Home Entertainment How Mister Rogers Saved the VCR

How Mister Rogers Saved the VCR

Rogers
Fred Rogers speaks before a United States Senate Commerce Committee hearing in support of public broadcasting, May 1, 1969 (Wikimedia)

In 1984, a landmark case laid down a controversial law regarding technology and copyright infringement. Here’s a look back at the “Betamax Case,” including the role Fred Rogers played in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Sony Betamax (hcalderonmeister/flickr)

For many years in the pre-DVD/Blu-ray, pre-streaming era, the Betamax—Sony’s prototype videotape player-recorder—was a punch line. A piece of technology that was quickly superseded by VHS and the VCR, it limped along in the shadows for two decades. And yet, it was the Betamax that gave its name to a court case that has played a pivotal role in both technological progress and copyright law over the last 30-plus years.

Like many other cool electronic products, the Betamax came from Japan. In late 1975, it was introduced to the U.S. by Sony, who touted its ability to “time-shift” television programming. In an era when most viewers still had to get up off the couch to change channels manually, this innovation was as futuristic as it sounded. Record a TV show right off the air? Are you kidding?

If the public was wowed by the idea, the major entertainment corporations were not. Universal Studios and Walt Disney Productions filed a lawsuit in 1976 to halt the sale of the Betamax, claiming that film and TV producers would lose millions of dollars from unauthorized duplication and distribution of their copyrighted content.

Faith Based Events
[vc_btn title=”Continue reading” style=”outline” color=”black” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fmentalfloss.com%2Farticle%2F29686%2Fhow-mister-rogers-saved-vcr||target:%20_blank|”][vc_message message_box_style=”outline” message_box_color=”black”]MentalFloss, excerpt posted on SouthFloridaReporter.com, June 11, 2018[/vc_message]

Disclaimer

The information contained in South Florida Reporter is for general information purposes only.
The South Florida Reporter assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents of the Service.
In no event shall the South Florida Reporter be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tort, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Service or the contents of the Service. The Company reserves the right to make additions, deletions, or modifications to the contents of the Service at any time without prior notice.
The Company does not warrant that the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components