Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens's Impact On IP Law

Pickens writes "Corporate Counsel recounts the profound legacy of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, author of the majority opinion in what some consider the most important copyright ruling of all time — the 1984 Betamax decision (Sony v. Universal City Studios) that established that consumers have a personal 'fair use' right to make copies of copyrighted material for non-commercial use. Justice Stevens's contribution to the ultimate decision in Betamax extended well beyond writing the opinion. The justices' initial debates in the case make it clear that Stevens was the only one of the nine (PDF) who believed that the 'fair use' doctrine gave consumers a right to make personal copies of copyrighted content for home use. It was his negotiating skill that pulled together the five-vote majority allowing home video recorders to be sold and used without interference from copyright holders. An IP litigator is quoted: 'The ruling that making a single copy for yourself of a broadcast movie was fair use ... that was truly huge, and was a point on which the court was deeply divided.' So the next time you're TiVo-ing an episode of your favorite show, remember to give a quick thanks to Justice Stevens; and let's hope that whoever President Obama appoints to replace him will follow in Stevens's footsteps and defend Fair Use, not corporate copyright interests." The review also touches on Stevens's "patent skepticism," which may be on display when the court delivers its eagerly awaited Bilski ruling.

Comments

Re:Right

[drinkypoo]

Corporations don't do anything, people do things on their behalf.

here you have stated in a nutshell what is wrong with the idea of a corporation. a corporation is a fiction and thus it cannot do anything. a human must take the action, even if that action is to create an automated system which will take the action on their behalf. rights are thus separated from responsibilities; humans take the responsibility while corporations get the rights. if corporations are to have rights without the idea being a perversion of the very idea of rights, they must also take responsibility. thus whether the person is punished for their actions under the banner of a corporation or not, the corporation must be punished or there can never be justice. if a person is jailed for their actions while carrying out their "orders" as pertains to their job, then the corporation must also be "jailed", with its rights restricted. this can be carried to the logical extreme of the corporate death penalty; I think we all agree it would have happened to Union Carbide, for example.