5 ms·

Hilariously (and appropriately), the decision cites Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., also known as the "Betamax case." > (a) “The Copyrig

by jetrink 6mo ago

Hilariously (and appropriately), the decision cites Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., also known as the "Betamax case." > (a) “The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434. > In Sony, copyright owners sued the maker and the retailers of the Betamax video tape recorder. Id., at 422. The tape recorder could be used to record copyrighted television programs for later personal viewing, which would not constitute infringement. Id., at 449. On the other hand, it could also be used to reproduce and sell copyrighted television programming, which would constitute infringement. Ibid. The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” Id., at 428 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court reversed, concluding that “[t]he Betamax is . . . capable of substantial noninfringing uses”—like personal use—so “sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement.” Id., at 456.

numbsafari 6mo ago
... because if _use_ of a product creates a liability for the maker, you are very quickly headed toward liability for gun manufacturers. [ed: this is very much discussed in the decision, by the by] Expect to see heavy lobbying from the music and video industry to create some kind of "Know your Customer" regime internet service providers in order to create such a liability. I wouldn't call this a slam dunk for privacy or liberty, given what it is going to force the various actors to do in response. For now, though, let the file sharing flow!
purpleflame1257 6mo ago
They were right. I never sold a taped VCR, but my parents used it to time shift Saturday morning cartoons every week.
- nine_k 6mo ago
  Time shifting for personal use is expressly legal (making a personal copy). It was also an early form of ad-blocking, because a VHS recorder could stop recording at a set time, thus skip a block of commercials, and then continue. There were suits about that, too.
  - da_chicken 6mo ago
    The Betamax case that GP mentions is the same case that established that time-shifting is not copyright infringment. The law and courts were previously both mute on the subject.
frenchtoast8 6mo ago
> The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” I don't know anyone who sold television recordings, it was always for personal use. How could the lower court get this so wrong? Was this just one uninformed judge? Or was this actually less certain at the time?
- lvspiff 6mo ago
  I had a relative who setup a kinda "blockbuster" type service recording things and offering them out for rental. It really took off for VHS when he got HBO and recorded movies and then rented those. It wasnt a very lucrative hustle but it was an instance of what they didnt want to have happen
  - frenchtoast8 6mo ago
    Absolutely this happened, but would you say that was the primary use case of the recording capabilities? I'm trying to understand how a judge would say that the only practical use of backups were copyright infringement, since that is completely contrary to both my experiences and what I believe to be common sense. If the answer to my confusion is that this actually was the major use case and my experiences were rare, then that's fine. Otherwise, I can't help believe this is yet another case in recent history where judges are completely backwards on technological understanding, or maybe even under influence from copyright holders.
    - wat10000 6mo ago
      This is the case that determined that recording TV broadcasts for your own personal use was not copyright infringement. They understood what the tech was used for, but they didn't know that this use was non-infringing until they made that decision.
    - AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
      > Absolutely this happened, but would you say that was the primary use case of the recording capabilities? I don't think I can understate the amount that I hate this line of reasoning. Suppose we apply this logic to writable CDs. Some drives could only read but not write CDs and those devices cost less than the ones that could write. Moreover, the early writable drives were stupid expensive and because of that most people in those days only had readers. Then in those early days, the usage of the drives would skew more heavily towards piracy, because it would be more common to spend $1000+ more on a CD writer if you're operating a commercial piracy operation and keeping it busy than if you just want to write something to a single CD instead of an entire $20 box of floppy disks once or twice a year. A few years later the price of the writable drives has come down to almost as low as the price of the read-only drives and everybody has them and is using them for all kinds of legitimate things. But that doesn't happen if pointing to a high initial rate of piracy can get them banned before they get widely adopted for other purposes. There's a reason why they said "substantial non-infringing use" instead of asking what percent of existing use it is at some specific point in time.
AlBugdy 6mo ago
[dead]
pdonis 6mo ago
Yes, the expression "hoist by their own petard" occurred to me when I saw that.

by jetrink 6mo ago

numbsafari 6mo ago

... because if _use_ of a product creates a liability for the maker, you are very quickly headed toward liability for gun manufacturers. [ed: this is very much discussed in the decision, by the by] Expect to see heavy lobbying from the music and video industry to create some kind of "Know your Customer" regime internet service providers in order to create such a liability. I wouldn't call this a slam dunk for privacy or liberty, given what it is going to force the various actors to do in response. For now, though, let the file sharing flow!

purpleflame1257 6mo ago

They were right. I never sold a taped VCR, but my parents used it to time shift Saturday morning cartoons every week.

nine_k 6mo ago
Time shifting for personal use is expressly legal (making a personal copy). It was also an early form of ad-blocking, because a VHS recorder could stop recording at a set time, thus skip a block of commercials, and then continue. There were suits about that, too.
- da_chicken 6mo ago
  The Betamax case that GP mentions is the same case that established that time-shifting is not copyright infringment. The law and courts were previously both mute on the subject.

frenchtoast8 6mo ago

> The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” I don't know anyone who sold television recordings, it was always for personal use. How could the lower court get this so wrong? Was this just one uninformed judge? Or was this actually less certain at the time?

lvspiff 6mo ago
I had a relative who setup a kinda "blockbuster" type service recording things and offering them out for rental. It really took off for VHS when he got HBO and recorded movies and then rented those. It wasnt a very lucrative hustle but it was an instance of what they didnt want to have happen
- frenchtoast8 6mo ago
  Absolutely this happened, but would you say that was the primary use case of the recording capabilities? I'm trying to understand how a judge would say that the only practical use of backups were copyright infringement, since that is completely contrary to both my experiences and what I believe to be common sense. If the answer to my confusion is that this actually was the major use case and my experiences were rare, then that's fine. Otherwise, I can't help believe this is yet another case in recent history where judges are completely backwards on technological understanding, or maybe even under influence from copyright holders.
  - wat10000 6mo ago
    This is the case that determined that recording TV broadcasts for your own personal use was not copyright infringement. They understood what the tech was used for, but they didn't know that this use was non-infringing until they made that decision.
  - AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
    > Absolutely this happened, but would you say that was the primary use case of the recording capabilities? I don't think I can understate the amount that I hate this line of reasoning. Suppose we apply this logic to writable CDs. Some drives could only read but not write CDs and those devices cost less than the ones that could write. Moreover, the early writable drives were stupid expensive and because of that most people in those days only had readers. Then in those early days, the usage of the drives would skew more heavily towards piracy, because it would be more common to spend $1000+ more on a CD writer if you're operating a commercial piracy operation and keeping it busy than if you just want to write something to a single CD instead of an entire $20 box of floppy disks once or twice a year. A few years later the price of the writable drives has come down to almost as low as the price of the read-only drives and everybody has them and is using them for all kinds of legitimate things. But that doesn't happen if pointing to a high initial rate of piracy can get them banned before they get widely adopted for other purposes. There's a reason why they said "substantial non-infringing use" instead of asking what percent of existing use it is at some specific point in time.

AlBugdy 6mo ago

[dead]

pdonis 6mo ago

Yes, the expression "hoist by their own petard" occurred to me when I saw that.