• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
07-1480-cv
(
L
)
,
 
07-1511-cv
(
CON
)
 
United States Court of Appeals
 for the
Second Circuit
THE CARTOON NETWORK LP, LLLP andCABLE NEWS NETWORK L.P., L.L.L.P.,
 Plaintiff-Counter-Claimant-Defendants-Appellees,
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITYSTUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP, PARAMOUNT PICTURESCORPORATION, DISNEY ENTERPRISES INC., CBS BROADCASTING INC.,AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., NBC STUDIOS, INC.,
 Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees,
 – v. – CSC HOLDINGS, INC. and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 Defendants-Counterclaim-Plaintiffs-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants,(For Continuation of Caption See Inside Cover)
 _______________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-COUNTERCLAIMANTS-APPELLANTS
T
IMOTHY
A.
 
M
ACHT
 L
AW
O
FFICES OF
T
IMOTHY
A.
 
M
ACHT
 99
 
Hudson Street, 8
th
Floor  New York, New York 10013(212) 941-0494
 
J
EFFREY
A.
 
L
AMKEN
 R 
OBERT
K.
 
K 
RY
 J
OSHUA
A.
 
K 
LEIN
 B
AKER 
B
OTTS
L.L.P.T
HE
W
ARNER 
 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20004(202) 639-7700
  Attorneys for Defendants-Counterclaim-Plaintiffs-Third-Party Plaintiffs- Appellants CSC Holdings, Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corporation
 
 
  – v. – TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., CABLE NEWS NETWORK LP,LLP, TURNER NETWORK SALES, INC., TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES, L.P.,LLLP, TURNER NETWORK TELEVISION LP, LLLP,
Third-Party-Defendants-Appellees.
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI.
 
Cablevision Does Not Directly Infringe When Customers Use the RS-DVR To Make Time-Shifting Copies.............................................................3
 
A.
 
 Netcom
Requires “Volition” or “Human Intervention” inMaking the Copy...................................................................................3
 
1.
 
 Netcom
Requires Human Conduct..............................................4
 
2.
 
 Netcom
Requires Volition in the Act of Making the Copy........6
 
3.
 
Plaintiffs’ “Customer Request” Cases Confirm That“Volition” or “Human Intervention” Is Required.......................8
 
4.
 
 Netcom
Does Not Establish a “Robot” Exception toInfringement................................................................................9
 
5.
 
 Netcom
Establishes a Generally Applicable Principle of Law............................................................................................11
 
B.
 
 Netcom
’s Volition or Human Intervention Test Is Not Met Here......13
 
C.
 
Plaintiffs’ Alternative Tests Are Unfounded and Unworkable...........15
 
1.
 
Cablevision Does Not Directly Infringe Merely BecauseIt Delivers Content....................................................................15
 
2.
 
Plaintiffs’ Other Indicia of “Active” Involvement AreIrrelevant and Unworkable.......................................................19
 
D.
 
Plaintiffs’ Construction of the Act Defies WidespreadUnderstandings....................................................................................21
 
II.
 
The RS-DVR Buffers Do Not Infringe Plaintiffs’ Reproduction Rights......25
 
A.
 
Buffer Data Is Not “Fixed”.................................................................25
 
B.
 
Buffering Is
 De Minimis
......................................................................29
 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...