Public Knowledge Urges Court to Protect Home Recording
Public Knowledge Urges Court to Protect Home Recording
Public Knowledge Urges Court to Protect Home Recording

    Get Involved Today

    Public Knowledge filed an amicus brief with the
    Central District of California today in Fox
    v. Dish
    , a case that could threaten how consumers record and view
    programming in the privacy of their home. While this case is only in the
    preliminary injunction stage, these pre-trial stages have become increasingly
    important in copyright cases. Consequently, this case has the potential to
    upend long-standing fair use principles.

    The case involves DISH’s “Hopper,” one of DISH’s set-top boxes. The Hopper can
    be set (by the customer) to record prime-time television on any of the four
    major broadcast channels. For some programming, the Hopper gives viewers the
    option to play back the programming without commercials beginning the following

    Fox argues that this is not protected
    under the fair use doctrine, arguing that the Supreme Court’s analysis in Sony v. Universal
    does not apply. Fox claims that DISH is not only directly
    liable for copyright infringement because of the way the Hopper works, but also
    secondarily liable because DISH provides equipment used by customers to make recordings. Under the
    theory of secondary liability, one person or company becomes responsible for
    the illegal actions of another because of the role that person or company plays
    in the illegal action. Here, Fox argues that users who record programming to watch it later are copyright
    infringers if they skip commercials. Fox’s argument is not limited just to DISH
    customers, either. By accusing users of copyright infringement, Fox hopes
    to hold DISH secondarily liable.

    PK argues in its brief that selling a device cannot constitute direct copyright
    infringement because the element of “volition” is missing—it is the users
    who decide to use the device; DISH merely supplies its customers with the tools
    they use. And, importantly to users, PK argues that home recording is still a
    fair use, and that copyright law does not give Fox the right to control the
    exact manner in which viewers play back their recordings.

    We hope the court will see what would result if Fox’s arguments win the day,
    and the potential effect this change would have on personal, private, in-home
    consumption of television. For almost 30 years, consumers have been able to
    “time-shift” programming—there is no reason for this to change now.


    View PK’s Press