[opendtv] Betamax decision
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:10:02 -0400
Seems time to remove some of the persistent "noise in the circuit." Here
is the actual decision:
http://www.virtualrecordings.com/betamax.htm
Much time is spent discussing evidence, or lack thereof, that having
VTRs (as they call them) in the hands of the public harms television in
any way. Much time is spent discussing copyrights vs trademarks, and
discussing whether the manufacturer of the machine should be liable for
the potential illegal acts of the purchaser.
Below are some key points that relate to opinions posted on this list. I
would challenge anyone to point to any stipulations made in the decision
that depend on features in VCRs that differ from those in DVDRs or PVRs,
*especially* if the DVDRs or PVRs are programmed as I suggested
previously. This includes the quality of the copy, cost of the product
or of the recordable media, and includes the possibility of using the
copy for more than just a once-only viewing of the recording (once-only
time shift).
By the way, the only mention of FOTA that I could see is up front, where
I quote it below. I may have missed it, but there don't seem to be any
differences between what material is transmitted OTA and what material
is tranmitted by MVPDs, from the Supreme Court's point of view anyway.
Also, in the conclusion, reversal of the Appeals Court decision means
that sale of recording devices and fair use are affirmed by the Supreme
Court.
Bert
-------------------------------------------
Petitioners manufacture and sell home video tape recorders. Respondents
own the copyrights on some of the television [p.420] programs that are
broadcast on the public airwaves. Some members of the general ublic
[sic] use video tape recorders sold by petitioners to record some of
these broadcasts, as well as a large number of other broadcasts. The
question presented is whether the sale of petitioners' copying equipment
to the general public violates any of the rights conferred upon
respondents by the Copyright Act.
Respondents commenced this copyright infringement action against
petitioners in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California in 1976. Respondents alleged that some individuals had
used Betamax video tape recorders (VTR's) to record some of respondents'
copyrighted works which had been exhibited on commercially sponsored
television and contended that these individuals had thereby infringed
respondents' copyrights. Respondents further maintained that petitioners
were liable for the copyright infringement allegedly committed by
Betamax consumers because of petitioners' marketing of the Betamax
VTR's. n1 Respondents sought no relief against any Betamax consumer.
Instead, they sought money damages and an equitable accounting of
profits from petitioners, as well as an injunction against the
manufacture and marketing of Betamax VTR's.
[ ... ]
The respondents and Sony both conducted surveys of the way the Betamax
machine was used by several hundred owners during a sample period in
1978. Although there were some differences in the surveys, they both
showed that the primary use of the machine for most owners was
"time-shifting" -- the practice of recording a program to view it once
at a later time, and thereafter erasing it. Time-shifting enables
viewers to see programs they otherwise would miss because they are not
at home, are occupied with other tasks, or are viewing a program on
another station at the time of a broadcast that they desire to watch.
Both surveys also showed, however, that a substantial number of
interviewees had accumulated libraries of tapes. n3 Sony's survey
indicated [p.424] that over 80% of the interviewees watched at least as
much regular television as they had before owning a Betamax. n4
Respondents offered no evidence of decreased television viewing by
Betamax owners. n5
[ ... ]
Notes
n21 It seems extraordinary to suggest that the Copyright Act confers
upon all copyright owners collectively, much less the two respondents in
this case, the exclusive right to distribute VTR's simply because they
may be used to infringe copyrights. That, however, is the logical
implication of their claim. The request for an injunction below
indicates that respondents seek, in effect, to declare VTR's contraband.
Their suggestion in this Court that a continuing royalty pursuant to a
judicially created compulsory license would be an acceptable remedy
merely indicates that respondents, for their part, would be willing to
license their claimed monopoly interest in VTR's to Sony in return for a
royalty.
[ ... ]
IV
The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially
significant noninfringing uses. In order to resolve that question, we
need not explore all the different potential uses of the machine and
determine whether or not they would constitute infringement. Rather, we
need only consider whether on the basis of the facts as found by the
District Court a significant number of them would be noninfringing.
Moreover, in order to resolve this case we need not give precise content
to the question of how much use is commercially significant. For one
potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it
is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does
so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright
holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the
District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home
time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use.
V
"The direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to
promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as here, the
Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far Congress has chosen to
go can come only from Congress." Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp.,
406 U.S. 518, 530 (1972).
One may search the Copyright Act in vain for any sign that the elected
representatives of the millions of people who watch television every day
have made it unlawful to copy a program for later viewing at home, or
have enacted a flat prohibition against the sale of machines that make
such copying possible.
It may well be that Congress will take a fresh look at this new
technology, just as it so often has examined other innovations in the
past. But it is not our job to apply laws that have not yet been
written. Applying the copyright statute, as it now reads, to the facts
as they have been developed in this case, the judgment of the Court of
Appeals must be reversed.
It is so ordered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
- » [opendtv] Betamax decision
