While a non-precedential opinion and a fairly fact specific inquiry, the main takeaway here is that a “public” action does not preclude certain actions simply because they may require users to pay a fee or be first authorized in order to participate.
Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from the PTO is directed to a method of automating the compensation of copyright holders. In this regard, the claims recite embedding identification information in an audio file, broadcasting the audio file in a “public broadcast,” receiving the audio file by a monitoring station, correlating the identification information to a copyright holder, and then paying out the copyright holder. For the purposes of the appeal, it is not disputed that the prior art teaches a similar system, but the prior art is mainly concerned with “Pay-Per-View” type events.
Issue(s): Whether a broadcast can be considered “public” when users must pay a fee or be authorized to receive its content.
Holding(s): Yes. “[S]imply requiring a fee to view a broadcast (such as a ‘Pay-Per-View’ event) does not make the broadcast non-public.” The applicant was not helped by the fact that his own application describes a “public broadcast” as including those “made by [a] … cable [or] satellite network,” which the applicant admitted “are for use only by those who pay to receive them.”