US Cable Support > Comcast Cable TV > Can no longer record anything to VCR/DVD from Comcast?

reply to mariod

Re: Can no longer record anything to VCR/DVD from Comcast?

quote:

---

The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses. In order to resolve that question, we need not explore all the different potential uses of the machine and determine whether or not they would constitute infringement. Rather, we need only consider whether on the basis of the facts as found by the District Court a significant number of them would be noninfringing. Moreover, in order to resolve this case we need not give precise content to the question of how much use is commercially significant. For one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use. [464 U.S. 417, 443]

---

quote:

---

Although not conclusive, the first [464 U.S. 417, 449] factor requires that "the commercial or nonprofit character of an activity" be weighed in any fair use decision. 32 If the Betamax were used to make copies for a commercial or profitmaking purpose, such use would presumptively be unfair. The contrary presumption is appropriate here, however, because the District Court's findings plainly establish that time-shifting for private home use must be characterized as a noncommercial, nonprofit activity. Moreover, when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, see 17 U.S.C. 107(2) (1982 ed.), and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact [464 U.S. 417, 450] that the entire work is reproduced, see 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.

---

At which point I redirect you to my previous post: That changing technology has rendered the 194 Court moot.

Specifically:

"time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire work is reproduced"

Today, "time-shifting" no longer means watching the entire work.

Further, again, that case never argued individual time-shifting. That's why the Court says that Universal had no right to "prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs".