Supreme Court Asks Administration For Its Thoughts On Cablevision Remote DVR And Copyright
from the but...-which-administration? dept
There was a tremendously important copyright ruling in August of last year, concerning whether or not it was copyright infringement for Cablevision to run a remote DVR for its subscribers. The whole lawsuit (and the resulting decision) shows just how screwed up copyright law has become, and how every new generation of technologies requires twisting and patching copyright laws to have them make any sense at all (this is a problem, not a feature). In this case, everyone agrees that a DVR in your own home to time shift programs is perfectly legal. Cablevision is offering the same thing, but instead of the DVR being in your home, it's hosted in a Cablevision central location somewhere. However, pretty much everything else is the same.Not so, say the TV networks and film studios, who claim that since the devices are on Cablevision's premises, now it's suddenly a copyright violation -- even if the person at home is the one pushing the button. It defies common sense to think that the identical action (clicking a button on a remote to record or watch an earlier recorded program) with an identical result (you can watch the program at your leisure) should differ in terms of its legality based on whether or not the box holding the content is in your living room or in Cablevision's warehouse. Yet, that's exactly how the studios and networks have read copyright law -- and a lower court originally agreed. The appeals court overturned the ruling, but even reading the decision, you get the feeling that they were twisting and turning to figure out a way to have copyright law actually make sense in this scenario.
The key question, which could impact numerous other innovative content services, concerns whether or not the "fleeting" copy that's made by Cablevision in the process of delivering the content to the end user is, in fact, an unauthorized copy. The appeals court said no (correctly from a common sense standpoint), but it had to tap dance around what the law and previous cases said to reach that decision. Not surprisingly, the networks and studios have appealed to the Supreme Court, and what happens next could be quite important in determining what's legal for plenty of other online services in the future.
While the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether or not it will hear the case, it has requested input from the Solicitor General on whether or not the SG believes that Cablevision is infringing on copyrights. When I read the LA Times piece, I wasn't sure which administration they meant, but Wired makes it clear it's the incoming one, and notes the conflict since the movie studios are represented by the same firm that Tom Perrelli came from. Perrelli, of course, is an Obama nominee for the justice department (and a former lawyer for the entertainment industry). Of course, it's not clear he'd have anything to do with the brief, as it would be for the Solicitor General -- and Obama has picked Harvard Law dean Elena Kagan, who among other things has been involved with Harvard's Berkman Center, and was instrumental in recruiting Larry Lessig back to Harvard from Stanford just a few months ago. Either way, while the case seems to focus on a fairly mundane aspect of copyright law, the eventual result could be quite important.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dvr, remote dvr
Companies: cablevision
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
From the what-about-a-meat-locker dept.?
I have to agree with you occasionally just to show you that I attempt to be obejctive. Other than the biased charaterization (...just how screwed up...), I think you are correct.
Put this case in other perspectives. If I purchase a legitimate electronic copy of anything over the internet, and that legitimate copy travels through a server that does not belong to me or the seller, then in theory that would be a copyright violation under this ruling.
Further, what if I made a copy of music onto a cassette tape, but then I rented a locker somewhere (maybe a meat locker at a butcher) and put the cassette tapes into them? Well, the tapes were legal in my house, but they would not be legal in someone else's storage facility. I think you are correct, there is a lack of common sense here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the what-about-a-meat-locker dept.?
I purchase music from iTunes to use on my player. Now I want to make sure I don't ever lose them, so I upload them to my on-line backup service provider.
Uh-oh...suddenly I have broken a law because the file is in someone else's hardware (drive), even if it is my account?
Sounds like total BS to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the what-about-a-meat-locker dept.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the what-about-a-meat-locker dept.?
becomes a new network of unlicensed property....
Many times, a Producer will grant the TV network a one time showing for a fee....this proposal creates a NEW Centralized NETWORK from which any $49 customer to cable can rewatch or postpone watch (indefinitely....or 5 days from original airing??????) ANY show!!!
Also, this may be considered Landham territory....repackaging someone else's goods to be other than what they are and from ANOTHER SOURCE.
Cable Company as a REPOSITORY would be a business of offering other people's property without compensation to the copyright owner.....that is BOGUS on its face....
If "in your own castle" you create your own little network ...so be it....if it's in a meat locker....somebody needs to get permission (a license to re-broadcast for infinity or a limited period) or at least pay a standard or "statuatory" "hamburger" charge (should filet mignon cost more????).
The laws are clear: "If you benefit from my property monetarily (and its not fair use), get my permission or pay me a licensing fee.
What's so hard about that?
You deserve a break today...
The McDonalds Meat Locker
and TV Re-Transmission Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the what-about-a-meat-locker dept.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the what-about-a-meat-locker dept.?
The laws are clear: "If you benefit from my property monetarily (and its not fair use), get my permission or pay me a licensing fee.
Your little aside "and its not fair use" is rather important, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose I could actually put it on the phone...but the point is...if only I can access it, how would it be different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real-world equivalent
Look at it from a material product perspective, even if it isn't that at all:
Store A is offering a promotion, where customers are invited to sample Brand X free. People come in the store, have as much as they like of Brand X, and since they're already there, probably buy something.
That doesn't give me the right, as Store B, to come in, take as much of Brand X as I want, and offer it in my store. I'd have to pay, or convince Brand X to do it in my store for free, too.
The TV stations have to pay for the rights to broadcast shows. We appreciate being able to record and then skip the commercials that pay for most of that. Wanting to store someone else's product wherever you like sounds good for consumers, but it's flat out bad for business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real-world equivalent
So the scenario in question is NOTHING akin to Store B taking stuff for free from Store A and selling it. It's more like... someone walks into Store A and wants a Brand X (or a Brand Y that they have to pay for). She isn't able to fit it in her car, but she pays for it anyways. As it turns out, her friend, who happens to work at Store B, was also in Store A at the time. Store A is unwilling to hold Brand X (or Y) for her, but her friend is willing to take it with him to Store B and store it there until she's able to return with a larger car. Say, for the sake of argument, that Store B is willing to store Brand X (or Y) for her, but she will have to pay a small fee because that's room they could be using to store stuff for their own customers. She drives to Store B later, in a larger car, and brings Brand X (or Y) home with her.
Is there anything wrong with that? The clear correlation is that the TV Network is willing to give her X or Y program, but she is unable to watch it at that time and the Network is unwilling to show it at a time that is convenient for her. Cablevision, from the goodness of their hearts and for their wallets, is willing to store the content for her so that she can retrieve it at a time that works for her.
Clearly, in both these scenarios, Store A (TV Network) could easily trump Store B (Cablevision) by simply allowing her to consume Brand X (the TV program) whenever she's ready to consume it.
But why should Store B (Cablevision), who is clearly NOT claiming Brand X (the TV program) as their own and is clearly NOT actually making a copy of but rather storing the original Brand X, pay Store A (TV Network) to hold a product that Store A (TV Network) already been paid for (by the customer)?
They shouldn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real-world equivalent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The question is whether or not the distributors have any say in the matter, not if they're going to grant permission.
That doesn't give me the right, as Store B, to come in, take as much of Brand X as I want, and offer it in my store.
Neither your or Dr. Kopp E. Wright examples make sense. Cablevision (Store B) isn't reselling the television shows; it's storing a user-requested time-shift recording.
Wanting to store someone else's product wherever you like sounds good for consumers, but it's flat out bad for business.
Time shifting is legal, but you've both failed to actually address why it matters where the recording is stored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, the stupidity of this is mind-boggling. There is no legitimate reason for this case other than the fact that somebody is greedy beyond all reason. As far as I'm concerned, data packets in transit do not constitute a copy of the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the two negative posters are extrapolating this to be that people can access shows whether or not they asked to record them or not, basically making everything "On Demand". As far as I can tell, this is not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real-world equivalent
I guess I should have stated from the beginning that I am offering only the devil's advocate view; I surely feel that people should be able to record what they want, how they like, as they like, but I can also see that it presents problems for the people trying to run a business with that product.
As for
"Neither your or Dr. Kopp E. Wright examples make sense. Cablevision (Store B) isn't reselling the television shows; it's storing a user-requested time-shift recording."
and
"Time shifting is legal, but you've both failed to actually address why it matters where the recording is stored."
While Cablevision says its only storing them for its subscriber, there's no real way for Cablevision to prove that. Whether you/them wants to admit it, it *IS* taking possession of product and storing it, and the owners *ARE* at least allowed the option to fight for just compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real-world equivalent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real-world equivalent
Why should they have to? Shouldn't it be up to the prosecution to prove that isn't what they're doing? I know, civil case, preponderance of evidence. But the accusation requires evidence, not just "we say you're distributing content illegally, now prove you're not". Or at least I hope that's still how this country works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real-world equivalent
Which isn't illegal, and doesn't always require paying off the copyright owners.
While Cablevision says its only storing them for its subscriber, there's no real way for Cablevision to prove that.
If Cablevision can show they have taken the steps to insure that only the subscriber can access the shows they recorded, I don't really see a problem. If those security measures can be shown to be inadequate, then there might be a case against it.
Whether you/them wants to admit it, it *IS* taking possession of product and storing it, and the owners *ARE* at least allowed the option to fight for just compensation.
The copyright owners are allowed to fight for money they think they deserve, but it's difficult to see how it's just and what they would actually be getting compensated for. Cablevision isn't selling the copyright holders' content - they're providing storage space for time-shift recordings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to ask for a brief from the Office of the Solicitor General.
3. The Supreme Court is highly defferential to its prior decisions, and to date it has not shown any inclination to revisit its Betamax decision.
4. An important factor in its deliberations on petitions for certiorari is whether or not there is a difference of opinion between two or more of our Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Given the above, unlesss the Solicitor General comes up with a compelling brief arguing against the decision by the appeals court, and given that it takes a plurality of votes by members of the Supreme Court to grant a petition for certiorari (I forget the precise number of justices who must agree), it would be unlikely that the petition would be granted. It is important to note, however, that by requesting the Solicitor General to participate it seems clear that this is not as easy issue of copyrigt law as some would try and make it appear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]