MANILA, Philippines — Much like hairsprays, shoulder pads, and stone tablets, the analog videocassette format Betamax is now a dusty relic of a bygone era, its relevance consigned as a footnote to the evolution of our digital age. But unknown to many, everyone streaming, downloading, or uploading videos owe a it big to the antiquated video tape recorder due to a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision thirty years ago.
In the same manner that Youtube revolutionized computer screens, Sony’s launch of the Betamax in 1976 ushered in a sea change to the viewing experience of household television sets. The device empowered households to record TV content and watch it at their own time of convenience — a practice known as “time-shifting.” Wary that the technology would cannibalize television viewership, well-established giant film and television studios Universal and Disney sued Sony, arguing that Betamax aids copyright infringement.
The District Court of California ruled in favor of Sony, but Hollywood won the suit at the appellate court, prompting a showdown at the Supreme Court. But in a 5-to-4 ruling, after a reported last minute change of mind of a Justice, the case was eventually held in favor of the Betamax after determining that the recording of home videos constitutes fair use.
In his majority decision, Justice John Paul Stevens said that struck down the argument that the technology is “contributory” infringement and said that to rule thus would “block the wheels of commerce.”
Robert S. Schwartz, who was a reported counsel to the Home Recording Rights Coalition in the ’80s, said that the landmark decision established two key pillars of present day consumer rights: that the recording and storage of an entire copyrighted material is lawful, and that the selling of a product that has non-infringing uses is lawful as well.
“Without these twin protections for consumers and innovators, we could not today buy most consumer digital products or log on to most online services that search for, store, and respond to copyrighted information,” Schwartz said.
“The Internet itself would have remained a closed circuit primarily for government, educational, and industrial use. There would be no social networks,” Schwartz said.
source: interaksyon.com
