ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. vs. PHIL. MULTI-MEDIA SYTEM INC. GR. No.

175769-70, January 19, 2009 FACTS:

Philippine Multi-Media System Inc (PMSI) is a signal provider which has cable and satellite services. It is providing its satellite services through Dream Broadcasting System. PMSI has its Free TV and Premium Channels. The Free TV includes ABS-CBN, GMA-7 and other local networks. The premium channels include AXN, Jack TV, etc which are paid by subscribers before such channels can be transmitted as feeds to a subscribers TV set which has been installed with a Dream satellite. ABS-CBN is a television and broadcasting corporation. It broadcasts television programs by wireless means to Metro Manila and nearby provinces, and by satellite to provincial stations through Channel 2 and Channel 23. The programs aired over Channels 2 and 23 are either produced by ABS-CBN or purchased from or licensed by other producers. ABS-CBN also owns regional television stations which pattern their programming in accordance with perceived demands of the region. Thus, television programs shown in Metro Manila and nearby provinces are not necessarily shown in other provinces. In May 2002, ABS-CBN sued PMSI for allegedly engaging in rebroadcasting and thereby infringing on ABS-CBNs copyrights; that the transmission of Channels 2 and 23 to the provinces where these two channels are not usually shown altered ABS-CBNs programming for the said provinces. PMSI argued that it is not infringing upon ABS -CBNs copyrights because it is operating under the Must-Carry Rule outlined in NTC (National Telecommunications Commission) Circular No. 4-08-88. ISSUE: WON PMSI infringed upon the copyrights of ABS-CBN. RULING: No. The Must-Carry Rule under NTC Circular No. 4-08-88 falls under the limitations on copyright. The Filipino people must be given wider access to more sources of news, information, education, sports event and entertainment programs other than those provided for by mass media and afforded television programs to attain a well-informed, well-versed and culturally refined citizenry and enhance their socio-economic growth. The very intent and spirit of the NTC Circular will prevent a situation whereby station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed contrary to the state policy that the (franchise) grantee like ABS-CBN, and other TV station owners and even the likes of PMSI, shall provide at all times sound and balanced programming and assist in the functions of public information and education. PMSI was likewise granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 8630, Section 4 of which similarly states that it shall provide adequate public service time to enable the government, through the said broadcasting stations, to r each the population on important public issues; provide at all times sound and balanced programming; promote public participation such as in community programming; assist in the functions of public information and education. The Must-Carry Rule favors both broadcasting organizations and the public. It prevents cable television companies from excluding broadcasting organization especially in those places not reached by signal. Also, the rule prevents cable television companies from depriving viewers in far-flung areas the enjoyment of programs available to city viewers.

COLUMBIA PICTURES vs. CA GR no. 110318, Aug. 28, 1996 FACTS:

Intellectual Property Law on Copyright Requirements Before a Search Warrant May Be Issued in Copyright Cases Piracy In 1986, the Video Regulatory Board (VRB) applied for a warrant against Jose Jinco (Jingco), owner of Showtime Enterprises for allegedly pirating movies produced and owned by Columbia Pictures and other motion picture companies. Jingco filed a motion to quash the search warrant but the same was denied in 1987. Subsequently, Jinco filed an Urgent Motion to Lift the Search Warrant and Return the Articles Seized. In 1989, the RTC judge granted the motion. The judge ruled that based on the ruling in the 1988 case of 20 Century Fox Film Corporation vs CA, before a search warrant could be issued in copyright cases, the master copy of the films alleged to be pirated must be attached in the application for warrant.
th

ISSUE: WON the 20 Century Fox ruling may be applied retroactively in this case.
th

RULING: No. In 1986, obviously the 1988 case of 20 Century Fox was not yet promulgated. The lower court could not possibly have expected more evidence from the VRB and Columbia Pictures in their application for a search warrant other than what the law and jurisprudence, then existing and judicially accepted, required with respect to the finding of probable cause. The Supreme Court also revisited and clarified the ruling in the 20 Century Fox Case. It is evidently incorrect to suggest, as the ruling in 20th Century Fox may appear to do, that in copyright infringement cases, the presentation of master tapes of the copyright films is always necessary to meet the requirement of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. It is true that such master tapes are object evidence, with the merit that in this class of evidence the ascertainment of the controverted fact is made through demonstration involving the direct use of the senses of the presiding magistrate. Such auxiliary procedure, however, does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary evidence, depositions, admissions or other classes of evidence tending to prove the factum probandum, especially where the production in court of object evidence would result in delay, inconvenience or expenses out of proportion to is evidentiary value. In fine, the supposed pronouncement in said case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copy-righted films for the validity of search warrants should at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in copy-right infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies. An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright infringement cases.
th th

HABANA vs ROBLES GR no. 131522, July 19, 1999 FACTS:

Intellectual Property Law on Copyright Infringement Pacita Habana and two others were the authors of College English for Today Series 1 and 2 (CET). While they were researching for books to assist them in updating their own book, they chanced upon the book of Felicidad Robles entitled Developing English Proficiency Books 1 and 2 (DEP). They discovered further that the book of Robles was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and illustrative examples of CET. They then sued Robles and her publisher (Goodwill Trading Co.) for infringement and/or unfair competition with damages. Robles, in her defense, alleged that her sources were from foreign books; that in their field similarity in styles cannot be avoided since they come from the same background and orientation. The trial court as well as the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Robles. ISSUE: WON the Court of Appeals is correct. RULING: No. A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not identical with the text of CET. In several other pages the treatment and manner of presentation of the topics of DEP are similar if not a rehash of that contained in CET. The similarities in examples and material contents are so obviously present in this case. How can similar/identical examples not be considered as a mark of copying? Robles act of lifting from the book of Habana et al substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of Habana et als copyrights. The Supreme Court also elucidated that in determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.

METRO GOLDWYN MAYERS STUDIO INC. vs. GROKSTER LTD 545 U.S. 913 FACTS:
Grokster and other companies distributed free software that allowed computer users to share electronic files through peerto-peer networks. In such networks, users can share digital files directly between their computers, without the use of a central server. Users employed the software primarily to download copyrighted files, file-sharing which the software companies knew about and encouraged. The companies profited from advertising revenue, since they streamed ads to the software users. A group of movie studios and other copyright holders sued and alleged that Grokster and the other companies violated the Copyright Act by intentionally distributing software to enable users to infringe copyrighted works. The district court ruled for Grokster, reasoning that the software distribution companies were not liable for copyright violations stemming from their software, which could have been used lawfully. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. ISSUE: WON the companies that distributed file-sharing software, and encouraged and profited from direct copyright infringement using such software, liable for the infringement? RULING: Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the Court held that companies that distributed software, and promoted that software to infringe copyrights, were liable for the resulting acts of infringement. The Court argued that although the Copyright Act did not expressly make anyone liable for another's infringement, secondary liability doctrines applied here. The software in this case was used so widely to infringe copyrights that it would have been immensely difficult to deal with each individual infringer. The "only practical alternative" was to go against the software distributor for secondary liability. Here the software companies were liable for encouraging and profiting from direct infringement.

SONY CORP. OF AMERICA vs. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIO INC. 464 U.S. 417 FACTS:
Sony Corporation of America manufactured and sold the "Betamax" home video tape recorder (VTR). Universal City Studios owned the copyrights to television programs broadcast on public airwaves. Universal sued Sony for copyright infringement, alleging that because consumers used Sony's Betamax to record Universal's copyrighted works, Sony was liable for the copyright infringement allegedly committed by those consumers in violation of the Copyright Act. Universal sought monetary damages, an equitable accounting of profits, and an injunction against the manufacturing and marketing of the VTR's. The District Court denied all relief, holding that the noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. Moreover, the court concluded that Sony could not be held liable as contributory infringers even if the home use of a VTR was considered an infringing use. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held Sony liable for contributory infringement. ISSUE: WON Does Sony's sale of "Betamax" video tape recorders to the general public constitute contributory infringement of copyrighted public broadcasts under the Copyright Act. RULING: No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that "[t]he sale of the VTR's to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of [Universal's] copyrights." The Court concluded that there was a significant likelihood that a substantial number of copyright holders who license their works for free public broadcasts would not object to having their broadcasts time-shifted by private viewers and that Universal failed to show that time-shifting would cause non-minimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted works. Justice Stevens wrote for the Court that "[t]he sale of copying equipment...does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses." For the dissenting minority, Justice Blackmun expressed the views that taping a copyrighted television program is infringement and that the recorder manufacturers were guilty of inducing and materially contributing to the infringement.