네트워크 기반 저장장치와 저작권 침해 - Cartoon Network LP. LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. 사건을 중심으로 -

Historically, since the introduction of VCR in 1980, many technologies to save TV programs have begun their existence. Recently, RS-DVRs like cloud are mainly used in order to save TV programs. They are very useful and convenient in saving the programs for the subscribers, but they, simultaneously, makes the providers of the equipment have some difficulties, such as the lawsuit against copyright infringement. One of the cases is Cartoon Network LP. LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., which handled the liability of defendant for copyright infringement. This case is very valuable because the problems caused by modern technologies were dealt with. The service in the case is composed of many factors including buffer, remote server, and player, and the whole process is automative system. The operation of the service is made by the command of subscribers. The plaintiffs who are copyright owners sued the provider of the service for direct copyright infringement. In this case, there were three issues: (1) reproduction was made inthe buffer?; (2) who copied the copyrighted materials in the remote server?; (3) was the performance made to the public? The court rejected the claim of plaintiff with regard to the above three issues and then held that the defendant was not directly liable for copyright infringement. However, the decision is embroiled in controversy because it would harm the interest of copyright owner sand be not consistent with precedents. Thus, it is required to examine the three issues one more time. First, although the court did not accept the copy did not occur in buffer, since duration requirement must be interpreted flexible in asituation when considering the feature of modern society, it is reasonable that the copy occurred in the buffer. Moreover, the validity of the copy should be judged from the economic value of the copy itself in accordance with the fairuse doctrine. Second, the court rejected the fact that the defendant reproduced the copies of TV programs because of the lack of volitional conduct. This isappropriate because the defendant merely provided the automated system, and did not directly offer the copies, induce the infringement, take any active steps. In addition, even though the design of the system can be problematic indeciding whether the defendant is liable, the fact that the system only can be operated by the subscribers and the copies can be included in the fair use, cannot make the defendant directly liable for copyright infringement. Third, the court decided that the play of the TV programs did not transfer the performance to the public. When comparing with Aereo case, the court is right because the entities who receive the TV programs are only subscribers who commanded the transfer. The purpose of copyright law is the balance between copyright protection and innovation promotion. In this regards, the liability for copyright infringement raised by technologies are decided more carefully, not focused on the mere difference of technologies.