<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
			
			<rss version="2.0">
			<channel>
			<title>Filewrapper&#xae; |  A patent, trademark, and copyright law blog - Duplication right</title>
			<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm</link>
			<description>News and Commentary from the world of Intellectual Property Law - The blawg of McKee, Voorhees &amp; Sease, P.L.C.</description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:09:16-0500</pubDate>
			<lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:31:00-0500</lastBuildDate>
			<generator>BlogCFC</generator>
			<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
			<managingEditor>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</managingEditor>
			<webMaster>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</webMaster>
			
			
			
			
			
			<item>
				<title>Second Circuit:  Remote DVR system does not infringe content providers&apos; copyrights</title>
				<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2008/8/13/Second-Circuit--Remote-DVR-system-does-not-infringe-content-providers-copyrights</link>
				<description>
				
				&lt;p&gt;In a decision last week, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit&quot;&gt;Second Circuit&lt;/a&gt; reversed a lower court&amp;#39;s grant of summary judgment holding that the defendant&amp;#39;s remote-storage DVR system violated the plaintiffs&amp;#39; rights of reproduction and public performance.&amp;nbsp; The Plaintiffs were various content providers, and the defendant was a cable company.&amp;nbsp; The remote-storage &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_video_recorder&quot;&gt;DVR&lt;/a&gt; system lets customers store recorded television shows on a central server, rather than on a hard drive in the customer&amp;#39;s home, like standard DVRs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Second Circuit, examining how the RS-DVR system worked, held that buffer copies of programs that subsisted for a maximum of 1.2 seconds were too transient to be considered &amp;quot;fixed&amp;quot; under copyright law, and as such the buffer copies were not &amp;quot;copies&amp;quot; as defined by the Copyright Act.&amp;nbsp; Further, the court held that because the copying of programming onto a consumer&amp;#39;s specified hard drive space on the RS-DVR system was automatically done in response to a customer&amp;#39;s request, the defendant was not liable for direct infringement, finding the situation to resemble &amp;quot;a store proprietor who charges customers to use a photocopier on his premises.&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; Finally, the court held the RS-DVR system did not infringe the public performance right, as the copies in question were only transmitted to a single subscriber using a single unique copy produced by that subscriber.&amp;nbsp; Thus, the transmissions were not performances to the &amp;quot;public,&amp;quot; and did not infringe the public performance right.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More on &lt;em&gt;Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.&lt;/em&gt; after the jump.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;
				 [More]
				</description>
						
				
				<category>Duplication right</category>				
				
				<category>Copyrights</category>				
				
				<category>Performance right</category>				
				
				<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:31:00-0500</pubDate>
				<guid>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2008/8/13/Second-Circuit--Remote-DVR-system-does-not-infringe-content-providers-copyrights</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			</channel></rss>