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?

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: verwertungsgesellschaft rundfunk

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “EU Advocate General Declares That Hotels Don't Need To Pay Copyright License To Have In-Room Television”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

If IP laws are really about the artists/public then why is it mostly big corporate entities responsible for pushing for them? Where are the giant protests of artists and the public in their favor? Because I’ve seen lots of public protests against their expansion all the way up to the point where Hillary Clinton had to temporarily change her stance on TPP just to get rid of Bernie Sanders since voters are so unhappy with expanding IP laws.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Perhaps it is time to look at what these societies are actually doing, which seems to be actively harming the public accessing content.
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.

orbitalinsertion (profile) says:

It’s necessary because we developed a climate and culture of of this sort of behavior that has started to expand at an accelerated rate. And once it wins or loses one avenue of control or tax imposition, it goes looking for other avenues, no matter how small or stupid. The really bad wins just feed it even more.

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.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Not "just to have televisions within guest rooms"

It’s not clear from the article, but the collection society was not complaining about the TVs being there, they were complaining that the hotel was communicating/rebroadcasting to the rooms: “Member States shall provide for broadcasting organisations the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit … the communication to the public of their broadcasts…”.

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...