New Content-Delivery Tech Should Be Presumed Illegal, Says Former Copyright Boss

TrueSatan writes "Reminiscent of buggy whip manufacturers taking legal action against auto makers, the former U.S. Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, has given an amicus brief in the Aereo case (PDF) stating that all new content-delivery technology should be presumed illegal unless and until it is approved by Congress. He adds that providers of new technology should be forced to apply to Congress to prove they don't upset existing business models."

Comments

One of the plaintiffs is PBS.

[webbiedave]

They sure as hell won't be getting a donation from me this year.

No, that's not what he said

[russotto]

He argues that copyright protection holds regardless of the technological means used to engage in an action which constitutes infringement, which is true as far as it goes. He further argues that Aereo is committing infringement and claiming it's not because of mere technological details, and there he's on shakier ground.

But actually his argument fell apart a bit earlier than his discussion of Aereo, when he disputes the Cablevision decision:

To be consistent with that entirely correct analysis, if, instead of a subscriber sending an electronic instruction to Cablevision or Aereo to make a copy by pressing a âoerecordâ button, the customer had sent an email to one of their employees with instructions to make a copy and transmit a performance, there would be no question as to the direct liability of Cablevision or Aereo. Copyright liability should not turn on minor technical features as to whether âoerecordâ instructions are communicated by verbal commands, pressing a button, sending an email or as a result of automated functions.

I am sorry, Mr. Oman, but that is not a "minor technical feature". My giving instructions to a machine and my giving instructions to a human being are a very different thing. The human being can make a choice, he can say "Mr. Russotto, to make that copy would be an infringement of copyright and I will not do so". The machine is a machine, it does what it's told, and direct liability is rightly placed on the person who told it to do something.

Best I can tell, Aereo is claiming its retransmissions do not amount to public performance because each individual is getting his own transmission. That is, it's not one public performance but many private ones. This is indeed splitting hairs, but since when has the law been opposed to splitting hairs?

17 USC 101 is quite clear that it does not matter "whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times." However, it does matter whether there is one performance or many; if I set up a booth where one person can view a DVD, it's not a public performance if 100 people view the same DVD in sequence; it's 100 private performances. Similarly, if I have 100 such booths with 100 such (identical) DVDs and everyone watches them at once, it's still 100 private performances. However, if I rig up one DVD player to play one DVD to all those booths, it's a public performance.

Re:Congress

[Type44Q]

"Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."

- Thomas Jefferson