- 28 -
the future.” Reading the statute in a restrictive manner,
respondent reasons that “The phrase ‘similar reproductions’ means
similar content on other media, not simply any content on similar
media.” Respondent maintains that regardless of the medium upon
which it is fixed, computer software is neither a motion picture nor
a sound recording. According to respondent, a computer’s
functionality distinguishes computer software from motion pictures
and sound recordings.
On the other hand, petitioner maintains that computer software
masters are the same as or similar to motion pictures and sound
recording masters. Thus, petitioner asserts that the software
masters are “similar reproductions” to motion pictures and sound
recordings.
Specifically, petitioner claims:
“films, tapes, records” as used in section
927(a)(2)(B) denote tangible media on which
images, sounds, and/or other information is
recorded and stored. These media differ in
terms of their specific physical attributes
(e.g., a strip of photosensitive cellulose
acetate, a plastic strip coated with magnetic
powder, a spiral grooved disc). All three types
of media, however, require a machine to read
back the recorded content to the consumer or end
user. In other words, they are inherently and
necessarily machine-readable media.
Continuing, petitioner posits that the phrase “similar
reproductions” (within the purview of the parenthetical) refers to
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011