[opendtv] Betamax decision citations and views

To try to shed some light and not heat (aside from 'responding" to bert on the 
Betamax decision, I decided to see how "the decision has survived the test of 
time."  In legal research, this involves seeing what subsequent decisions have 
rested upon a holding or holdings in the Betamax decision, and how courts have 
drawn distinctions in cases that cited Betamax yet held differently.  

It's easiest to do this with Nexus/Lexus.  Lacking an account at this time, the 
next best is to use Sheppard's Citations, but I don't have time today to visit 
the County Law Library.  So, I have to use online sources.

Here's the full text of the decision, from an authoritative source 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm

Here's the Cornel Law School's Legal Information Institute main page on 
Copyright http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Copyright

Here's a good precis: 
     "A copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, 
      perform, display, or license his work. See § 106 of the act. The owner 
      also receives the exclusive right to produce or license derivatives of 
his 
      or her work. See § 201(d) of the act. Limited exceptions to this 
      exclusivity exist for types of "fair use", such as book reviews. 
      See § 107 of the act. To be covered by copyright a work must be 
      original and in a concrete "medium of expression." See § 102 
      of the act. Under current law, works are covered whether or not 
      a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is 
      registered."

Here's the page LII comes up with in response to a search for copyright cases 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/index.html?query=copyright

This case, which I alluded to previously, cites Betamax 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=copyright&url=/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html
  This is a U.S. Supreme Court decision; it's subsequent to Betamax, and it 
draws some distinctions.

This holding in that case is really bad for bert. 

Held: One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to 
infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps 
taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of 
third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third 
parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses. Pp. 10—24.

And this is even worse: "The doctrine [in Betamax] absolves the equivocal 
conduct of selling an item with lawful and unlawful uses and limits liability 
to instances of more acute fault."

I found no other cases on findlaw or LII that addressed Betamax, but that's not 
an exhaustive search; for that, I will have to refer to Shepard's.

Marci Hamilton opines on why the Betamax decision should be overturned.  (I 
gave some modern distinctions 'in another thread.' 
)http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20070419.html

Hope this helps non-fools.

John Willkie


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: