Cable News Network, Inc., et al. v. CSC Holdings (and other interesting Supreme Court cases)

Perusing through the United States Supreme Court’s docket, I came across an interesting entertainment law case that could significantly impact the film industry. The case is captioned: Cable News Network, Inc., et al. v. CSC Holdings, Inc, et al. But, in essence, it should be called Everybody-But-Your-Mother vs. Television. Petitioners range from Universal Studios to CBS to The Cartoon Network. Respondents are simply CSC Holding and Cablevision, but every cable station and satellite television provider in America has a vested interest in this case.

In a nutshell, it’s a copyright case discussing whether on-demand features infringe upon the petitioners’ exclusive copyrights. That is, since on-demand lets you record/store programs without the cable company obtaining an additional license, the entertainment industry gets hosed out of additional revenue.

Amicus briefs have been filed by all the major sports leagues, SAG, Sony BMG music, and countless others who could lose a pretty penny if the Court upholds the 2nd Circuit’s decision that on-demand features are similar to VHS recorders in that the respondents’ product is off the hook because it’s only a “secondary infringer” and not the actual copyright infringer. Basically, the argument is that Cablevision gives you the keys to the copyright infringement vehicle but does not drive the car or give you directions on how to infringe.

Right now, we’re waiting on the Solicitor General to chime in before the Court officially takes the case. I’ll write more on this case if the Court grants cert.

For all the briefs, click here.

Because my blog entries would not be complete without exceeding my word limit, I’ll proceed.

See, this case got me thinking about the various Supreme Court cases that addressed entertainment law. While I’m sure I’m missed a ton (this is based on my own research and not pulled from an entertainment law text book), below is a brief description of all the cases I could dig up. Both the Hustler v. Falwell and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation cases are classic Constitutional Law cases you read about in law school. The Sony Corp case is the basis for this Cable News Network case. These are in no particular order:

• Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp, 539 U. S. 23 (2003): Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work. Thus, a company could legally distribute a video set of an uncopyrighted television series.

• Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186 (2003): Congress acted within its authority when it enlarged the duration of copyrights under the Copyright Term Extension Act, placing existing and future copyrights in parity.

• FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978): George Carlin’s famous “Filthy Words” case where the Court held that the FCC could control content during certain time periods.

• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988): Libel suit brought by Jerry Falwell for an offensive Penthouse cartoon. Court held that as a public figure he could not recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

• Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33 (1998): Part-time actress, Naomi Marquez, loses challenge that collective bargaining agreement was invalid because SAG allegedly breached it duty of fair representation by negotiating a union security clause using National Labor Relations Act language but not explaining that language.

• MGM, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U. S. 913 (2005): Copyright holders, including songwriters, music publishers, and motion picture studios, brought copyright infringement action against distributors of peer-to-peer file sharing computer networking software. Supreme Court affirmed lower courts’ holding that such distributors are liable for contributory and vicarious infringement.

• Preston v. Ferrer, 128 S.Ct. 978 (2008): An entertainment law attorney allegedly acted as an unlicensed agent or personal manager for “Judge Alex” in violation of California’s Talent Agencies Act. The attorney initiated an arbitration clause in the agreement in order to obtain fees claimed under that agreement. Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) superseded California law regarding arbitration clauses.

• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984): Production of a VCR with recording abilities did not render the manufacturer a copyright infringer.

• United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000): Telecommunications Act’s “signal bleed” provision, requiring cable operators either to scramble sexually explicit channels in full or limit programming on such channels to certain hours, was content-based, since it was unconcerned with “signal bleed” from other types of channels, and provision singled out particular programmers, since it applied only to channels primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming; thus, provision failed under the strict scrutiny standard for reviewing potential First Amendment violations.

• Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977): A broadcaster’s airing of the entire performance of a “human cannonball” violated that performer’s right of publicity.

• Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 (1985): Song author’s grant to music publisher authorizing publisher to license derivative work consisting of recordings of the song could not be terminated by author’s heirs.

• Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973): Until Congress legislates a preemptive law, California statute making it a criminal offense to “pirate” recordings produced by others is valid.

• American Federation of Musicians of U. S. and Canada v. Carroll, 391 U.S. 99 (1968): Where orchestra leaders in connection with club dates performed work and functions actually or potentially affecting hours, wages, job security and working conditions of members of musicians unions, union practices affecting leaders did not violate Sherman Act as activities in combination with a “non-labor” group and were exempted by the Norris-LaGuardia Act as activities affecting a “labor” group which was party to a “labor dispute.”

• National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 319 U.S. 190 (1943): The avowed aim of the Communications Act of 1934 was to secure the maximum benefits of radio to all people of the United States. To that end Congress endowed the Communications Commission with comprehensive powers to promote and realize the vast potentialities of radio.

• Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49, (1993): Movie studios brought copyright infringement action against hotel operators, challenging rental of videodiscs to hotel guests. Operators filed antitrust counterclaims. Courts affirmed both parties’ motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

• Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994): 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman” may be a fair use.

• Dowling v. U.S., 473 U.S. 207 (1985): National Stolen Property Act provision imposing criminal penalties for interstate transportation of stolen property did not cover the interstate transportation of “bootleg records.”

• N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Eng. Union, 364 U.S. 573 (1961): Dispute between union of television technicians and stage employees over who would provide lighting for television shows. Court held that National Labor Relations Board was required to resolve jurisdictional issues over who would settle unions’ dispute.

Let me know in the comment section if I missed any.