E CAN SEE it now: the shades are drawn, the

W lights are low and authorities surrounding the

building spot the silhouettes of four figures huddled in
a semicircle on the floor.. Kick open that door and
bust every one of them because, just as we suspected all
along, it's another gang of little tykes in their Dr. Den-
tons-watching a videotape of a Disney movie that old
mums copped off prime time a week ago. That, as a
federal appeals court warned this week, is breaking the
law-and never mind who's watching or where.

“We find no congressional intent to create a blan-
ket home-use exception to copyright protection and
that home video recording does not constitute fair
use." said the court. Well, blanket or no blanket,
those home users now total nearly 3 million, and are
growing. In their number, we suspect, are people
whose past records are tarnished by instances in
which they used sound-only tape recorders to swipe
a few ditties off the radio, or maybe ripped off a
tederal inspection tag from a pillow.

Ultimately responsible, though--according to this
opinion, at least-are the defendants in the case, in-
cluding the Sony Corporation of America, which
sells Betamax recorders. The appellate court has
sent the case back to US. District Court, directing
the judge to consider damages and an injunction.
against Sony, its ad agency and four retail stores.

Another defendant in the suit is a Los Angeles resi-
dent who owns a video recorder. The District Court
judge had ruled previously that recording material
broadcast over the airwaves did not constitute copy-
right infringement as long as the recordings were
not used commercially by owners of these machines.

Now, what's wrong with that reasoning? Isn't
that why the sportscasters remind us every time
that their presentations are "intended for private
use only and any rebroadcast " etc. for any of a
number of money-making or other uses is strictly
prohibited? The appeals court says the defendants
are liable. So where does this suit take things?

Probably into a sixth and seventh year of litiga-
tion, and into some settlement that will protect the
owners of copyrights, through some compen
sation/royalty arrangement that protects against
the worst piracy-namely, systematic, indiscrimi-
nate, multiple videocopying and distribution. This
is no new area for Congress to explore-for it is
similar to past legislative proposals to address
Xerox and other copying devices. The rights of art-
ists, writers, film producers and, yes, commercial
sponsors, must be protected, but so should the abil
ity of people to enjoy practical and essentially-pri-
vate use of information in the comfort of their
homes-on tape that doesn't turn red.