Indoors audio broadcasting of sound recordings

On September 15, 2005 the Civil Court of Appeals set the following plenary ruling(1):

“The public communication of sound recordings taking place inside a hotel room is not included within the exception provided in section 33 of Decree-Law No 41,233/34 – exclusively familiar domicile– to obtain the royalty payment exemption provided in Decrees No 1,670/74 and No 1,671/74”.

Decree No 1,670/74 modified section 35 of Decree-Law No 41,233/34 and established the right of performers and sound recording producers to collect a fee from any person who occasionally or permanently obtains a direct or indirect benefit from the public use of a sound recording.

On the other hand, Decree No 1,671/74 granted to AADI CAPIF (Argentine association representing performers and sound recording producers) the exclusive right and monopoly to collect such fees, which are not due if the representation or public communication of the musical works takes place in a “not exclusively familiar domicile” (section 33 of Decree-Law No 41,233/34).

However, the Civil Court of Appeals understood that the communication of music inside a hotel room must be considered an act of public communication. The reason would be that the successive occupants of the rooms fall within the category of “public” to whom the hotelier transmits musical works with lucrative purposes.

Therefore, since a hotel room does not constitute an “exclusively familiar domicile”, hoteliers must pay the fees due to AADI CAPIF in accordance with the legislation in force.

(1) Civil Court of Appeals, plenary session, 15-09-2005, “AADI CAPIF ACR vs. Catalinas Suites S.A. re.: payment of fees”, “AADI CAPIF ACR vs. Argot S.A. and other re.: payment of fees” and “AADI CAPIF ACR vs. Hung Pai Ying and other re.: payment of fees”.