Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/392/390.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:15:41+00:00

Document:
Petitioner operates community antenna television (CATV) systems which receive, amplify, and modulate signals from five television stations, convert them to different frequencies, and transmit them to their subscribers' television sets. Petitioner does not edit the programs or originate any programs of its own. Respondent, which owns copyrights on several motion pictures, had licensed the five television stations to broadcast certain of these films. The licenses did not authorize carriage of the broadcasts by CATV, and in some instances specifically prohibited such carriage. Respondent sued petitioner, which had no copyright license from either respondent or the television stations, for copyright infringement, claiming violation of its exclusive rights under 1 (c) and (d) of the Copyright Act of 1909, to "perform . . . in public for profit" (nondramatic literary works) and to "perform . . . publicly" (dramatic works). Petitioner maintained that it did not "perform" the copyrighted works at all. The District Court ruled for respondent on the infringement issue, which was tried separately, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: Judicial construction of the Copyright Act, in the light of drastic technological changes, has treated broadcasters as exhibitors, who "perform," and viewers as members of the audience, who do not "perform," and since petitioner's CATV systems basically do no more than enhance the viewers' capacity to receive the broadcast signals, the CATV systems fall within the category of viewers, and petitioner does not "perform" the programs that its systems receive and carry. Pp. 395-402.
Louis Nizer argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Gerald Meyer, Gerald F. Phillips, and Lawrence S. Lesser.
Solicitor General Griswold filed a memorandum for the United States, as amicus curiae.
Bruce E. Lovett filed a brief for the National Cable Television Association, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Warner W. Gardner, William H. Dempsey, Jr., and Douglas A. Anello for the National Association of Broadcasters; by Ambrose Doskow for Broadcast Music, Inc.; by Michael Finkelstein for the All-Channel Television Society; by Irwin Karp for the Authors League of America, Inc.; by Herman Finkelstein, Simon H. Rifkind, Jay H. Topkis, and Paul S. Adler for the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers; by Paul P. Selvin and William Berger for the Writers Guild of America et al., and by Leonard Zissu and Abraham Marcus for the Screen Composers Association of the United States.
The respondent, United Artists Television, Inc., holds copyrights on several motion pictures. During the period in suit, the respondent (or its predecessor) granted various licenses to each of the five television stations in question to broadcast certain of these copyrighted motion pictures. Broadcasts made under these licenses were received by the petitioner's Clarksburg and Fairmont CATV systems and carried to its customers. At no time did the petitioner (or its predecessors) obtain a license under the copyrights from the respondent or from any of the five television stations. The licenses granted by the respondent to the five stations did not authorize carriage of the broadcasts by CATV systems, and in several instances the licenses specifically prohibited such carriage.
The respondent sued the petitioner for copyright infringement in a federal court, asking damages and injunctive relief. The issue of infringement was separately tried, and the court ruled in favor of the respondent. 255 F. Supp. 177. On interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292 (b), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 377 F.2d 872. We granted certiorari, 389 U.S. 969 , to consider an important question under the Copyright Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 1075, as amended, 17 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
The Court of Appeals thought that the controlling question in deciding whether the petitioner's CATV systems "performed" the copyrighted works was: "[H]ow much did the [petitioner] do to bring about the viewing and hearing of a copyrighted work?" 377 F.2d, at 877. Applying this test, the court found that the petitioner did "perform" the programs carried by its systems. 18 But [392 U.S. 390, 397] mere quantitative contribution cannot be the proper test to determine copyright liability in the context of television broadcasting. If it were, many people who make large contributions to television viewing might find themselves liable for copyright infringement - not only the apartment house owner who erects a common antenna for his tenants, but the shopkeeper who sells or rents television sets, and, indeed, every television set manufacturer. Rather, resolution of the issue before us depends upon a determination of the function that CATV plays in the total process of television broadcasting and reception.
The television broadcaster in one sense does less than the exhibitor of a motion picture or stage play; he supplies his audience not with visible images but only with electronic signals. The viewer conversely does more than a member of a theater audience; he provides the equipment to convert electronic signals into audible sound and visible images. Despite these deviations from the conventional situation contemplated by the framers of the Copyright Act, 22 broadcasters have been judicially treated as exhibitors, and viewers as members of a theater audience. Broadcasters perform. 23 Viewers do not perform. 24 Thus, while both broadcaster and viewer play crucial roles in the total television process, a line is drawn [392 U.S. 390, 399] between them. One is treated as active performer; the other, as passive beneficiary.
When CATV is considered in this framework, we conclude that it falls on the viewer's side of the line. 25 Essentially, a CATV system no more than enhances the viewer's capacity to receive the broadcaster's signals; it provides a well-located antenna with an efficient connection to the viewer's television set. 26 It is true that a CATV system plays an "active" role in making reception possible in a given area, but so do ordinary television sets and antennas. CATV equipment is powerful and sophisticated, but the basic function the equipment serves is little different from that served by the equipment generally furnished by a television viewer. 27 [392 U.S. 390, 400] If an individual erected an antenna on a hill, strung a cable to his house, and installed the necessary amplifying equipment, he would not be "performing" the programs he received on his television set. The result would be no different if several people combined to erect a cooperative antenna for the same purpose. The only difference in the case of CATV is that the antenna system is erected and owned not by its users but by an entrepreneur.
We have been invited by the Solicitor General in an amicus curiae brief to render a compromise decision in this case that would, it is said, accommodate various competing considerations of copyright, communications, and antitrust policy. 31 We decline the invitation. 32 That job is for Congress. 33 We take the Copyright Act of 1909 [392 U.S. 390, 402] as we find it. With due regard to changing technology, we hold that the petitioner did not under that law "perform" the respondent's copyrighted works.
[ Footnote 1 ] For a discussion of CATV systems generally, see United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., ante, at 161-164.
[ Footnote 2 ] In 1960, out of 11,442 occupied housing units in the Clarksburg area, about 7,900 subscribed to the petitioner's CATV service; out of 9,079 units in Fairmont, about 5,100 subscribed.
[ Footnote 3 ] The petitioner's systems utilized modulating equipment only during the period 1958-1964.
[ Footnote 4 ] Since 1960, some changes have been made in the stations carried by each of the petitioner's systems. As of May 1, 1964, the Clarksburg system was carrying the two local stations and three of the more distant stations, and the Fairmont system was carrying one local station and four of the more distant stations.
[ Footnote 5 ] Clarksburg and Fairmont are 18 miles apart.
[ Footnote 6 ] Some CATV systems, about 10%, originate some of their own programs. We do not deal with such systems in this opinion.
[ Footnote 7 ] The monthly rate ranged from $3.75 to $5, and customers were also charged an installation fee. Increased charges were levied for additional television sets and for commercial establishments.
[ Footnote 8 ] See, e. g., Fawcett Publications v. Elliot Publishing Co., 46 F. Supp. 717; Hayden v. Chalfant Press, Inc., 281 F.2d 543, 547-548.
"The fundamental [is] that `use' is not the same thing as `infringement,' that use short of infringement is to be encouraged . . . ." B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright 57 (1967).
"(e) To perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit if it be a musical composition; and for the purpose of public performance for profit, and for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) hereof, to make any arrangement or setting of it or of the melody of it in any system of notation or any form of record in which the thought of an author may be recorded and from which it may be read or reproduced . . . ." 17 U.S.C. 1.
[ Footnote 10 ] The Copyright Act does not contain a definition of infringement as such. Rather infringement is delineated in a negative fashion by the 1 enumeration of rights exclusive to the copyright holder. See M. Nimmer, Copyright 100 (1968).
[ Footnote 11 ] See n. 9, supra. We do not reach the petitioner's claim that the respondent's animated cartoons are not "literary works."
[ Footnote 13 ] The petitioner also contends that if it did "perform" the copyrighted works, it did not do so "in public."
[ Footnote 14 ] Cf. White-Smith Music Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1 .
[ Footnote 15 ] The legislative history shows that the attention of Congress was directed to the situation where the dialogue of a play is transcribed by a member of the audience, and thereafter the play is produced by another party with the aid of the transcript. H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1909).
[ Footnote 16 ] "While statutes should not be stretched to apply to new situations not fairly within their scope, they should not be so narrowly construed as to permit their evasion because of changing habits due to new inventions and discoveries." Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. American Automobile Accessories Co., 5 F.2d 411.
[ Footnote 17 ] A revision of the 1909 Act was begun in 1955 when Congress authorized a program of studies by the Copyright Office. Progress has not been rapid. The Copyright Office issued its report in 1961. Register of Copyrights, Report on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, House Judiciary Committee Print, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). Revision bills were introduced in the House in the Eighty-eighth Congress and in both the House and the Senate in the Eighty-ninth Congress. See H. R. 11947, 88th Cong., 2d Sess.; Hearings on H. R. 4347, 5680, 6831, 6835 before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Judiciary Committee, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965); Hearings on S. 1006 before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). H. R. 4347 was reported favorably by the House Judiciary Committee, H. R. Rep. No. 2237, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966), but not enacted. In the Ninetieth Congress revision bills were again introduced in both the House (H. R. 2512) and the Senate (S. 597). The House bill was again reported favorably, H. R. Rep. No. 83, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967), and this time, after amendment, passed by the full House. 113 Cong. Rec. 9021. The bill as reported contained a provision dealing with CATV, but the provision was struck from the bill on the House floor prior to enactment. See n. 33, infra. The House and Senate bills are currently pending before the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights.
[ Footnote 18 ] The court formulated and applied this test in the light of this Court's decision in Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191 . See also Society of European Stage Authors & Composers v. New York Hotel Statler Co., 19 F. Supp. 1. But in Jewell-LaSalle, a hotel received on a master radio set an unauthorized broadcast of a copyrighted work and transmitted that broadcast [392 U.S. 390, 397] to all the public and private rooms of the hotel by means of speakers installed by the hotel in each room. The Court held the hotel liable for infringement but noted that the result might have differed if, as in this case, the original broadcast had been authorized by the copyright holder. 283 U.S., at 199 , n. 5. The Jewell-LaSalle decision must be understood as limited to its own facts. See n. 30, infra.
[ Footnote 19 ] If the broadcaster obtains his program from a network, he receives the electronic signals directly by means of telephone lines or microwave.
[ Footnote 20 ] Broadcasting is defined under the Communications Act of 1934 as "the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by the public . . . ." 47 U.S.C. 153 (o).
[ Footnote 21 ] See Hearings on H. R. 4347, 5680, 6831, 6835 before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Judiciary Committee, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1312-1318 (1965).
[ Footnote 22 ] See n. 15, supra.
[ Footnote 23 ] Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. American Automobile Accessories Co., 5 F.2d 411 (radio broadcast); Associated Music Publishers v. Debs Memorial Radio Fund, 141 F.2d 852 (radio broadcast of recorded program); Select Theatres Corp. v. Ronzoni Macaroni Co., 59 U.S. P. Q. 288 (D.C. S. D. N. Y.) (radio broadcast of program received from network). Congress in effect validated these decisions in 1952 when it added to 1 (c) a special damages provision for "infringement by broadcast." 66 Stat. 752.
[ Footnote 24 ] "One who manually or by human agency merely actuates electrical instrumentalities, whereby inaudible elements that are omni-present in the air are made audible to persons who are within hearing, does not `perform' within the meaning of the Copyright Law." Buck v. Debaum, 40 F.2d 734, 735.
"[T]hose who listen do not perform . . . ." Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. General Electric Co., 16 F.2d 829.
[ Footnote 25 ] While we speak in this opinion generally of CATV, we necessarily do so with reference to the facts of this case.
"[T]his community antenna service was a mere adjunct of the television receiving sets with which it was connected . . . ."
[ Footnote 27 ] The District Court's decision was based in large part upon its analysis of the technical aspects of the petitioner's systems. The systems have contained at one time or another sophisticated equipment to amplify, modulate, and convert to different frequencies the signals received - operations which all require the introduction of local energy into the system. The court concluded that the signal delivered to subscribers was not the same signal as that initially received off the air. 255 F. Supp., at 190-195. The Court of Appeals refused to attach significance to the particular technology of the petitioner's systems, 377 F.2d, at 879, and we agree. The electronic operations performed by the petitioner's systems are those necessary to transmit the received signal the length of the cable efficiently and deliver a signal of adequate strength. Most of the same operations are performed by individual television sets and antennas. See Hearings on H. R. 4347 before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Judiciary Committee, supra, at 1312-1318. Whether or not the signals received and delivered are the "same," the entire process is virtually instantaneous, and electronic "information" received and delivered is identical. 255 F. Supp., at 192.
"[Broadcasters] and [CATV systems] are not engaged in the same kind of business. They operate in different ways for different purposes.
"[Broadcasters] are in the business of selling their broadcasting time and facilities to the sponsors to whom they look for their profits. They do not and cannot charge the public for their broadcasts which are beamed directly, indiscriminately and without charge through the air to any and all reception sets of the public as may be equipped to receive them.
[ Footnote 29 ] Cable Vision, Inc. v. KUTV, Inc., 211 F. Supp. 47, vacated on other grounds, 335 F.2d 348; Report and Order on CATV and TV Repeater Services, 26 F. C. C. 403, 429-430.
[ Footnote 30 ] It is said in dissent that, "Our major object . . . should be to do as little damage as possible to traditional copyright principles and to business relationships, until the Congress legislates . . . ." Post, at 404. But existing "business relationships" would hardly be preserved by extending a questionable 35-year-old decision that in actual practice has not been applied outside its own factual context, post, at 405, n. 3, so as retroactively to impose copyright liability where it has never been acknowledged to exist before. See n. 18, supra.
[ Footnote 31 ] Compare, e. g., Note, CATV and Copyright Liability, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1514 (1967); Note, CATV and Copyright Liability: On a Clear Day You Can See Forever, 52 Va. L. Rev. 1505 (1966); B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright 104-106 (1967); Statement of then Acting Assistant Attorney General (Antitrust Division) Zimmerman, Hearings on S. 1006 before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 211-219 (1966).
[ Footnote 32 ] The Solicitor General would have us hold that CATV systems do perform the programs they carry, but he would have us "imply" a license for the CATV "performances." This "implied in law" license would not cover all CATV activity but only those instances in which a CATV system operates within the "Grade B Contour" of the broadcasting station whose signal it carries. The Grade B contour is a theoretical FCC concept defined as the outer line along which reception of acceptable quality can be expected at least 90% of the time at the best 50% of locations. Sixth Report and Order, 17 Fed. Reg. 3905, 3915. Since we hold that the petitioner's systems did not perform copyrighted works, we do not reach the question of implied license.
"By, in effect, repealing the court decision which would impose full copyright liability on all CATV's in all situations, the committee recommends H. R. 2512, which would exempt them in some situations, make them fully liable in some, and provide limited liability in others." 113 Cong. Rec. 8588.
"[W]hat we seek to do in this legislation is control CATV by copyright. I say that is wrong. I feel if there is to be supervision of this fast-growing area of news media and communications media, it should legitimately come to this body from the legislative committee that has direct jurisdiction over the same.
". . . This bill and the devices used to effect communications policy are not proper functions of copyright . . . ." 113 Cong. Rec. 8599.
The vastness of the competing considerations, the complexity of any conceivable equitable solution to the problems posed, and the obvious desirability of ultimately leaving the solution to Congress induced the Solicitor General, in a memorandum filed prior to oral argument in this case, to recommend "that the Court should stay its hand because, in our view, the matter is not susceptible of definitive resolution in judicial proceedings and plenary consideration here is likely to delay and prejudice the ultimate legislative solution."
That is a splendid thought, but unhappily it will not do. I agree with the majority that we must pass on the instant case. An important legal issue is involved. Important economic values are at stake, and it would be hazardous to assume that Congress will act promptly, comprehensively, and retroactively. But the fact that the Copyright Act was written in a different day, for different factual situations, should lead us to tread cautiously here. Our major object, I suggest, should be to do as little damage as possible to traditional copyright principles and to business relationships, until the Congress legislates and relieves the embarrassment which we and the interested parties face.
The opinion of the majority, in my judgment, does not heed this admonition. In an attempt to foster the development of CATV, the Court today abandons the [392 U.S. 390, 405] teachings of precedent, including a precedent of this Court (see Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Corp., 283 U.S. 191 (1931); Society of European Stage Authors and Composers v. New York Hotel Statler Co., 19 F. Supp. 1 (1937)), as to the meaning of the term "perform" in the Copyright Act. It is not our general practice to reverse ourselves, without compelling reasons to do so, on matters of statutory construction, especially on a construction of many years' standing under which an entire industry has operated. 3 Yet today's decision might not be objectionable, if the majority replaced what it considers an outmoded interpretation of the term "perform" with a new, equally clear, and workable interpretation. It does not, however, do this. It removes from copyright law an interpretation which, though perhaps not altogether satisfactory as an analytical matter, 4 has at least been settled for nearly 40 years; and it substitutes for that discarded interpretation a rule which I do not believe is an intelligible guide for the construction of the Copyright Act. Moreover, the new rule may well have disruptive consequences outside the area of CATV.
The approach manifested in the opinion of the Court is disarmingly simple. The Court merely identifies two groups in the general field of television, one of which it believes may clearly be liable, and the other clearly not liable, for copyright infringement on a "performance" [392 U.S. 390, 406] theory: "Broadcasters perform. Viewers do not perform." From this premise, the Court goes on to hold that CATV "falls on the viewer's side of the line. Essentially, a CATV system no more than enhances the viewer's capacity to receive the broadcaster's signals; it provides a well-located antenna with an efficient connection to the viewer's set. . . . CATV equipment is powerful and sophisticated, but the basic function the equipment serves is little different from that served by the equipment generally furnished by a television viewer." Ante, at 398-399.
The vague "functional" test of the meaning of the term "perform" is, moreover, unsatisfactory. Just as a CATV system performs (on the majority's analysis) the same function as the antenna of the individual viewer, so a television camera recording a live drama performs the same function as the eye of a spectator who is present in the theater. Both the CATV and the television camera "receive programs that have been released to the public and carry them by private channels to additional viewers." Ante, at 400. Moreover, the Court has indulged in an oversimplification of the "function" of CATV. It may be, indeed, that insofar as CATV operations are limited to the geographical area which the licensed broadcaster (whose signals the CATV has picked up and carried) has the power to cover, a CATV is little more than a "cooperative antenna" employed in order to ameliorate the image on television screens at home or to bring the image to homes which, because of obstacles other than mere distance, could not receive them. But such a description will not suffice for the case in which a CATV has picked up the signals of a licensed broadcaster and carried them beyond the area - however that area be defined - which the broadcaster normally serves. In such a case the CATV is performing a function different from a simple antenna for, by hypothesis, the antenna could not pick up the signals of the licensed broadcaster and enable CATV patrons to receive them in their homes.
Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle may not be an altogether ideal gloss on the word "perform," but it has at least the merit of being settled law. I would not overrule that decision [392 U.S. 390, 408] in order to take care of this case or the needs of CATV. This Court may be wrong. The task of caring for CATV is one for the Congress. Our ax, being a rule of law, must cut straight, sharp, and deep; and perhaps this is a situation that calls for the compromise of theory and for the architectural improvisation which only legislation can accomplish.
[ Footnote 1 ] See B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright 105-106, 127-128 (1967).
[ Footnote 2 ] The Solicitor General, in his brief on the merits, recommends that we adopt a compromise approach - finding a license implied in law with respect to some CATV operations, but not with respect to others. Regardless of the advisability of such an approach from the standpoint of communications, antitrust, and other relevant policies, I do not believe it is open to us, in construing the Copyright Act, to accept the Solicitor General's proposal.
[ Footnote 3 ] Nimmer, a leading authority in the copyright field, states that although "the two major performing right societies, ASCAP and BMI, do not choose to enforce the Jewell-LaSalle doctrine to its logical extreme in that they do not demand performing licenses from commercial establishments such as bars and restaurants which operate radio or television sets for the amusement of their customers, . . . such demands are made of hotels which operate in the manner of the LaSalle Hotel." M. Nimmer, Copyright 107.41, n. 204 (1968).
[ Footnote 4 ] See M. Nimmer, Copyright 107.41 (1968).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.