I feel like even if he knew he did he’d still have done it, because he was correct about the VCR.

there was absolutely a home porn watching industry pre-vcr, you just had to know a guy with a film projector and then you and 20 other dudes could cram into the living room of some random apartment and watch porn. what a joy that must’ve been.

i found that out when i asked my uncle about forest porn stashes (yes, they existed in hungary too).

In their landmark decision, they explicitly stated that their sole reason for [ruling in favor of Sony] was because of Rogers’ testimony

That strikes me as hyperbolic. The Court absolutely highlights his testimony, but it’s only one subsection of a much longer opinion (emphasis mine):

A. Authorized Time-Shifting

The District Court found:

"Even if it were deemed that home-use recording of copyrighted material constituted infringement, the Beta-max could still legally be used to record noncopyrighted material or material whose owners consented to the copying. An injunction would deprive the public of the ability to use the Betamax for this noninfringing off-the-air recording.

"Defendants introduced considerable testimony at trial about the potential for such copying of sports, religious, educational and other programming. This included testimony from representatives of the Offices of the Commissioners of the National Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey Leagues and Associations, the Executive Director of National Religious Broadcasters and various educational communications agencies. Plaintiffs attack the weight of the testimony offered and also contend that an injunction is warranted because infringing uses outweigh noninfringing uses.

“Whatever the future percentage of legal versus illegal home-use recording might be, an injunction which seeks to deprive the public of the very tool or article of commerce capable of some noninfringing use would be an extremely harsh remedy, as well as one unprecedented in copyright law.” 480 F. Supp., at 468.

Although the District Court made these statements in the context of considering the propriety of injunctive relief, the statements constitute a finding that the evidence concerning “sports, religious, educational and other programming” was sufficient to establish a significant quantity of broadcasting whose copying is now authorized, and a significant potential for future authorized copying. That finding is amply supported by the record. In addition to the religious and sports officials identified explicitly by the District Court,^[1] two items in the record deserve specific mention.

First is the testimony of John Kenaston, the station manager of Channel 58, an educational station in Los Angeles affiliated with the Public Broadcasting Service. He explained and authenticated the station’s published guide to its programs.^[2] For each program, the guide tells whether unlimited home taping is authorized, home taping is authorized subject to certain restrictions (such as erasure within seven days), or home taping is not authorized at all. The Spring 1978 edition of the guide described 107 programs. Sixty-two of those programs or 58% authorize some home taping. Twenty-one of them or almost 20% authorize unrestricted home taping.^[3]

Second is the testimony of Fred Rogers, president of the corporation that produces and owns the copyright on Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. The program is carried by more public television stations than any other program. Its audience numbers over 3,000,000 families a day. He testified that he had absolutely no objection to home taping for noncommercial use and expressed the opinion that it is a real service to families to be able to record children’s programs and to show them at appropriate times.^[4]

If there are millions of owners of VTR’s who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational programs such as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice, the business of supplying the equipment that makes such copying feasible should not be stifled simply because the equipment is used by some individuals to make unauthorized reproductions of respondents’ works. The respondents do not represent a class composed of all copyright holders. Yet a finding of contributory infringement would inevitably frustrate the interests of broadcasters in reaching the portion of their audience that is available only through time-shifting.

If you read the footnotes, you’ll see that the Court cites testimony from the representatives of the five most watched sports leagues at the time (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA) as well as the representative for the National Religious Broadcasters. The section that follows covers unauthorized time-shifting, and concludes that this, too, is fair use. So while it certainly didn’t hurt that there were major rights holders that consented to home recording, it doesn’t seem to have been the crux of the argument.

retvrn to peep shows and red light districts.

TIL: In honor of Mr. Rogers’ acheivement, the porn industry created the category of “banged my neighbor”.

From Gooners around the world

I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

• yewtu.be
• inv.nadeko.net
• yt.artemislena.eu
• piped.video