More From This User
Related Docuements
VI. SUMMARY
From EFF
VII. ORDER
From EFF
EMA-NARM Amicus in Support of Costco Petition for Certiorari FILED
Brief of EMA (Entertainment Merchants Association) and NARM (National Associa...
From copyowner
SONY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v.UNIVERSAL CITYSTUDIOS, INC., and WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, Respondents.No. 81-1687OCTOBER TERM, 1982October 29, 1982BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS, INC. ANDASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PRESSES, INC.CHARLES H. LIEB, (Counsel of Record), JON A. BAUMGARTEN, DAVID S. KLAFTER,PASKUS, GORDON & HYMAN, 45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10111,Attorneys for Amici Curiae, Association of American Publishers, Inc. and Associationof American University Presses, Inc.TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASESEncyclopaedia Britannica Educ. Corp. v. Crooks, 447 F. Supp. 243 (W.D.N.Y. 1978)Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. Hastings, 426 F. Supp 690 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff'd, 668F.2d 91 (2nd Cir. 1981)Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968)Jartech, Inc. v. Clancy, 666 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1982)Leon v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 F.2d 484 (9th Cir. 1937)MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180 (2nd Cir. 1981)Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061 (2nd Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1013(1978)New York Times Co. v. Roxbury Data Interface, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 217 (D.N.J.1977)Rose v. Lundy, U.S. , 102 S.Ct. 1198 (1982)Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303 (2nd Cir. 1966),cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1009 (1967)Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 (1980)Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394 (1974)Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, 480 F. Supp. 429 (C.D. Cal.1979), aff'd in part and in rev'd in part, 659 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981)
Walt Disney Prods. v. Alaska Television Networks, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 1073 (W.D.Wash. 1969)Wihtol v. Crow, 309 F. 277 (8th Cir. 1962)Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973), aff'd by anequally divided court, 420 U.S. 376 (1975) (per curiam)STATUTESCopyright Revision Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-533, 90 Stat. 2541 (codified in 17U.S.C.)Section 106Section 107Sections 107-118Section 108Section 108(a)Section 108(d)Section 108(e)Section 108(g) (2)Section 111(e)Section 111(f)Section 302(a)Section 408(a)Section 411aSound Recordings Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-140, 85Stat. 391MISCELLANEOUSReport of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. CopyrightLaw (July 1961)H.R. Rep. No. 83, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)S. Rep. No. 94-473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975)H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1976)
Remarks of David Ladd, Register of Copyrights, to the Patent, Trademark andCopyright Section of the American Bar Association (Aug. 10, 1982)Remarks of David Ladd, Register of Copyrights, to the Internationale GesellschaftFur Urheberrecht, in Toronto, Canada (Sept. 23, 1981)Nimmer, M.B., Nimmer on Copyright (1982)Seltzer, L.E., "Exemptions and Fair Use in Copyright" 24 Bull. Copyright Soc'y, 215(1977)The Interest of the AmiciAAP's and AAUP's interest is direct and compelling. Fair use has traditionallyserved as an "escape value" to provide relief in an individual case from the finding of infringement that otherwise would be required by a literal reading of the copyrightstatute. The doctrine is not and never was intended to excuse widespread copying of the same copyrighted work by a multitude of users at the same time nor is it nor wasit ever intended to threaten existing or emerging markets from which substantialinvestments must be recouped. n1 To the extent that that doctrine might be soapplied in this case as requested by the petitioners, AAP and AAUP members wouldbe seriously prejudiced.n1 Remarks of David Ladd, Register of Copyrights, to the Patent, Trademark andCopyright Section of the American Bar Association (Aug. 10, 1982).Additionally, AAP members own copyright in the works underlying motion picturesshown on television and retain an interest in such audiovisual rights in their works.The detrimental effect of uncompensated home video-recording on these subsidiaryrights should not be ignored.INTRODUCTION: Preliminary StatementThe Association of American Publishers, Inc. (AAP) and the Association of AmericanUniversity Presses, Inc. (AAUP) submit this brief Amici Curiae in support of theposition of the respondents Universal City Studios, Inc. and Walt Disney Productions,Inc., as sustained by the Court below, that the home video recording of respondents'copyrighted motion pictures by the defendant William Griffiths and by others not joined as defendants infringed the respondents' copyrights in those works. AAP andAAUP will not address the issues of vicarious or contributory liability in this brief.AAP is a trade association of book publishers in the United States. Its more than300 member companies and subsidiaries publish between 70% and 75% of the dollarvolume of all books published in the United States. Some of its members alsoproduce and distribute audiovisual works. Virtually all of such publications andaudiovisual works are protected by copyright.The AAUP is an educational not-for-profit association serving university presses.Its 80 members and 5 affiliates include the presses of virtually all of the mostdistinguished American universities, as well as several Canadian an international
of 00
EFF: betamax amicus aap
162 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 01/28/2008 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment