July 22, 2016
David S. Mao
Acting Librarian of Congress
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20540
Re: FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Expanding Customers’ Video Navigation
Choices and Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices
Dear Mr. Mao,
We are intellectual property law scholars with over fifty years of collective experience
teaching and writing on issues involving the intersection of copyright and new technologies.
Recently, we submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission regarding the
regulation of cable video navigation devices (“set-top boxes”). In our comments, a copy of which
is enclosed, we explained in detail why we believe the FCC’s proposal does not intrude on any of
the exclusive rights guaranteed to copyright holders in Section 106 of the Copyright Act. The
assertion that “unlocking the box” would deprive copyright holders of prerogatives the law
currently secures for them relies on a misinterpretation of the limited scope of the copyright
monopoly.
We understand that the Copyright Office has expressed concern that the FCC’s proposal,
if implemented, would lead to the infringement of copyright. We do not share that concern,
particularly in light of the legal and technical measures contemplated in the NPRM for protecting
copyrighted content from illegal copying. We are concerned, however, that the Copyright
Office’s developing stance in this case is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s clear guidance
concerning the limits of the copyright monopoly in relation to the production and sale of
equipment that is properly viewed as lying outside the copyright holder’s zone of control.
In Sony v. Universal, a seminal Supreme Court decision concerning the ability of
copyright holders to control the distribution of VCRs, the Court rejected efforts by right holders
to extend their intellectual property monopoly into the market for video recording devices that
are capable of substantial non-infringing uses. The Court said in Sony that it “has always
recognized the critical importance of not allowing the [right holder] to extend his monopoly
beyond the limits of his specific grant.” To allow copyright holders to exert control over the
market for video receivers would contravene Sony’s crucial limiting principle.
We urge you to oversee the Copyright Office pursuant to Section 701(a) of the Copyright
Act to ensure that the Office dispenses advice to policy makers that is reasonably consistent with
settled principles of copyright law. When the Office acts to advise Congress on matters within its
purview, it must do so in a way that seeks to further the Copyright Act’s primary goal of
rewarding creators for the public’s ultimate benefit. Interpretations of copyright law that operate
to expand copyright entitlements into copyright-adjacent fields of commerce run counter to

 Supreme Court precedent and the copyright system’s goal of increasing public access to
knowledge and information.
Sincerely,
Annemarie Bridy
Professor of Law
University of Idaho College of Law
Affiliate Scholar, Stanford University Center for
Internet and Society
Peter Jaszi
Professor of Law
Faculty Director of the Glushko-Samuelson
Intellectual Property Clinic
American University Washington College of Law
Betsy Rosenblatt
Associate Professor of Law
Director, Center for Intellectual Property Law
Whittier Law School
Pamela Samuelson
Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley
Rebecca L. Tushnet
Professor of Law
Georgetown Law School