Fortnightly Corp. V. United Artists Television Case Study
In 1968, Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U. S. 390, the Court determined that a CATV provider was more like a viewer than a broadcaster, because its system “no more than enhances the viewer’s capacity to receive the broadcaster’s sig¬nals by providing a well-located antenna with an efficient connec¬tion to the viewer’s television set.” Therefore, the Supreme Court held that a CATV provider does not violate the exclusive right of the copyright holder and hence did not perform publicly. The Court reached the same determination in respect to a CATV provider that retransmitted signals from hundreds of miles away in Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U. S. 394. The Court held that “The re¬ception
…show more content…
CSC Holdings 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) where in the cablevision had offered its subscribers a remote DVR, the users controlled it remotely through internet connection. The copyright holders alleged that cablevision was infringing copyright by transmitting content to the users over the internet. They argued that even if providing a product to play back a lawfully acquired program in the home were fair use, providing that same feature over the Internet constituted a “public performance” which is required to be licensed. The Second Circuit held that the copies of the work were made by the consumers of the cablevision and a one-to-one performance of a work was not “public,” and therefore not regulated by the Copyright Act. Hence cablevision was not held …show more content…
The Courts interpretation on the Copyright Act has an impact on the technology. Applying the 1976 Amendment to the 21st century Aereo’s system is incorrect. Aereo’s system provides subscribers a platform to view the broadcast of a program and record it for later view. It is only an equipment which provides service to the subscribers and sdoes not perform within the meaning of the transmit clause under the Copyright Act, 1976. The Courts view of considering the services of cable companies and Aereo’s system alike is incorrect. Law and technology should go hand in
CSC Holdings 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) where in the cablevision had offered its subscribers a remote DVR, the users controlled it remotely through internet connection. The copyright holders alleged that cablevision was infringing copyright by transmitting content to the users over the internet. They argued that even if providing a product to play back a lawfully acquired program in the home were fair use, providing that same feature over the Internet constituted a “public performance” which is required to be licensed. The Second Circuit held that the copies of the work were made by the consumers of the cablevision and a one-to-one performance of a work was not “public,” and therefore not regulated by the Copyright Act. Hence cablevision was not held …show more content…
The Courts interpretation on the Copyright Act has an impact on the technology. Applying the 1976 Amendment to the 21st century Aereo’s system is incorrect. Aereo’s system provides subscribers a platform to view the broadcast of a program and record it for later view. It is only an equipment which provides service to the subscribers and sdoes not perform within the meaning of the transmit clause under the Copyright Act, 1976. The Courts view of considering the services of cable companies and Aereo’s system alike is incorrect. Law and technology should go hand in