Time-Shifting?

From a former student who always has interesting things to say on Internet law topics:

Say, doesn’t this sound like the Betamax case?  Wouldn’t the “time-shifting” argument held by the Supreme Court still hold?

The Sony decision did not create an absolute right to time-shift. The Court recognized time-shifting to be fair use in that case–by a 5-4 decision, not a slam dunk–in part because the recorded programs had originally been broadcast for users to watch them once, and most Betamax users watched their recorded programs once, shifting only the time at which they watched them. (Another reason the Court ruled for Sony is that the plaintiffs represented only a small portion of copyright holders affected by video recording. Other copyright holders–the sports networks, PBS, Mr. Rogers–did not object to their content being recorded by Betamax users.) YouTube is not perfectly analogous to the old broadcast networks, Sony does not fit perfectly.

Reactions to ACA Decision

Four scholarly reactions to last week’s decisions from the WSJ Law Blog:

This was a paradigmatic statesmanlike decision, one that will help preserve the Court’s institutional stature.

Today was a great day for constitutional principle, not such a great day for sound health care policy.

It’s enormously gratifying that the Chief Justice, who once was one of my star students in constitutional law and whose views count while of course mine don’t, saved the day — and perhaps the Court, whose place as a legal institution had begun to fall into dangerous disrepute.

The end product was — not to put too fine a point on it — brilliant. It is brilliant in a way that parallels another landmark decision, Marbury v. Madison.