Court Opinion

ID: 9495408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:02:11.786747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:00.346055
License: Public Domain

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting' in part:
LANS sent CBS’s predecessor, Westinghouse, a request to admit that: “YOU used the VIDEOTAPE without the authorization of the copyright holder.” The *943district court sustained Westinghouse’s objection that the request was “vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the meaning intended by the term ‘used’.”
“Use” is a common word used in everyday English; and it is used, without definition, throughout the law. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (penalizing one who uses a firearm during the commission of certain crimes). The definition of the word “use” is “[t]o put into service or apply for a purpose.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3d ed.1992); see also United States v. Rutherford, 54 F.3d 370, 372-73 (7th Cir.1995) (“[i]n .ordinary English, the word ‘use’ implies intentional availment.”). Its meaning is commonly understood in everyday parlance. In the context of this case, the only reasonable interpretation of the request was: “Admit that you availed yourself of the tape or employed it in some way without the authorization of the copyright holder.” What else could it mean?
The district court ruled that the term “use” was vague because “use” of a copyrighted work is not necessarily infringement. But that is like saying that the word “take” is vague if asked: Did you take that newspaper without paying for it? Just as the taking of a newspaper is not necessarily theft (for example, if the newspaper is free), not every use of a copyrighted work constitutes infringement. It is entirely possible that Westinghouse might have used the tape without violating LANS’s rights, or in a way that constituted a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. The request to admit simply asked Westinghouse to admit that it had used the videotape. Westinghouse remained free to explain at trial how it used the tape and why that use was legally permissible.
LANS propounded twenty-one requests for admissions. Westinghouse objected to every single one of them. Nineteen of the twenty-one requests were objected to as “vague and ambiguous.” We should not encourage litigants to use disingenuous semantic quibbles to evade disclosure. I respectfully dissent from Part 11(D) of Judge O’Scannlain’s otherwise persuasive opinion, the balance of which I am pleased to join.