Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.
Headline: Court rules that community cable (CATV) systems do not 'perform' broadcast programs under the 1909 Copyright Act, reversing lower courts and reducing copyright liability for cable operators while leaving Congress to act.
Holding: We hold that CATV operators, like individual viewers and unlike broadcasters, do not "perform" the programs they receive and carry under the Copyright Act of 1909, so the lower courts’ judgments are reversed.
- Prevents treating cable operators as performers under the 1909 Copyright Act.
- Reduces copyright owners’ ability to collect performance fees from CATV carriage.
- Leaves Congress to craft new copyright rules for cable television.
Summary
Background
A small cable company in West Virginia set up community antennas and ran cable to subscribers in hilly areas that could not get distant TV stations. The cable system carried full programs from five broadcast stations, did not edit or create programs, and charged customers a flat monthly fee. A movie rights holder sued the cable operator, arguing that carrying the stations’ broadcasts without a separate license was a public "performance" and therefore copyright infringement. Lower courts had ruled for the rights holder.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the cable company "performed" the copyrighted programs under the 1909 Copyright Act. The Court said broadcasters are like performers because they select and send out programs, while viewers are passive recipients. A CATV system, the majority explained, simply helps viewers receive broadcast signals—providing an antenna and a private connection—without editing or originating content. For that reason the Court held the cable operator did not "perform" the works under the old law, reversed the lower courts, and refused to create a partial licensing workaround, saying Congress should address the policy issues.
Real world impact
As a result, under the 1909 statute the decision makes it harder for copyright owners to claim performance fees from cable operators who merely carry broadcast signals unchanged. The Court left open that Congress could write different rules, so the outcome is not necessarily permanent and could change if new legislation is enacted.
Dissents or concurrances
A dissent warned the majority upends settled precedent and urged caution, arguing Congress is the proper place for complex, industry-wide solutions and predicting disruptive effects for broadcasters and copyrights.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?