Appellants' works comprise only a miniscule portion of the TV programming which is transmitted and received by recording when appellants elected to transmit their works on public TV, the predominant nature of their telecast works became that they bore appellants' implied consent to be bound by the rules of the game appellants should not be allowed to spoil the game for everybody else just because they commingle their programming amongst all the vast TV programming as to which there is no opposition to VTR reception. The opinion states that "If an alleged infringer has reproduced a copyrighted work to use it for its intrinsic purpose, fair use has not generally been applied", and recognizes that this broad denigration of fair use (if relevant at all) is contrary to the holding of Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345 (C1.C1. 1973), aff'd by an equally divided court, 420) U.S. 376 (1975). The opinion unequivocally implies that, if Williams & Wilkins Co. had been tried in the Ninth Circuit, the federal government would have been held a direct infringer for photocopying copyrighted articles taken from medical journals and then providing the copies to doctors (pp. 5258-60) and the Xerox Co. (if it had been a party) implicitly would have been held to be a contributory infringer, just as Sony Corporation is held to be here. The panel's opinion thus leaves Pandora's box wide open. The opinion holds that all "home video recording constitutes copyright infringement" and that “the appellees are liable for such use" without regard to the circumstances (p. 5265). This holding will be the death knell of the VTR if not withdrawn. The opinion places appellants' “interest in securing an economic reward for [their] labors" above the public interest (p. 5252), contrary to the Constitution's goal "To promote the progress of science and useful arts", contrary to the Supreme Court's guidelines that "private 10 motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability" (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1974)) and contrary to the legislative history of the Old Act that copyright is "Infot primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public." (H.R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong. 2d Sess. 9 (1909)). Only this Court, by a rehearing in banc, can correct all of these oversights, misunderstandings and errors. Apart from fairness to appellees, the rights of the American public to use the VTR, and the livelihoods of American workers in supplying it, require such correction. Respectfully submitted, Gibson, Dunn & CrutchER, DONALD E. SLOAN, STEVEN T. Johnson, Attorneys for Petitioners. 4 Part II/Tuesday, October 27, 1981 Letters to The Times "Taping Off TV Ruled Unlawful' Three wise and learned judges ("Taping Off TV Ruled Unlawful,” Times, Oct. 20) attempt to invade the privacy of 3 million video recorder users' homes, and dictate their life style. Overnight, by taping off the air, 3 million petty eruninals risk prosecution. It obviously did not occur to the judges that when "llerbie Rides Again" flashed on Our screens it was not a freebee. The cost of all goods and services purchased being reflected with each "and now a few words from our sponsor!" So one should have the right to watch the boobtube at any later time, complete with all "worde from our sponsor." The shame of it all-a knock at the door and being caught redhanded with a freshly recorded tape of "Ilee ilaw." JOIN-PAULI¿JEUNE Orange The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that manufacturers of video recorders may be held liable for supplying equipment which le used to duplicate copyrighted TV programa. If this is an illegal Infringement of copyright laws, would not such a ruling be applied to manufacturers of paper copy machines, such as Xerox, since such machines are 88- . Buredly used to reproduce copy. righted materials? MARY DEAN ARMSTRONG APPENDIX A Dos Angeles Times The court failed to sel punishments for the crime, since it is assumed it will go to the Supreme Court. Well, that's fine for the future, but it doesn't do any good now. We still have 3 million criınınala lonse on our streets, not counting the suppliers and inanufacturera! There is an easy solution to the problem All 3 million video recorder owners should go to their local police station, turn themselves in and insist they be held in jail until the courts decide on their actual punishinent. The law's the law, and Justice must be served! DONALD R. LING If taping off TV is ruled unlawful, that means cassette taping of music is also unlawful. There can be no exceptions. If one is unlawful, then the other is. So, judges, be careful how you make your decisions. You could have the whole United States public · on your backs. TOM EVANS Arcadia I suggest the defense hire the Washington lobby of the National Rifle As-n It should prove effective in coming up with a slogan like "YTRs don't record--people do." WILFRED COUZIN Laguna Niguel The ruling makes manufacturers fiable for illegal acts others may or may not cominit The decision seems to say that since the VCR have the potential for copyright infringement, then they do infringe. Rubbish! DAVID HELKENN |