## Facts

- Copyright-owning motion picture studios distributed feature films on videocassette.
- Maxwell’s Video Showcase operated two video stores in Erie, Pennsylvania, selling and renting VCRs and videocassettes (activities not challenged).
- Each store had a front retail “showroom” and a rear “showcase” area containing private viewing booths; the two stores had about eighty-five booths total, each seating two to four patrons.
- Patrons selected a film from a catalog, paid a fee (varying by time and number of viewers), and were escorted to a booth.
- The movie was played from a centralized playback system and transmitted to the booth for viewing.
- Maxwell’s obtained the videocassette copies lawfully from the studios or authorized distributors.
- The studios did not challenge home viewing of rented tapes, but alleged the booth exhibitions were unauthorized public performances.

## Issues

1. Whether transmitting lawfully acquired videocassettes to in-store booths for paying customers constitutes a “public performance” infringing the copyright owners’ exclusive rights.
2. Whether affiliated individuals and entities involved in operating or promoting the booth-exhibition business are liable as co-infringers.
3. Whether defendants stated viable antitrust counterclaims based on the studios’ efforts to stop the booth exhibitions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the studios and held the booth exhibitions infringed the public performance right.
- The court affirmed injunctive relief and the damages award.
- The court affirmed liability against Maxwell’s and held the related company and individual principals liable as co-infringers based on their participation and control.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the antitrust counterclaims.

## Legal Principles

- Playing a motion picture videocassette for viewers constitutes a “performance” under the Copyright Act.
- A performance is “public” when it occurs in a place open to the public, even if viewers watch in separate, enclosed booths.
- Under the transmit clause, transmitting a performance “to the public” is public even when recipients view it in separate places and at different times.
- Lawful acquisition of a copy does not exhaust the copyright owner’s distinct exclusive right of public performance; selling or renting copies for home use does not authorize commercial exhibition.
- Parties that supervise, direct, promote, or financially benefit from infringing performances may be jointly liable as co-infringers.
- Enforcing exclusive rights granted by copyright law, without more, does not state an antitrust violation.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that a video store’s practice of transmitting movies from a central system to private in-store booths for paying customers is a public performance requiring authorization, and it affirmed injunctive relief, damages, co-infringer liability for those running the enterprise, and dismissal of related antitrust counterclaims.


Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., 749 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1984)