Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/422/151
Timestamp: 2014-12-19 07:35:04
Document Index: 192620652

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 101', '§ 48']

TWENTIETH CENTURY MUSIC CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. George AIKEN. | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews TWENTIETH CENTURY MUSIC CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. George AIKEN.
422 U.S. 151 (95 S.Ct. 2040, 45 L.Ed.2d 84)
Argued: April 21, 1975.
[HTML] dissent, BURGER, DOUGLAS
On March 11, 1972, broadcasts of two copyrighted musical compositions were received on the radio from a local station while several customers were in Aiken's establisment. Petitioner Twentieth Century Music Corp. owns the copyright on one of these songs, 'The More I See You'; petitioner Mary Bourne the copyright on the other, 'Me and My Shadow.' Petitioners are members of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), an association that licenses the performing rights of its members to their copyrighted works. The station that broadcast the petitioners' songs was licensed by ASCAP to broadcast them.
gives to a copyright holder a monopoly limited to specified 'exclusive' rights in his copyrighted works.
'The Copyright Act does not give a copyright holder control over all uses of his copyrighted work. Instead, § 1 of the Act enumerates several 'rights' that are made 'exclusive' to the holder of the copyright. If a person, without authorization from the copyright holder, puts a copyrighted work to a use within the scope of one of these 'exclusive rights,' he infringes the copyright. If he puts the work to a use not enumerated in § 1, he does not infringe.' 392 U.S., at 393395, 88 S.Ct., at 2086.
Accordingly, if an unlicensed use of a copyrighted work does not conflict with an 'exclusive' right conferred by the statute, it is no infringement of the holder's rights. No license is required by the Copyright Act, for example, to sing a copyrighted lyric in the shower.
The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, 52 S.Ct. 546, 547, 76 L.Ed. 1010. See Kendall v. Winsor, 62 U.S. 322, 21 How. 322, 327328, 16 L.Ed. 165; Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218, 6 Pet. 218, 241242, 8 L.Ed. 376. When technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose.
The precise statutory issue in the present case is whether Aiken infringed upon the petitioners' exclusive right, under the Copyright Act of 1909, 17 U.S.C. 1(e), '(t)o perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit.'
We may assume that the radio reception of the musical compositions in Aiken's restaurant occurred 'publicly for profit.' See Herbert v. Shanley Co., 242 U.S. 591, 37 S.Ct. 232, 61 L.Ed. 511. The dispositive question, therefore, is whether this radio reception constituted a 'performance' of the copyrighted works.
When this statutory provision was enacted in 1909, its purpose was to prohibit unauthorized performances of copyrighted musical compositions in such public places as concert halls, theaters, restaurants, and cabarets. See H.R.Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909). An orchestra or individual instrumentalist or singer who performs a copyrighted musical composition in such a public place without a license is thus clearly an infringer under the statute. The entrepreneur who sponsors such a public performance for profit is also an infringerdirect or contributory. See generally 1 & 2 M. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 102, 134 (1974). But it was never contemplated that the members of the audience who heard the composition would themselves also be simultaneously 'performing,' and thus also guilty of infringement. This much is common ground.
With the advent of commercial radio, a broadcast musical composition could be heard instantaneously by an enormous audience of distant and separate persons operating their radio receiving sets to reconvert the broadcast to audible form.
Although Congress did not revise the statutory language, copyright law was quick to adapt to prevent the exploitation of protected works through the new electronic technology. In short, it was soon established in the federal courts that the broadcast of a copyrighted musical composition by a commercial radio station was a public performance of that composition for profitand thus an infringement of the copyright if not licensed. In one of the earliest cases to holding, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said:
'A performance, in our judgment, is no less public because the listeners are unable to communicate with one another, or are not assembled within an inclosure, or gathered together in some open stadium or park or other public place. Nor can a performance, in our judgment, be deemed private because each listener may enjoy it alone in the privacy of his home. Radio broadcasting is intended to, and in fact does, reach a very much larger number of the public at the moment of the rendition than any other medium of performance. The artist is consciously addressing a great, though unseen and widely scattered, audience, and is therefore participating in a public performance.' Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. American Automobile Accessories Co., 6 Cir., 5 F.2d 411, 411412.
Such was the state of the law when this Court in 1931 decided Buck v. jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 51 S.Ct. 410, 75 L.Ed. 971. In that case the Court was called upon to answer the following question certified by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: 'Do the acts of a hotel proprietor, in making available to his guests, through the instrumentality of a radio receiving set and loud speakers installed in his hotel and under his control and for the entertainment of his guests, the hearing of a copyrighted musical composition which has been broadcast from a radio transmitting station, constitute a performance of such composition within the meaning of 17 USC 1(e)?' The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. In stating the facts of the case, however, the Court's opinion made clear that the broadcaster of the musical composition was not licensed to perform it, and at least twice in the course of its opinion the Court indicated that the answer to the certified question might have been different if the broadcast itself had been authorized by the copyright holder.
We may assume for present purposes that the Jewel-LaSalle decision retains authoritative force in a factual situation like that in which it arose.
But, as the Court of Appeals in this case perceived, this Court has in two recent decisions explicitly disavowed the view that the reception of an electronic broadcast can constitute a performance, when the broadcaster himself is licensed to perform the copyrighted material that he broadcasts. Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390, 88 S.Ct. 2084, 20 L.Ed.2d 1176; Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394, 94 S.Ct. 1129, 39 L.Ed.2d 415.
'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, broadcasters have been judicially treated as exhibitors, and viewers as members of a theater audience. Broadcasters perform. Viewers do not perform. Thus, while both broadcaster and viewer play crucial roles in the total television process, a line is drawn between them. One is treated as active performer; the other, as passive beneficiary.' 392 U.S., at 398399, 88 S.Ct., at 2088 (footnotes omitted).
The practical unenforceability of a ruling that all of those in Aiken's position are copyright infringers is self-evident. One has only to consider the countless business establishments in this country with radio or television sets on their premisesbars, beauty shops, cafeterias, car washes, dentists' offices, and drivinsto realize the total futility of any evenhanded effort on the part of copyright holders to license even a substantial percentage of them.
And a ruling that a radio listener 'performs' every broadcast that he receives would be highly inequitable for two distinct reasons. First, a person in Aiken's position would have no sure way of protecting himself from liability for copyright infringement except by keeping his radio set turned off. For even if he secured a license from ASCAP, he would have no way of either foreseeing or controlling the broadcast of compositions whose copyright was held by someone else.
Secondly, to hold that all in Aiken's position 'performed' these musical compositions would be to authorize the sale of an untold number of licenses for what is basically a single public rendition of a copyrighted work. The exaction of such multiple tribute would go far beyond what is required for the economic protection of copyright owners,
and would be wholly at odds with the balanced congressional purpose behind 17 U.S.C. 1(e):
2. My second discomfort is precedential. Forty-four years ago, in a unanimous opinion written by Mr. Justice Brandeis, this Court held that a hotel proprietor's use of a radio receiving set and loudspeakers for the entertainment of hotel guests constituted a performance within the meaning of § 1 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1. Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 51 S.Ct. 410, 75 L.Ed. 971 (1931). For more than 35 years the rule in Jewell-LaSalle was a benchmark in copyright law and was the foundation of a significant portion of the rather elaborate licensing agreements that evolved with the developing media technology. Seven years ago the Court, by a 51 vote, and with three Justice not participating, held that a community antenna television (CATV) station that transmitted copyrighted works to home subscribers was not performing the works, within the meaning of § 1 of the Copyright Act. Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390, 88 S.Ct. 2084, 20 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1968). The divided Court only briefly noted the relevance of Jewell-LaSalle and announced that that decision 'must be understood as limited to its own facts.' Id., at 396397, n. 18, 88 S.Ct. at 2088. I have already indicated my disagreement with the reasoning of Fortnightly and my conviction that it, rather than Jewell-LaSalle, is the case that should be limited to its facts. Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394, 415, 94 S.Ct. 1129, 1141, 39 L.Ed.2d 415 (1974) (dissenting opinion.) I was there concerned about the Court's simplistic view of television's complications, a view perhaps encouraged by the obvious inadequacies of an ancient copyright Act for today's technology. A majority of the Court, however, felt otherwise and extended the simplistic analysis rejected in Jewell-LaSalle, but embraced in Fortnightly, to even more complex arrangements in the CATV industry. Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS supra.
I had hoped, secondarily, that the reasoning of Fortnightly and Teleprompter would be limited to CATV. At least in that context the two decisions had the arguably desirable effect of protecting an infant industry from a premature death. Today, however, the Court extends Fortnightly and Teleprompter into radio broadcasting, effectively overrules Jewell-LaSalle, and thereby abrogates more than 40 years of established business practices. I would limit the application of Teleprompter and Fortnightly to the peculiar industry that spawned them. Parenthetically, it is of interest to note that this is precisely the result that would be achieved by virtually all versions of proposed revisions of the Copyright Act. See, e.g., § 101 of S. 1361, 93d Cong., 2d See., which sought to amend, 17 U.S.C. 110(5). See also §§ 48(5) and (6) of the British Copyright Act of 1956, 4 & 5 Eliz. 2, c. 74, which distinguishes between the use of a radio in a public place and 'the causing of a work or other subject-matter to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service.'
3. My third discomfort is tactical. I cannot understand why the Court is so reluctant to do directly what it obviously is doing indirectly, namely, to overrule Jewell-LaSalle. Of course, in my view, that decision was correct at the time it was decided, and I would regard it as good law today under the identical statute and with identical broadcasting. But, as I have noted, the Court in Fortnightly limited Jewell-LaSalle 'to its own facts,' and in Teleprompter ignored its existence completely by refusing even to cite it. This means, it seems to me, that the Court did not want to overrule it, but nevertheless did not agree with it and felt, hopefully, that perhaps it would not bother us anymore anyway. Today the Court does much the same thing again by extracting and discovering great significance in the fact that the broadcaster in Jewell-LaSalle was not licensed to perform the composition. I cannot join the Court's intimation, ante, at 160-surely stretched to the breaking pointthat Mr. Justice Brandeis and the unanimous Court for which he spoke would have reached a contrary conclusion in Jewell-LaSalle in 1931 had that broadcaster been licensed. The Court dances around Jewell-LaSalle, as indeed it must, for it is potent opposing precedent for the present case and stands stalwart against respondent Aiken's position. I think we should be realistic and forthright and, if Jewell-LaSalle is in the way, overrule it.
Yet, the issue presented can only be resolved appropriately by the Congress; perhaps it will find the result which the Court reaches today a practical and equitable resolution, or perhaps it will find this functional analysis'
too simplistic an approach, cf. Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394, 415, 94 S.Ct. 1129, 1141, 39 L.Ed.2d 415 (1974) (Blackmun, J., dissenting), and opt for another solution.
As the Court's opinion notes, nate, at 160, in Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 51 S.Ct. 410, 75 L.Ed. 971 (1931), answering a precisely phrased certified question, the Court construed the Copyright Act in a manner which squarely conflicts with what is held today. Congress, despite many opportunities, has never legislatively overruled Buck, supra. It was not overruled in Fortnightly but treated 'as limited to its own facts.' 392 U.S., at 396397, n. 18, 88 S.Ct., at 2087. Even assuming the correctness of this dubious process of limitation, see Fortnightly, supra, 392 U.S. at 405, 88 S.Ct. at 2092 (Fortas, J., dissenting); Teleprompter, supra, 415 U.S. at 415, 94 S.Ct. at 1141 (Blackmun, J., dissenting), Buck is squarely relevant here since the license at issue expressly negated any right on the part of the broadcaster to further license performances by those who commercially receive and distribute broadcast music. Moreover, even accepting, arguendo, the restrictive reading given to Buck by the Court today, and assuming the correctness of Fortnightly and Teleprompter in the CATV field, it is not at all clear that the analysis of these latter cases supports the result here.
Respondent was more than a 'passive beneficiary.' Fortnightly, supra, 392 U.S. at 399, 88 S.Ct. at 2089. He took the transmission and used that transmission for commercial entertainment in his own profit enterprise, through a multispeaker audio system specifically designed for his business purposes.
In short, this case does not call for what the Court describes as 'a ruling that a radio listener 'performs' every broadcast that he receives . . .,' ante, at 162. Here, respondent received the transmission and then put it to an independent commercial use. His conduct seems to me controlled by Buck's unequivocal holding that:
'One who hires an orchestra for a public performance for profit is not relieved from a charge of infringement merely because he does not select the particular program to be played. Similarly, when he tunes in on a broadcasting station, for his own commercial purposes, he necessarily assumes the risk that in so doing he may infringe the performing rights of another.' 283 U.S., at 198199, 51 S.Ct. at 412.
For a discussion of ASCAP, see K91, Inc. v. Gershwin Publishing Corp., 372 F.2d 1 (CA9).
Title 17 U.S.C. 1 provides in part:
Cf. Wall v. Taylor, 11 Q.B.D. 102, 106107 (1883) (Brett, M.R.): Singing for one's own gratification without intending thereby to represent anything, or to amuse any one else, would not, I think, be either a representation or performance, according to the ordinary meaning of those terms, nor would the fact of some other person being in the room at the time of such singing make it so . . ..'
'(O)ur inquiry cannot be limited to ordinary meaning and legislative history, for this is a statute that was drafted long before the development of the electronic phenomena with which we deal here. In 1909 radio itself was in its infancy, and television had not been invented. We must read the statutory language of 60 years ago in the light of drastic technological change.' Id., at 395396, 88 S.Ct. at 2087 (footnotes omitted).
'Such divergences from the ideal . . . are likely to be corrected . . ..' Reflections on the Law of Copyright: I, 45 Col.L.Rev. 503, 528529.
Indeed, in its consideration of S. 1361, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary undertook to distinguish use of 'ordinary radios' from situations 'where broadcasts are transmitted to substantial audiences by means of loudspeakers covering a wide area.' S.Rep.No. 93983, p. 130 (1974). The value of this distinction, without drawing a line on the number of outlets that would be exempt is at best dubious; this version leaves the obvious gap in the statute to be filled in by the courts.