ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Threat Level

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: Threat Level

Supreme Court Serves Up Remote-Recording Victory

By David Kravets

ADVERTISEMENTS

picture-17The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a copyright case testing whether cable operators may permit customers to store television programming on company servers to be viewed at a later time.

The issue concerns an August ruling by a federal appeals court, which lifted (.pdf) an injunction against Cablevision Systems blocking it from offering customers a recording service that stores programming on the cable company?s own servers instead of on viewers? in-house playback devices.

Hollywood and television programmers maintained Cablevision?s service directly infringes their exclusive rights to both reproduce and publicly perform their copyrighted works. On appeal, they told the high court that the copyright case was the most important lawsuit following the justices? 1984 ruling declaring American consumers had a fair use right to use videocassette machines to record copyrighted movies at home.

But don’t expect the court’s rejection of the case to be the final word. Renewed litigation over the topic is likely.

Ben Sheffner, the attorney behind the Copyrights & Campaigns blog who once worked on the case on behalf of Fox, has noted that there were several procedural problems making the lawsuit unworthy of the high court?s time.

The Obama administration, for example, wrote the justices that Cablevision and Hollywood’s agreement to take both indirect liability and fair use off the table “would prevent the court from seeing the whole fundamental controversy in this case, making it an unsuitable vehicle for clarifying the applicable legal framework,” Sheffner wrote.

The justices rejected the case without comment.

See Also:


Full post as published by Threat Level on June 29, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0195 secs (new cache)