High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
No. 08-448
In the Supreme Court of the United States
C
ABLE
N
EWS
N
ETWORK
,
I
NC
.,
ET AL
.,
PETITIONERS
v.
CSC
H
OLDINGS
,
I
NC
.,
ET AL
.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
E
LENA
K
AGAN
Solicitor GeneralCounsel of Record
M
ICHAEL
F.
H
ERTZ
Acting Assistant AttorneyGeneral
M
ALCOLM
L.
S
TEWART
Deputy Solicitor General
T
OBY
J.
H
EYTENS
Assistant to the Solicitor General
S
COTT
R.
M
C
I
NTOSH
S
ARANG
V
IJAY
D
AMLE
Attorneys Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20530-0001(202) 514-2217
(I)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
A copyright holder has the exclusive rights “to repro-duce the copyrighted work in copies” and, in the caseof audiovisual works and other specified classes of works, “to perform the copyrighted work publicly.” 17U.S.C. 106(1) and 106(4). Respondents intend to offer aremote-storage digital video recorder (RS-DVR) servicethat would allow subscribers to record television pro-grams when they air and watch the programs at a latertime. The questions presented are as follows:1.Whether respondents would directly infringe peti-tioners’ reproduction rights when the RS-DVR systemmakes copies of programs and stores those copies oncomputer hard drives located at facilities owned by re-spondents.2.Whether respondents would directly infringe peti-tioners’ reproduction rights when the RS-DVR system,as part of its normal operations, temporarily stores indata buffers small portions of all programs that respon-dents broadcast.3.Whether respondents would directly infringe peti-tioners’ public-performance rights when the RS-DVRsystem transmits previously recorded programs to asubscriber at the subscriber’s request.
(III)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageStatement............................................1Discussion............................................6 A.This case does not satisfy the Court’s traditionalcriteria for granting a writ of certiorari.............71.The Second Circuit’s decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another courtof appeals....................................72.The parties’ stipulations would make this casean unsuitable vehicle for examining the issuesraised by network-based recording and play-back systems................................11B.On the merits, the Second Circuit reasonably andnarrowly resolved the issues that were presentedto it...........................................14Conclusion..........................................22
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.
v.
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc.
, 866 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1989)...10
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.
v.
Redd Horne, Inc.
,749 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1984)........................10
CoStar Group, Inc.
v.
Loopnet, Inc.
, 373 F.3d 544(4th Cir. 2004)...................................8
MAI Sys. Corp.
v.
Peak Computer, Inc.
, 991 F.2d511 (9th
Cir. 1993), cert. dismissed..................9
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc.
v.
Grokster, Ltd.
, 545 U.S. 913 (2005).......................15, 22
New York Times Co.
v.
Tasini
, 533 U.S. 483 (2001)....8, 9
Add a Comment