount of sense in the past, but most of the reasons why they're in place don't necessarily apply to the way Airbnb functions.  Because we can now share information pretty easily, Airbnb's detailed review system and communication process take away most of the "risk" that necessitated a health and safety law.
<br /><br />
Just as an example, in my own search for a place to stay, I went through about half a dozen different apartments that were available, and looked over the pictures and carefully read the reviews.  I immediately discounted the cheapest one, because multiple reviews mentioned that the apartment had not been cleaned prior to them showing up.  Information and the sharing of information made that place undesirable just like that.  No laws needed.  I also emailed back and forth with a few other apartment/condo owners to find out some details about their places, before finally selecting one that worked for me.  Honestly, the experience has been awesome so far, giving me much greater choice, and the likelihood of a much nicer stay than in a hotel.
<br /><br />
The new ruling doesn't suddenly make Airbnb itself "illegal," but does suggest that if the city finds out that you're using the service, you could face stiff fines.  At the heart of the issue is a really stupid law that was basically designed to make Airbnb impossible: it says you <a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130512/TECHNOLOGY/305129987" target="_blankl">can't rent out your place for less than 29 days</a>.  The only purpose of this law is to protect hotels from competition.  The backer of the law claims that it was really about landlords illegally converting residential buildings into hotels, but if that was the case, they should have made the bill a lot clearer, because it's being used to punish this Airbnb user.  Airbnb, which tried to intervene in the case, is (quite reasonably) disappointed:
<blockquote><i>
This decision runs contrary to the stated intention and the plain text of New York law, so obviously we are disappointed. But more importantly, this decision makes it even more critical that New York law be clarified to make sure regular New Yorkers can occasionally rent out their own homes. There is universal agreement that occasional hosts like Nigel Warren were not the target of the 2010 law, but that agreement provides little comfort to the handful of people, like Nigel, who find themselves targeted by overzealous enforcement officials. It is time to fix this law and protect hosts who occasionally rent out their own homes. Eighty-seven percent of Airbnb hosts in New York list just a home they live in -- they are average New Yorkers trying to make ends meet, not illegal hotels that should be subject to the 2010 law.
</i></blockquote>
As the reports note, this doesn't mean that the city will now be going after the tens of thousands of residents who rent their places out on Airbnb, but if complaints are filed, it can go after them.  Hopefully, this doesn't scare off the person whose house I just requested... But, more importantly, this shows, yet again, why bad regulations can do serious harm to innovation, often while serving to protect less innovative incumbents.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130521/12175523157/nyc-says-renting-out-your-place-via-airbnb-is-running-illegal-hotel.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130521/12175523157/nyc-says-renting-out-your-place-via-airbnb-is-running-illegal-hotel.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130521/12175523157/nyc-says-renting-out-your-place-via-airbnb-is-running-illegal-hotel.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>stifling-innovation</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130521/12175523157</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hotel Lock Company Wants Hotels To Pay For Fixing Their Hackable Product</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120823/10320820137/hotel-lock-company-wants-hotels-to-pay-fixing-their-hackable-product.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120823/10320820137/hotel-lock-company-wants-hotels-to-pay-fixing-their-hackable-product.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Picture yourself on vacation. You leave your hotel room, listening to the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/04441818156/bizarre-combo-rulings-eu-court-justice-dentists-dont-have-to-pay-music-royalties-hotels-do.shtml">fully-licensed music</a> in the lobby on your way out. You make sure not to ask the hotel staff for anything as you leave, lest something called a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/10594817227/goodwill-hospitality-theft-continue-to-drive-up-cost-holiday-season.shtml">PARFF</a> come after you. And as you&#39;re out frolicking on the beach, sucking in that gut and puffing out your chest (asexual insults FTW!), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers_(film)">Zero Cool</a> takes a small electronic device that costs less than your average Electronic Arts videogame and hacks your hotel room&#39;s lock, giving him access to all the tourist crap you bought in the past three days.<br />
<br />
Now, I know what you&#39;re thinking. You&#39;re thinking that this couldn&#39;t possibly happen. After all, Johnny Lee Miller is probably still too busy spinning in place from the speed with which Eli Stone was cancelled after two seasons (and again, I&#39;m reminded that Firefly lasted <i>one</i>. Sigh...) to be stealing stuff from your hotel room. And besides, it can&#39;t be that freaking easy to hack into a hotel lock, can it?<br />
<br />
Yes, it can. Forbes has the story of hotel lock-maker Onity&#39;s reaction to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/17/hotel-lock-firms-fix-for-security-flaw-requires-hardware-changes-for-millions-of-locks/">Cody Brocious revealing at a Black Hat security conference</a> how to hack the company&#39;s locks (found on over 4 million hotel room doors) with $50 worth of equipment.
<blockquote>
<i>The company&rsquo;s response to that epic security bug has two parts&ndash;a quick fix, and a more rigorous one, both of which it plans to make available by the end of August: First, it&rsquo;s issuing caps that cover the data port Brocious&rsquo;s hack exploited, which can only be removed by opening the lock&rsquo;s case. To further stymie hackers who would try to open the locks and remove that cap, it&rsquo;s also sending customers new, more obscure Torx screws to replace those on the cases of installed locks.</i><br />
<br />
<i>The second fix is more substantial: Onity will offer its customers new circuit boards and firmware that ostensibly fix the problems Brocious demonstrated.</i></blockquote>
Not bad, right? We&#39;ve certainly seen companies in the past react poorly when shown the security flaws in their products, attempting to silence those that point them out rather than just fixing the problems. So this would seem to be a step in the right direction, yes? Maybe, except for this:
<blockquote>
<i>But Onity is asking owners of some models of its locks of some to pay a &ldquo;nominal fee&rdquo; for the fix, while offering others &ldquo;special pricing programs&rdquo; to cover the cost of replacing components. It&rsquo;s also asking its customers to cover the shipping and labor costs of making hardware changes to the millions of locks worldwide.</i></blockquote>
That&#39;s ridiculous. Onity sold hotels a product that had one job to do: keep the wrong people out of hotel rooms. The product does the job so poorly that $50 worth of equipment and a little technical know-how defeats it entirely. And now you want <i>customers</i> to pay to fix your bad device?
<br /><br />
Even Brocious himself pushed back on Onity&#39;s statement.
<blockquote>
<i>Brocious criticized Onity&rsquo;s move to put the financial onus for the fix on its customers after selling them what he&rsquo;s described as fundamentally insecure products. While the free mechanical cap solution could create hurdles for hackers, he says that&rsquo;s only a partial fix replacement until the lock&rsquo;s circuit boards are replaced&ndash;something that&rsquo;s not likely to happen if it requires millions of dollars in costs for Onity&rsquo;s customers. &ldquo;This will not be insignificant, given that the majority of hotels are small and independently owned and operated. Given that it won&rsquo;t be a low cost endeavour, it&rsquo;s not hard to imagine that many hotels will choose not to properly fix the issues, leaving customers in danger,&rdquo; he writes.</i></blockquote>
It&#39;s an especially bizarre move in terms of public relations. How quickly do you think word will get around to other hotel owners, particularly small independent hotels, about how Onity designs their locks and treats their customers? This <i>could</i> be a win for Onity, if they go out of their way to properly fix their flawed product, but instead they appear to want to turn this into a double-dip of bad business.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120823/10320820137/hotel-lock-company-wants-hotels-to-pay-fixing-their-hackable-product.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120823/10320820137/hotel-lock-company-wants-hotels-to-pay-fixing-their-hackable-product.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120823/10320820137/hotel-lock-company-wants-hotels-to-pay-fixing-their-hackable-product.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-probably-will-next-time,-too</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120823/10320820137</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:02:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Bizarre Combo Rulings From EU Court Of Justice: Dentists Don't Have To Pay Music Royalties, But Hotels Do</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/04441818156/bizarre-combo-rulings-eu-court-justice-dentists-dont-have-to-pay-music-royalties-hotels-do.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/04441818156/bizarre-combo-rulings-eu-court-justice-dentists-dont-have-to-pay-music-royalties-hotels-do.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml">pay up</a> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080612/1158191390.shtml">police station</a> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1134566619.shtml">sang while stacking cans</a>.  And the craziest of all: the time when the owner of a horse stable was told to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml">pay up</a> because her horses liked listening to music.
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090421/0328544592.shtml">sales people</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090202/0128383597.shtml">hear any music in the background</a>, demanding a license.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, it appears that the EU Court of Justice is pushing back on <i>some</i> of that.  It recently <a href="http://euobserver.com/871/115621#.T2cCyGfYteQ.twitter" target="_blank">issued two rulings about royalty collections</a>  -- 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 <b>does not</b> need to pay a royalty because patients don't go to the dentist for the music:
<blockquote><i>
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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
Consequently such a broadcast is not of a profit-making nature...
</i></blockquote>
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.
<br /><br />
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.
<blockquote><i>
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></blockquote>
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/04441818156/bizarre-combo-rulings-eu-court-justice-dentists-dont-have-to-pay-music-royalties-hotels-do.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/04441818156/bizarre-combo-rulings-eu-court-justice-dentists-dont-have-to-pay-music-royalties-hotels-do.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/04441818156/bizarre-combo-rulings-eu-court-justice-dentists-dont-have-to-pay-music-royalties-hotels-do.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>see-if-you-can-figure-it-out</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120319/04441818156</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:19:43 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Really The Best Way To Respond To A Potentially False Hotel Review?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110725/03441115230/is-filing-defamation-lawsuit-really-best-way-to-respond-to-potentially-false-hotel-review.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110725/03441115230/is-filing-defamation-lawsuit-really-best-way-to-respond-to-potentially-false-hotel-review.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I'm catching up on some slightly older stories and this one was submitted a few times, but I'm just getting around to it.  It involves the Carleton Hotel in Oak Park, Illinois, suing a couple for defamation for <a href="http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/06-20-2011/Oak_Park_hotel_sues_over_bedbug_claim" target="_blank">posting an online review that claimed the hotel had bed bugs</a> -- a big concern for hotels these days.  The hotel denies that it has bed bugs.  Actually, it goes further than that.  It shows the report from the pest control company that came in and inspected the specific rooms that the family stayed in after hearing from them that they had discovered bed bugs in their house, and believed they came from the hotel.  That report says: "Not a single bed bug, dead or alive, was observed.  Additionally, no fecal, blood evidence was found."  Additionally, the hotel notes that the couple its suing are well aware of this, because the hotel's manager sent them the pest control report the day after they contacted him... which was four days before they posted the review to TripAdvisor.  In response, the husband told the manager via email: "I will do whatever I can through media outlets or publicity to say that your hotel is negligent in admittance of this bedbug issue."
<br><Br>
From the info provided, and without hearing the response from the family, it certainly looks like the hotel has a decent case for defamation here.  However, I'm still a bit troubled that it would go after the family, demanding $30,000 -- especially if the family truly believes (even in error) that it got bed bugs from the hotel.  If anything, I'm less inclined to stay at a hotel that potentially sues its customers.
<br><br>
Now, of course, others will say, "but what else could be done" in situations where a false and potentially very damaging review is posted.  It seems here's a situation where "more speech" should be the answer.  The details laid out in the filing are very clear and quite convincing to me (again, not having heard the other side).  I don't believe the hotel has bed bugs.  So it seems like a better way to handle this would be to post that same info in response to the review, such that people can see that the review itself is not at all credible.  Yet, in our legalistic society today, the first move always appears to be to sue.  That's unfortunate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110725/03441115230/is-filing-defamation-lawsuit-really-best-way-to-respond-to-potentially-false-hotel-review.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110725/03441115230/is-filing-defamation-lawsuit-really-best-way-to-respond-to-potentially-false-hotel-review.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110725/03441115230/is-filing-defamation-lawsuit-really-best-way-to-respond-to-potentially-false-hotel-review.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bed-bugs</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110725/03441115230</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:19:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Couple Kicked Out Of Hotel After Manager Accuses Them Of Writing A Bad Review</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/03082411131/couple-kicked-out-of-hotel-after-manager-accuses-them-of-writing-a-bad-review.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/03082411131/couple-kicked-out-of-hotel-after-manager-accuses-them-of-writing-a-bad-review.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been covering the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/23454710982.shtml">recent legal threats</a> against TripAdvisor over "bad reviews" of hotels, which some hotels greatly dislike.  However, it seems that one hotel manager decided to take matters into his own hands, and <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/09/hotel-kicks-couple-out-after-accusing-them-of-writing5.1283958303.1285070894.1285074777.80.html" target="_blank">kicked a vacationing couple out of their hotel room and called the police</a> after accusing them of writing a bad review of the hotel.  The police <a href="http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Man-thrown-out-of-hotel.6535710.jp" target="_blank">admit they were called</a>, but say the man didn't break any laws.  The police supposedly advised the couple what to do to get a refund, and noted that "this is a civil matter."  It's unclear from the article at the Blackpool Gazette (the link above) what evidence there was that this couple actually wrote the review, but needless to say the couple was not at all pleased about this.  I would imagine that they're probably planning to write an even harsher review now, so it's unclear what good kicking them out did.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/03082411131/couple-kicked-out-of-hotel-after-manager-accuses-them-of-writing-a-bad-review.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/03082411131/couple-kicked-out-of-hotel-after-manager-accuses-them-of-writing-a-bad-review.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/03082411131/couple-kicked-out-of-hotel-after-manager-accuses-them-of-writing-a-bad-review.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thin-skinned-hotel-manager</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100923/03082411131</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:28:41 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NY Hotels Upset Over More Efficient 'Home' Competition; Gets Politicians To Try To Outlaw Such Things</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100628/0037599977.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100628/0037599977.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen it time and time again.  The internet enables people to communicate directly with each other and create more efficient solutions than some larger (often regulated) industry, and that industry freaks out.  Remember how a bus company <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080822/1208412067.shtml">freaked out</a> about an online carpooling service and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/1845132812.shtml">had it fined</a> for being an "unregulated transportation company?"  It looks like something similar, though in a different field, is happening in New York.  With hotels in the Big Apple being ridiculously expensive much of the time, people have taken to Craigslist, as well as some specific services like AirBnB, Crashpadder and Roomorama, to find residents willing to rent out their rooms or apartments on a short-term basis -- for much lower prices.
<br /><br />
But, of course, that upsets the hotels, which have their high prices and don't like the competition.  So, it seems <a href="http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2010/06/new_york_controversy_a_crackdo.html" target="_blank">they've convinced politicians to try to effectively outlaw the practice</a>:
<blockquote><i>
This week, New York state senators <a href="http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A10008">vote on a bill</a> that would make it illegal for any homeowner or renter to sublet for less than a month. The new law would be a blanket ban on short-term rentals -- no matter how ethical the renter is.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, as we always see with these types of laws, the politicians couch them in terms of the need for regulation for things like "protecting tax revenue" or "safety standards."  But, of course, there are plenty of other ways to deal with those issues outside of outlawing the practice entirely.  The reality of the situation is that the internet has made it so that people can be more efficient in things like transportation or short-term housing, and the old guard doesn't like it one bit, so they come up with regulations like these to outlaw it, even though it greatly harms the public, who get more out of using such services.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100628/0037599977.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100628/0037599977.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100628/0037599977.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-this-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100628/0037599977</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1134566619.shtml">singing</a> without paying.  There was the owner of a horse stable who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml">played music to her horses</a>.  There was the attempt to say that your mobile phone ringing with a ringtone <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090620/1836345299.shtml">was a public performance</a>.  Basically, they're willing to claim just about any music playing is a public performance that requires yet another fee.
<br /><br />
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 <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0319/1224266596757.html" target="_blank">music played in hotel rooms for guests</a> 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.
<br /><br />
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?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1105388633.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-come-on-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100319/1105388633</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:18:25 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hotels.com Not Unique Enough To Get A Trademark</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1548355665.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1548355665.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://twitter.com/ericgoldman/statuses/2820769342">Eric Goldman</a> points us to the news that <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1429.pdf" target="_new">Hotels.com has had the trademark application on its own name rejected</a> (warning: pdf) as being too generic.  I have to admit I'm really, really surprised about this.  I would think that the combination of "hotels" with a ".com" on the end switches it from being generic to distinct, since there's only one hotels.com.  However, the trademark board and the court note that there are lots of other sites that use a combination of hotels and .com, such as www.all-hotels.com, www.web-hotels.com, www.my-discount-hotels.com.  That could be true, but I think those are all different enough themselves from the straight hotels.com that even getting a trademark on hotels.com alone shouldn't prohibit those other sites from existing.  But that's not what the court found, noting that hotels.com itself was perfectly generic and unprotectable by trademark.  It's not clear how much this would actually <i>matter</i>, since anyone else using the phrase will ultimately end up helping to advertise hotels.com itself.  However, it does raise significant questions about trademarks on other generic words plus a .com at the end.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1548355665.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1548355665.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1548355665.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-.com-isn't-unique?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090726/1548355665</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Marriott Finally Realizes Guests Might Not Want USA Today Outside Their Door Each Morning</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090413/1115214480.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090413/1115214480.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the last two boutique hotels I stayed at, when I checked in, they asked if I wanted a physical newspaper delivered each morning.  This is a good thing, as, for me, mornings in hotels consist of me checking up on the news via my laptop, and then getting annoyed when I finally open the door to head out and realize there's as newspaper there I need to throw out.  However, the big hotels have continued to force it on you whether you want it or not.  Perhaps that's finally changing.  Marriott is the first major hotel chain to say that it will now <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003961613" target="_new">stop automatically delivering a paper to hotel rooms</a>, instead giving guests the option as to whether or not they want it.  While I'm sure some newspapers (especially USA Today) may be freaking out about this decision, it only makes sense.  The hotels will certainly save a lot of money, guests are happier and everyone wastes a lot less paper.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090413/1115214480.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090413/1115214480.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090413/1115214480.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>think-of-the-savings</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090413/1115214480</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:23:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Hotels Get Facial-Recognition Sales Pitch</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090213/0958293763.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090213/0958293763.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Facial-recognition technology has long been touted as a magic bullet for law enforcement and surveillance, though most such systems have proven to be essentially <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20060523/1058222.shtml">useless</a>. Vendors have been trying to extend their reach outside of surveillance, though, into areas like <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080601/1426451277.shtml">advertising</a>. One is now pitching its wares <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/13/face_ware_hotel_guests/" target="_new">to the hospitality industry</a>, saying that the roughly $30,000 system can help hotels recognize repeat customers. The system still has shortcomings: it's only 80 to 90 percent effective when people "move through a chokepoint facing the camera - ideally looking up into it and well lit", such as an escalator. That's the same sort of issue that's dogged facial recognition in law enforcement and surveillance: it just doesn't work that well. And for $30,000, it seems doubtful that many hotels will want to buy the systems, when, if they really wanted to get to know their most valued customers, they could do so for free.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090213/0958293763.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090213/0958293763.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090213/0958293763.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>who's-there?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090213/0958293763</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>