Browse
Click 
to expand selection
FREE GIFTS!
Manufacturers
Payment Options
Credit Cards
Paypal
Save time. Check out securely. Pay without sharing your financial information
Google Checkout
Secure Shopping
Here Comes the Judge (part 4):
“Hooray for Hollywood”
Universal Studios, bloodied, bruised and weary from its legal defeat in the US District Court of California (see Part 3), came to the proverbial “fork in the road” as they had to decide whether or not to continue pursuing litigation against Sony to prevent the sale of the Betamax home VCR in the US.
Universal and Disney, now backed by the powerful forces of Jack Valenti's Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), heeded the advice of that great “thinker and philosopher,” Yogi Berra, who once declared: “When you come to a fork in the road... take it.”
Thus, Universal “took it” to a higher court—the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—and this time the second round of “the Betamax Case” would, in typically Hollywood fashion, have a much happier ending for Universal. (I always loved happy endings.)
The original Betamax case was decided in Sony's favor on October 2, 1979, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Universal's main contention was that the manufacture, sale and distribution of the home VCR would result in great monetary damages for the Hollywood studios. As Jack Valenti of MPAA once proclaimed before Congress: “The Betamax is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” (A bit of a grim analogy by Mr. Valenti, who would eventfully “choke” on those words when the VCR became a colossal money-maker for the Hollywood studios, and then “gagged” on the crow he had to eat when the video version of the “Boston Strangler,” starring Tony Curtis, was released for home viewing. But more on that next time).
The District Court ruled that US copyright laws did not give the copyright holder “monopoly power” over private non-commercial use, and that an individual's off-air taping was considered “Fair Use.” (Use is considered fair and reasonable if it does not substantially impair the value of the work or the profits expected by the owner.) The court also ruled that Universal and Disney did not prove that any of the practices constituted economic harm to them or the motion picture industry.
After the District Court ruled in favor of Sony, most considered the matter settled. But on Monday October 19, 1981 (known as Sony's Black Monday), the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision of the District Court. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that home video recording was an infringement, and that Sony was responsible for it. The higher court chastised the District Court judge for “stretching” the Fair Use clause, which was intended for only a partial use of copyrighted materials. “Videotape recorders are manufactured, advertised and sold for the primary purpose of reproducing complete television programs. Virtually all television programs are copyright material. If some copyright owners choose not to enforce their rights, this does not preclude those who do”. So said Judge Kilkenny, speaking for a unanimous court. He went on to suggest damages, compulsory licenses and possible royalties as relief for the “injured” Hollywood studios. However, the court did not order an immediate halt to the sale of the Betamax.
By this time
Universal Studios, bloodied, bruised and weary from its legal defeat in the US District Court of California (see Part 3), came to the proverbial “fork in the road” as they had to decide whether or not to continue pursuing litigation against Sony to prevent the sale of the Betamax home VCR in the US.
Universal and Disney, now backed by the powerful forces of Jack Valenti's Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), heeded the advice of that great “thinker and philosopher,” Yogi Berra, who once declared: “When you come to a fork in the road... take it.”
Thus, Universal “took it” to a higher court—the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—and this time the second round of “the Betamax Case” would, in typically Hollywood fashion, have a much happier ending for Universal. (I always loved happy endings.)
The original Betamax case was decided in Sony's favor on October 2, 1979, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Universal's main contention was that the manufacture, sale and distribution of the home VCR would result in great monetary damages for the Hollywood studios. As Jack Valenti of MPAA once proclaimed before Congress: “The Betamax is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” (A bit of a grim analogy by Mr. Valenti, who would eventfully “choke” on those words when the VCR became a colossal money-maker for the Hollywood studios, and then “gagged” on the crow he had to eat when the video version of the “Boston Strangler,” starring Tony Curtis, was released for home viewing. But more on that next time).
The District Court ruled that US copyright laws did not give the copyright holder “monopoly power” over private non-commercial use, and that an individual's off-air taping was considered “Fair Use.” (Use is considered fair and reasonable if it does not substantially impair the value of the work or the profits expected by the owner.) The court also ruled that Universal and Disney did not prove that any of the practices constituted economic harm to them or the motion picture industry.
After the District Court ruled in favor of Sony, most considered the matter settled. But on Monday October 19, 1981 (known as Sony's Black Monday), the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision of the District Court. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that home video recording was an infringement, and that Sony was responsible for it. The higher court chastised the District Court judge for “stretching” the Fair Use clause, which was intended for only a partial use of copyrighted materials. “Videotape recorders are manufactured, advertised and sold for the primary purpose of reproducing complete television programs. Virtually all television programs are copyright material. If some copyright owners choose not to enforce their rights, this does not preclude those who do”. So said Judge Kilkenny, speaking for a unanimous court. He went on to suggest damages, compulsory licenses and possible royalties as relief for the “injured” Hollywood studios. However, the court did not order an immediate halt to the sale of the Betamax.
By this time
