Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/17132365/On-Command-Video-Corp-v-Columbia-Pictures-Industries-777-F-Supp-787-N-D-Cal-1991
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 02:11:35
Document Index: 543810242

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 106', '§ 106', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101']

On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991). | Copyright | Hotel
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinOn Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal.1991) United States District Court for the Northern District of California
On Command Video Corporation v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios, Inc., the Walt Disney Company, and Warner Brothers, Inc.;
No. C-89-4022 SAW (JSB). Decided November 14, 1991 — Filed November 14, 1991.
For the Plaintiﬀ: Jeﬀrey King; Jeﬀrey Poston, Bickel & Brewer, Washington, D.C., Michael Healy, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, San Francisco, California. For the Defendants: Robert Kuenzel, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, San Francisco, California, emphCarole Hander; Arthur Silber, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, Los Angeles, California.
Stanley A. Weigel, United States District Judge. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiﬀ seeks a declaratory judgment that its hotel video-movie viewing system does not infringe defendants’ copyrights in the movies shown through the system. All but one of the defendants have joined to counterclaim for damages for copyright infringement by plaintiﬀ’s sys­ tem.1 Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Plaintiﬀ, the designer and builder of an innovative video viewing system cur­ rently installed in a number of hotels, insists that a hotel occupant’s viewing of one or more of defendants’ movies through its system does not constitute a “public perfor­ mance” under the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Defendants, seven major United States movie com­ panies, contend that such viewings do constitute public performances and that plaintiﬀ’s system therefore vio­ lates defendants’ exclusive right of public performance under § 106(4) of the Act. I. Facts The material facts of this case are not in dispute. On Command has developed a system for the electronic de­ livery of movie video tapes. The system consists of a computer program, a sophisticated electronic switch, and a bank of video cassette players (“VCPs”), all of which are centrally located in a hotel equipment room. The VCPs are connected to the hotel’s guest rooms by wiring. The computer program directs the electronic switches so that a particular VCP will be dedicated to the guest room where a particular movie is requested. Each VCP con­ tains a video tape. When a guest requests a particular movie, the computer identiﬁes the VCP containing that movie, switches the VCP to that particular room, and starts the movie video. A hotel guest operates the system from his or her room by remote control. After the television is turned on, the
screen lists a menu of available movies. The guest selects a movie by entering the appropriate code on the remote control. Once a particular video is selected, that video selection disappears from the menu of available videos displayed on all other television sets in the hotel. The video is seen only in the room where it was selected by the guest. It cannot be seen in any other guest room or in any other location in the hotel. The viewer cannot pause, rewind, or fast-forward the video. When the movie ends, it is automatically rewound and then immediately available for viewing by another hotel guest. The only components of the system installed in the guest rooms are the hand-held remote control and a mi­ croprocessor in the television set. When a guest checks in to the hotel, the hotel clerk uses a front-desk termi­ nal connected to the On Command computer program to activate movie transmission to the appropriate room. At the guest’s request, the clerk can prevent the transmis­ sion of adult movies to a room or deactivate service to a room altogether. The apparent advantages On Com­ mand’s system enjoys over existing closed-circuit hotel video systems with pre-set movie times, such as “Spec­ travision,” are the larger variety of movies available for viewing and the guests’ freedom to watch them on their own schedule. On Command’s system also eliminates the eﬀort and potential guest embarrassment of in-house ho­ tel video rental programs, in which VCPs are installed in individual rooms and guests must physically rent videos from the hotel staﬀ. II. Discussion A copyright owner has the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly” or to authorize any such public performance. 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). What consti­ tutes a public performance is deﬁned by the Copyright Act in two clauses. Under clause (1), the “public place” clause, a performance is public if it occurs at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under clause (2), the “transmit” clause, a performance is public if someone transmits or otherwise communicates a performance or display of the work to a place speciﬁed by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process. Id. Under the transmit clause, a performance is public “whether the members of the public capable of receiving
1 Embassy Pictures does not join as a counterclaimant. According to plaintiﬀ, Embassy was originally named as a defendant but has since changed its name, was not served with the complaint, and is not a party to this suit at this time.
On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991) Page 2 the performance or display receive it in the same place Professional Real Estate, 866 F.2d at 282 n.7. The fact or in separate places and at the same time or at diﬀerent that hotel guests initiate this transmission by turning on times.” Id. the television and choosing a video is immaterial. On Command’s video transmissions are also “to the Both plaintiﬀ and defendants base their motions for public” for the purposes of the transmit clause. Hotel summary judgment on favorable interpretations of these clauses. Both also rely heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s de­ guests watching a video movie in their room through On cision in Columbia Pictures v. Professional Real Estate, Command’s system are not watching it in a “public place” 866 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1989). This Court must there­ but they are nonetheless members of “the public.” See fore determine whether On Command’s system results in Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, 568 the public performance of defendants’ movies under the F.Supp. 494, 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 995 (W.D. Pa. 1983), aﬀ’d 749 F.2d 154, 159, 224 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 641 (3rd statutory clauses and Professional Real Estate. Cir. 1984) (“the transmission of a performance to mem­ A. The Public Place Clause. bers of the public, even in private settings such as ho­ Professional Real Estate held that hotel guest rooms are not “public places” for the purposes of the Copyright tel rooms . . . constitutes a public performance”) (citing Act. 866 F.2d at 280. Defendants do not challenge this H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. at 64 (1976) holding. Rather, defendants argue that because On Com­ (“1976 House Report”)); ESPN Inc. v. Edinburg Commu­ mand’s system comprises components dispersed through­ nity Hotel, Inc., 735 F.Supp. 1334, 1340 (S.D. Tex. 1986) out a hotel — i.e., the command center is located in a (“The House Report . . . on the Copyright Act makes ex­ hotel equipment room, the hotel operator’s terminal is plicit that performances to occupants of hotel rooms fall in the front lobby, the transmission wiring is installed within the deﬁnition of a public performance”). This throughout the walls and ceilings — the relevant place is because the relationship between the transmitter of of performance is not the individual hotel rooms but the the performance, On Command, and the audience, ho­ entire hotel, which defendants contend is a public place tel guests, is a commercial, “public” one regardless of under the language of the Act. This argument is unavail­ where the viewing takes place. The non-public nature of ing. At least for the purposes of public place analysis, the place of the performance has no bearing on whether a performance of a work does not occur every place a or not those who enjoy the performance constitute “the wire carrying the performance passes through; a perfor­ public” under the transmit clause. A performance may still be public under the transmit mance occurs where it is received. Accepting defendants’ clause “whether the members of the public . . . receive it in argument would eviscerate both the concepts of “perfor­ mance” and “public place.” The Act deﬁnes the perfor­ the same place or in separate places and at the same time mance of a motion picture as the “showing of its images or at diﬀerent times.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. A 1967 Report by in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it the House of Representatives reveals that Congress added audible.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. A movie video is thus per­ this language to the transmit clause to cover precisely the formed only when it is visible and audible. In On Com­ sort of single-viewer system developed by plaintiﬀ: mand’s system, this viewing and hearing occurs only in [This language makes doubly clear that] a per­ an individual guest room. That can be the only rele­ formance made available by transmission to vant place of performance for public place analysis. Since the public at large is “public” even though the hotel guest rooms are indisputably not public places for recipients are not gathered in a single place, copyright purposes, On Command’s system results in no and even if there is no direct proof that any of public performances under the public place clause. the potential recipients was operating his re­ B. The Transmit Clause. ceiving apparatus at the time of the transmis­ Public performance of defendants’ movies under this sion. The same principles apply whenever the clause occurs if On Command “transmits” the movies “to potential recipients of the transmission rep­ the public.” Under the Copyright Act, to “transmit” a resent a limited segment of the public, such performance is to communicate it by any device or pro­ as the occupants of hotel rooms. . . .; they are cess whereby images or sounds are received beyond the also applicable where the transmission is ca­ place from which they are sent. pable of reaching diﬀerent recipients at diﬀer­ Id. Plaintiﬀ’s argument that On Command’s system ent times, as in the case of sounds or images involves not “transmissions” but “electronic rentals” sim­ stored in an information system and capable ilar to patrons’ physical borrowing of videotapes is with­ of being performed or displayed at the initia­ out merit. On Command transmits movie performances tive of individual members of the public. directly under the language of the deﬁnition. The system H.R. Rep. No. 83, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. at 29 (1967). “communicates” the motion picture “images and sounds” by a “device or process” — the equipment and wiring Thus, whether the number of hotel guests viewing an network — from a central console in a hotel to individual On Command transmission is one or one hundred, and guest rooms, where the images and sounds are received whether these guests view the transmission simultane­ “beyond the place from which they are sent.” See also ously or sequentially, the transmission is still a public
On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991) Page 3 performance since it goes to members of the public. See sary to postpone the Court’s ruling until the documenta­ also Redd Horne, 749 F.2d at 159 (transmissions of videos tion regarding these ﬁve movies is complete. The failure to private viewing booths occupied by one to four per­ of proof regarding these movies bears ultimately on the sons infringing under transmit clause); Paramount Pic­ question of remedies, which will be awarded only for those tures Corp. v. Labus, 16 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1142, 1147 infringements properly proven. (W.D. Wisc. 1990) (hotel’s distribution of unauthorized Accordingly, copies of video cassettes to single guest violated copy­ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: right owner’s exclusive right to distribute work to “the (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is public”). On Command therefore “publicly performs” GRANTED; defendants’ movies under the meaning of the transmit (2) Plaintiﬀ’s motion for summary judgment is DE­ clause. NIED; C. Defendants’ Ownership of Copyright (3) Further proceedings on injunctive relief and dam­ Plaintiﬀ raises defendants’ ownership of copyright in a number of the movies in question as a disputed issue of ages are scheduled for hearing before this Court on Jan­ fact. Defendants concede that their copyright in ﬁve (5) uary 16, 1992, at 2:15pm. Defendants must serve and of these movies is insuﬃciently documented in the sub­ ﬁle any supplemental documentation proving copyright mitted exhibits and ask leave to supplement their submis­ ownership on or before December 16, 1992. Plaintiﬀ’s sions accordingly. Since defendants seek summary judg­ response, if any, must be served and ﬁled on or before ment only on the issue of liability, however, it is unneces­ December 31, 1992.
More From This UserCopyright Applied to Music, Computers; Napster®; Peer-to-Peer File SharingSony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).LexisNexis®; 1976 Copyright ActSoftware Licensing; DVDs and Encryptionprs_w14d2_qonlyprs_w14d1_qonlyprs_w13d1_qonlyprs_w12d2_qonlyprs_w11d2_qonlyprs_w11d1_qonlyprs_w09d1_qonlyprs_w07d2_qonlyprs_w07d1_qonlyprs_w06d2_qonlyPrs w06d1 Qonlyprs_w05d2_qonlyprs_w05d1_qonlyprs_w04d2_qonlyprs_w03d2_qonlyprs_w03d1_qonlyprs_w02d2_qonlyprs_w01d2_qonlyprs_w02d1_qonly
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulOn Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991). by akirank1EmbedDownloadDescriptionIntroduction; Basics of Legal Research; Legal Citations 2 LexisNexis®; 1976 Copyright Act 3 Copyright Applied to Music, Computers; Napster®; Peer-to-Peer File Sharing 4 Software Licen...Introduction; Basics of Legal Research; Legal Citations 2 LexisNexis®; 1976 Copyright Act 3 Copyright Applied to Music, Computers; Napster®; Peer-to-Peer File Sharing 4 Software Licensing; DVDs and Encryption Interests: Types, School Work, Study Guides, Notes, & QuizzesRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedDeath of Copyright - Steven T. Lowe (Lowe Law, P.C.)by lowelawLos Angeles Lawyer - Nov. 2010 - Death of Copyrightby dandon_trjPringle v Adams - Black Eyed Peas I Gotta Feeling Decisionby Mark H. JaffeHumphreys & Partners Architects v. HRB decision.pdfby Mark H. JaffeUS Copyright Office: OW0621-DGAby copyrightIO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. - Document No. 78by Justia.comMontz v Pilgrim Filmsby Ray DowdVideo Piracy- Background and its controlby gautammudgalgov.uscourts.cod.145001.58.0by J DoeInternational Business Model Competition - Schedule of Events & Travelby Rollins Center at BYUSenisi v. John Wiley & Sons - registering photograph copyrights.pdfby Mark H. JaffeDecsiion Acquiescence Copyright Humpby mschwimmerD.ct. Case Re No Coverage for Copyright Infringementby Daniel Ballard2852 spring 2010by combatps1History in 5 film festival - Rulesby Danielle WarrenKarlson v. Red Homes - Archtiectural Copyright - Implied Licenseby Mark H. JaffeLeonhard-The End of Control Chapters 1-6by Gab LópezApril HNN Article Finalby Thomas DiwoAvatar rulingby eriq_gardner6833Volterra Semiconductor v. Primarion Patent MSJby Northern District of California BlogRoger Etkins v. Judy Glenn, 3rd Cir. (2013)by Scribd Government DocsStars Stripesby Eriq Gardner1.2IBC.pdf BM, TTHM, HRM, MKT, FM_ cert.pdfby Marshall-tendai Zifa-sire Zuku-chibikaAbercrombieby Roen AbeOrdinary Hereos of Tajby Ravi KukrejaORDER Granting Two Plus Two v. Boyd MSJby Michael MinkoffCodigo Publishing v Feltonby jeanvidalprHVS - 2011 India Hotel Compensation Surveyby Tarun SabnaniSimilar to On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991).Death of Copyright - Steven T. Lowe (Lowe Law, P.C.)Los Angeles Lawyer - Nov. 2010 - Death of CopyrightPringle v Adams - Black Eyed Peas I Gotta Feeling DecisionHumphreys & Partners Architects v. HRB decision.pdfUS Copyright OfficeIO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. - Document No. 78Montz v Pilgrim FilmsVideo Piracy- Background and its controlgov.uscourts.cod.145001.58.0International Business Model Competition - Schedule of Events & TravelSenisi v. John Wiley & Sons - registering photograph copyrights.pdfDecsiion Acquiescence Copyright HumpD.ct. Case Re No Coverage for Copyright Infringement2852 spring 2010History in 5 film festival - RulesKarlson v. Red Homes - Archtiectural Copyright - Implied LicenseLeonhard-The End of Control Chapters 1-6April HNN Article FinalAvatar rulingVolterra Semiconductor v. Primarion Patent MSJRoger Etkins v. Judy Glenn, 3rd Cir. (2013)Stars Stripes1.2IBC.pdf BM, TTHM, HRM, MKT, FM_ cert.pdfAbercrombieOrdinary Hereos of TajORDER Granting Two Plus Two v. Boyd MSJCodigo Publishing v FeltonHVS - 2011 India Hotel Compensation SurveyJones v. Dirty World (thedirty.com); Reply in support of Defendants' Motion for Summary JudgmentCable CowboyOn Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991).