Industria Musical - Caso Napster - Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

1. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 1/78 Search EnterSearchTerms AnnotatethisCase SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios 464U.S.417(1984) U.S.SupremeCourt SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios,464U.S.417(1984) SonyCorporationofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,Inc. No.811687 ArguedJanuary18,1983 RearguedOctober3,1983 DecidedJanuary17,1984 464U.S.417 CERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS FORTHENINTHCIRCUIT Syllabus PetitionerSonyCorp.manufactureshomevideotaperecorders(VTR's),andmarkets Opinion Annotation Syllabus | Case Justia U.S.Law U.S.CaseLaw U.S.SupremeCourt Volume464 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios Case 2. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 2/78 themthroughretailestablishments,someofwhicharealsopetitioners.Respondentsown thecopyrightsonsomeofthetelevisionprogramsthatarebroadcastonthepublic airwaves.RespondentsbroughtanactionagainstpetitionersinFederalDistrictCourt, allegingthatVTRconsumershadbeenrecordingsomeofrespondents'copyrighted worksthathadbeenexhibitedoncommerciallysponsoredtelevision,andthereby infringedrespondents'copyrights,andfurtherthatpetitionerswereliableforsuch copyrightinfringementbecauseoftheirmarketingoftheVTR's.Respondentssought moneydamages,anequitableaccountingofprofits,andaninjunctionagainstthe manufactureandmarketingoftheVTR's.TheDistrictCourtdeniedrespondentsallrelief, holdingthatnoncommercialhomeuserecordingofmaterialbroadcastoverthepublic airwaveswasafairuseofcopyrightedworks,anddidnotconstitutecopyright infringement,andthatpetitionerscouldnotbeheldliableascontributoryinfringersevenif thehomeuseofaVTRwasconsideredaninfringinguse.TheCourtofAppeals reversed,holdingpetitionersliableforcontributoryinfringementandorderingtheDistrict Courttofashionappropriaterelief Held:ThesaleoftheVTR'stothegeneralpublicdoesnotconstitutecontributory infringementofrespondents'copyrights.Pp.464U.S.428456. (a)Theprotectiongiventocopyrightsiswhollystatutory,and,inacaselikethis,inwhich Congresshasnotplainlymarkedthecoursetobefollowedbythejudiciary,thisCourt mustbecircumspectinconstruingthescopeofrightscreatedbyastatutethatnever contemplatedsuchacalculusofinterests.Anyindividualmayreproduceacopyrighted workfora"fairuse"thecopyrightownerdoesnotpossesstheexclusiverighttosucha use.Pp.464U.S.428434. (b)KalemCo.v.HarperBrothers, 222U.S.55,doesnotsupportrespondents'novel theorythatsupplyingthe"means"toaccomplishaninfringingactivityandencouraging thatactivitythroughadvertisementaresufficienttoestablishliabilityforcopyright infringement.Thiscasedoesnotfallinthecategoryofthoseinwhichitismanifestlyjust to Page464U.S.418 imposevicariousliabilitybecausethe"contributory"infringerwasinapositiontocontrol theuseofcopyrightedworksbyothersandhadauthorizedtheusewithoutpermission fromthecopyrightowner.Here,theonlycontactbetweenpetitionersandtheusersofthe VTR'soccurredatthemomentofsale.Andthereisnoprecedentforimposingvicarious liabilityonthetheorythatpetitionerssoldtheVTR'swithconstructiveknowledgethat theircustomersmightusetheequipmenttomakeunauthorizedcopiesofcopyrighted material.Thesaleofcopyingequipment,likethesaleofotherarticlesofcommerce,does notconstitutecontributoryinfringementiftheproductiswidelyusedforlegitimate, 3. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 3/78 unobjectionablepurposes,or,indeed,ismerelycapableofsubstantialnoninfringing uses.Pp.464U.S.434442. (c)TherecordandtheDistrictCourt'sfindingsshow(1)thatthereisasignificant likelihoodthatsubstantialnumbersofcopyrightholderswholicensetheirworksfor broadcastonfreetelevisionwouldnotobjecttohavingtheirbroadcasttimeshiftedby privateviewers(i.e.,recordedatatimewhentheVTRownercannotviewthebroadcast sothatitcanbewatchedatalatertime)and(2)thatthereisnolikelihoodthattime shiftingwouldcausenonminimalharmtothepotentialmarketfor,orthevalueof, respondents'copyrightedworks.TheVTR'sarethereforecapableofsubstantial noninfringinguses.Private,noncommercialtimeshiftinginthehomesatisfiesthis standardofnoninfringingusesbothbecauserespondentshavenorighttopreventother copyrightholdersfromauthorizingsuchtimeshiftingfortheirprogramsandbecausethe DistrictCourt'sfindingsrevealthateventheunauthorizedhometimeshiftingof respondents'programsislegitimatefairuse.Pp.442456. 659F.2d963,reversed. STEVENS,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourtinwhichBURGER,C.J.,and BRENNAN,WHITE,andO'CONNOR,JJ.,joined.BLACKMUN,J.,filedadissenting opinioninwhichMARSHALL,POWELL,andREHNQUIST,JJ.,joined,post,p.464U.S. 457. Page464U.S.419 JUSTICESTEVENSdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt. Petitionersmanufactureandsellhomevideotaperecorders.Respondentsownthe copyrightsonsomeofthetelevision Page464U.S.420 programsthatarebroadcastonthepublicairwaves.Somemembersofthegeneral publicusevideotaperecorderssoldbypetitionerstorecordsomeofthesebroadcasts,as wellasalargenumberofotherbroadcasts.Thequestionpresentediswhetherthesale ofpetitioners'copyingequipmenttothegeneralpublicviolatesanyoftherightsconferred uponrespondentsbytheCopyrightAct. Respondentscommencedthiscopyrightinfringementactionagainstpetitionersinthe UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCaliforniain1976.Respondents allegedthatsomeindividualshadusedBetamaxvideotaperecorders(VTR's)torecord someofrespondents'copyrightedworkswhichhadbeenexhibitedoncommercially sponsoredtelevision,andcontendedthattheseindividualshadtherebyinfringed 4. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 4/78 respondents'copyrights.Respondentsfurthermaintainedthatpetitionerswereliablefor thecopyrightinfringementallegedlycommittedbyBetamaxconsumersbecauseof petitioners'marketingoftheBetamaxVTR's.[Footnote1]Respondentssoughtnorelief againstanyBetamaxconsumer.Instead,theysoughtmoneydamagesandanequitable accountingofprofitsfrompetitioners,aswellasaninjunctionagainstthemanufacture andmarketingofBetamaxVTR's. Afteralengthytrial,theDistrictCourtdeniedrespondentsalltherelieftheysoughtand enteredjudgmentforpetitioners.480F.Supp.429(1979).TheUnitedStatesCourtof AppealsfortheNinthCircuitreversedtheDistrictCourt'sjudgmentonrespondents' copyrightclaim,holdingpetitionersliableforcontributoryinfringementandorderingthe DistrictCourttofashionappropriaterelief.659F.2d963 Page464U.S.421 (1981).Wegrantedcertiorari,457U.S.1116(1982)sincewehadnotcompletedour studyofthecaselastTerm,weorderedreargument, 463U.S.1226(1983).Wenow reverse. Anexplanationofourrejectionofrespondents'unprecedentedattempttoimpose copyrightliabilityuponthedistributorsofcopyingequipmentrequiresaquitedetailed recitationofthefindingsoftheDistrictCourt.Insummary,thosefindingsrevealthatthe averagememberofthepublicusesaVTRprincipallytorecordaprogramhecannotview asitisbeingtelevised,andthentowatchitonceatalatertime.Thispractice,knownas "timeshifting,"enlargesthetelevisionviewingaudience.Forthatreason,asignificant amountoftelevisionprogrammingmaybeusedinthismannerwithoutobjectionfromthe ownersofthecopyrightsontheprograms.Forthesamereason,eventhetwo respondentsinthiscase,whodoassertobjectionstotimeshiftinginthislitigation,were unabletoprovethatthepracticehasimpairedthecommercialvalueoftheircopyrightsor hascreatedanylikelihoodoffutureharm.Giventhesefindings,thereisnobasisinthe CopyrightActuponwhichrespondentscanholdpetitionersliablefordistributingVTR'sto thegeneralpublic.TheCourtofAppeals'holdingthatrespondentsareentitledtoenjoin thedistributionofVTR's,tocollectroyaltiesonthesaleofsuchequipment,ortoobtain otherrelief,ifaffirmed,wouldenlargethescopeofrespondents'statutorymonopoliesto encompasscontroloveranarticleofcommercethatisnotthesubjectofcopyright protection.Suchanexpansionofthecopyrightprivilegeisbeyondthelimitsofthegrants authorizedbyCongress. I Thetworespondentsinthisaction,UniversalCityStudios,Inc.,andWaltDisney Productions,produceandholdthecopyrightsonasubstantialnumberofmotionpictures 5. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 5/78 andotheraudiovisualworks.Inthecurrentmarketplace,theycanexploittheirrightsin theseworksinanumberofways: Page464U.S.422 byauthorizingtheatricalexhibitions,bylicensinglimitedshowingsoncableandnetwork television,bysellingsyndicationrightsforrepeatedairingsonlocaltelevisionstations, andbymarketingprogramsonprerecordedvideotapesorvideodiscs.Someworksare suitableforexploitationthroughalloftheseavenues,whilethemarketforotherworksis morelimited. PetitionerSonymanufacturesmillionsofBetamaxvideotaperecordersandmarkets thesedevicesthroughnumerousretailestablishments,someofwhicharealso petitionersinthisaction.[Footnote2]Sony'sBetamaxVTRisamechanismconsistingof threebasiccomponents:(1)atuner,whichreceiveselectromagneticsignalstransmitted overthetelevisionbandofthepublicairwavesandseparatesthemintoaudioandvisual signals(2)arecorder,whichrecordssuchsignalsonamagnetictapeand(3)an adapter,whichconvertstheaudioandvisualsignalsonthetapeintoacompositesignal thatcanbereceivedbyatelevisionset. Severalcapabilitiesofthemachinearenoteworthy.TheseparatetunerintheBetamax enablesittorecordabroadcastoffonestationwhilethetelevisionsetistunedtoanother channel,permittingtheviewer,forexample,towatchtwosimultaneousnewsbroadcasts bywatchingone"live"andrecordingtheotherforlaterviewing.Tapesmaybereused, andprogramsthathavebeenrecordedmaybeerasedeitherbeforeorafterviewing.A timerintheBetamaxcanbeusedtoactivateanddeactivatetheequipmentat predetermined Page464U.S.423 times,enablinganintendedviewertorecordprogramsthataretransmittedwhenheor sheisnotathome.Thusapersonmaywatchaprogramathomeintheeveningeven thoughitwasbroadcastwhiletheviewerwasatworkduringtheafternoon.TheBetamax isalsoequippedwithapausebuttonandafastforwardcontrol.Thepausebutton,when depressed,deactivatestherecorderuntilitisreleased,thusenablingaviewertoomita commercialadvertisementfromtherecording,provided,ofcourse,thatthevieweris presentwhentheprogramisrecorded.Thefastforwardcontrolenablestheviewerofa previouslyrecordedprogramtorunthetaperapidlywhenasegmentheorshedoesnot desiretoseeisbeingplayedbackonthetelevisionscreen. TherespondentsandSonybothconductedsurveysofthewaytheBetamaxmachine wasusedbyseveralhundredownersduringasampleperiodin1978.Althoughthere weresomedifferencesinthesurveys,theybothshowedthattheprimaryuseofthe 6. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 6/78 machineformostownerswas"timeshifting"thepracticeofrecordingaprogramto viewitonceatalatertime,andthereaftererasingit.Timeshiftingenablesviewerstosee programstheyotherwisewouldmissbecausetheyarenotathome,areoccupiedwith othertasks,orareviewingaprogramonanotherstationatthetimeofabroadcastthat theydesiretowatch.Bothsurveysalsoshowed,however,thatasubstantialnumberof intervieweeshadaccumulatedlibrariesoftapes.[Footnote3]Sony'ssurveyindicated Page464U.S.424 thatover80%oftheintervieweeswatchedatleastasmuchregulartelevisionasthey hadbeforeowningaBetamax.[Footnote4]Respondentsofferednoevidenceof decreasedtelevisionviewingbyBetamaxowners.[Footnote5] Sonyintroducedconsiderableevidencedescribingtelevisionprogramsthatcouldbe copiedwithoutobjectionfromanycopyrightholder,withspecialemphasisonsports, religious,andeducationalprogramming.Forexample,theirsurveyindicatedthat7.3%of allBetamaxuseistorecordsportsevents,andrepresentativesofprofessionalbaseball, football,basketball,andhockeytestifiedthattheyhadnoobjectiontotherecordingof theirtelevisedeventsforhomeuse.[Footnote6] Page464U.S.425 Respondentsofferedopinionevidenceconcerningthefutureimpactoftheunrestricted saleofVTR'sonthecommercialvalueoftheircopyrights.TheDistrictCourtfound, however,thattheyhadfailedtoproveanylikelihoodoffutureharmfromtheuseofVTR's fortimeshifting.480F.Supp.at469. TheDistrictCourt'sDecision ThelengthytrialofthecaseintheDistrictCourtconcernedtheprivate,homeuseof VTR'sforrecordingprogramsbroadcastonthepublicairwaveswithoutchargetothe viewer.[Footnote7]Noissueconcerningthetransferoftapestootherpersons,theuse ofhomerecordedtapesforpublicperformances,orthecopyingofprogramstransmitted onpayorcabletelevisionsystemswasraised.Seeid.at432433,442. TheDistrictCourtconcludedthatnoncommercialhomeuserecordingofmaterial broadcastoverthepublicairwaveswasafairuseofcopyrightedworks,anddidnot constitutecopyrightinfringement.Itemphasizedthefactthatthematerialwasbroadcast freetothepublicatlarge,thenoncommercialcharacteroftheuse,andtheprivate characteroftheactivityconductedentirelywithinthehome.Moreover,thecourtfound thatthepurposeofthisuseservedthepublicinterestinincreasingaccesstotelevision programming,aninterestthat 7. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 7/78 "isconsistentwiththeFirstAmendmentpolicyofprovidingthefullestpossibleaccessto informationthroughthepublicairwaves.ColumbiaBroadcastingSystem,Inc.v. DemocraticNationalCommittee, 412U.S.94,412U.S.102." Id.at454.[Footnote8]Evenwhenanentirecopyrightedworkwasrecorded, Page464U.S.426 theDistrictCourtregardedthecopyingasfairuse"becausethereisnoaccompanying reductioninthemarketforplaintiff'soriginalwork.'"Ibid.. Asanindependentgroundofdecision,theDistrictCourtalsoconcludedthatSonycould notbeheldliableasacontributoryinfringerevenifthehomeuseofaVTRwas consideredaninfringinguse.TheDistrictCourtnotedthatSonyhadnodirect involvementwithanyBetamaxpurchaserswhorecordedcopyrightedworksofftheair. Sony'sadvertisingwassilentonthesubjectofpossiblecopyrightinfringement,butits instructionbookletcontainedthefollowingstatement: "Televisionprograms,films,videotapesandothermaterialsmaybecopyrighted. UnauthorizedrecordingofsuchmaterialmaybecontrarytotheprovisionsoftheUnited Statescopyrightlaws." Id.at436. TheDistrictCourtassumedthatSonyhadconstructiveknowledgeoftheprobabilitythat theBetamaxmachinewouldbeusedtorecordcopyrightedprograms,butfoundthat Sonymerelysolda"productcapableofavarietyofuses,someofthemallegedly infringing."Id.at461.Itreasoned: "Sellingastaplearticleofcommercee.g.,atypewriter,arecorder,acamera,a photocopyingmachinetechnicallycontributestoanyinfringingusesubsequentlymade thereof,butthiskindof'contribution,'ifdeemedsufficientasabasisforliability,would expandthetheorybeyondprecedent,andarguablybeyondjudicialmanagement." "...Commercewouldindeedbehamperedifmanufacturersofstapleitemswereheld liableascontributoryinfringerswheneverthey'constructively'knewthatsome purchasersonsomeoccasionswouldusetheirproduct Page464U.S.427 forapurposewhichacourtlaterdeemed,asamatteroffirstimpression,tobean infringement." Ibid. 8. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 8/78 Finally,theDistrictCourtdiscussedtherespondents'prayerforinjunctiverelief,noting thattheyhadaskedforaninjunctioneitherpreventingthefuturesaleofBetamax machinesorrequiringthatthemachinesberenderedincapableofrecordingcopyrighted worksofftheair.Thecourtstatedthatithad "foundnocaseinwhichthemanufacturers,distributors,retailersandadvertisersofthe instrumentenablingtheinfringementweresuedbythecopyrightholders," andthattherequestforreliefinthiscase"isunique."Id.at465. Itconcludedthataninjunctionwaswhollyinappropriatebecauseanypossibleharmto respondentswasoutweighedbythefactthat "theBetamaxcouldstilllegallybeusedtorecordnoncopyrightedmaterialormaterial whoseownersconsentedtothecopying.Aninjunctionwoulddeprivethepublicofthe abilitytousetheBetamaxforthisnoninfringingofftheairrecording." Id.at468. TheCourtofAppeals'Decision TheCourtofAppealsreversedtheDistrictCourt'sjudgmentonrespondents'copyright claim.ItdidnotsetasideanyoftheDistrictCourt'sfindingsoffact.Rather,itconcluded asamatteroflawthatthehomeuseofaVTRwasnotafairuse,becauseitwasnota "productiveuse."[Footnote9]Itthereforeheldthatitwasunnecessaryforplaintiffsto proveanyharmtothepotentialmarketforthecopyrightedworks,butthenobservedthat itseemedclearthatthecumulativeeffectofmassreproductionmadepossiblebyVTR's wouldtendtodiminishthepotentialmarketforrespondents'works.659F.2dat974. Page464U.S.428 Ontheissueofcontributoryinfringement,theCourtofAppealsfirstrejectedtheanalogy tostaplearticlesofcommercesuchastaperecordersorphotocopyingmachines.It notedthatsuchmachines"mayhavesubstantialbenefitforsomepurposes"anddonot "evenremotelyraisecopyrightproblems."Id.at975.VTR's,however,aresold"forthe primarypurposeofreproducingtelevisionprogramming,"and"[v]irtuallyall"such programmingiscopyrightedmaterial.Ibid.TheCourtofAppealsconcluded,therefore, thatVTR'swerenotsuitableforanysubstantialnoninfringinguseevenifsomecopyright ownerselectnottoenforcetheirrights. TheCourtofAppealsalsorejectedtheDistrictCourt'srelianceonSony'slackof knowledgethathomeuseconstitutedinfringement.Assumingthatthestatutory provisionsdefiningtheremediesforinfringementappliedalsotothenonstatutorytortof contributoryinfringement,thecourtstatedthatadefendant'sgoodfaithwouldmerely 9. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 9/78 reducehisdamagesliability,butwouldnotexcusetheinfringingconduct.Itheldthat Sonywaschargeablewithknowledgeofthehomeowner'sinfringingactivitybecausethe reproductionofcopyrightedmaterialswaseither"themostconspicuoususe"or"the majoruse"oftheBetamaxproduct.Ibid. Onthematterofrelief,theCourtofAppealsconcludedthat"statutorydamagesmaybe appropriate"andthattheDistrictCourtshouldreconsideritsdeterminationthatan injunctionwouldnotbeanappropriateremedyand,referringto"theanalogous photocopyingarea,"suggestedthatacontinuingroyaltypursuanttoajudiciallycreated compulsorylicensemayverywellbeanacceptableresolutionofthereliefissue.Id.at 976. II ArticleI,8,oftheConstitutionprovides: "TheCongressshallhavePower...ToPromotetheProgressofScienceanduseful Arts,bysecuringforlimitedTimestoAuthorsandInventorstheexclusiveRighttotheir respectiveWritingsandDiscoveries." Page464U.S.429 ThemonopolyprivilegesthatCongressmayauthorizeareneitherunlimitednorprimarily designedtoprovideaspecialprivatebenefit.Rather,thelimitedgrantisameansby whichanimportantpublicpurposemaybeachieved.Itisintendedtomotivatethe creativeactivityofauthorsandinventorsbytheprovisionofaspecialreward,andto allowthepublicaccesstotheproductsoftheirgeniusafterthelimitedperiodofexclusive controlhasexpired. "Thecopyrightlaw,likethepatentstatutes,makesrewardtotheownerasecondary consideration.InFoxFilmCorp.v.Doyal, 286U.S.123,286U.S.127,ChiefJustice HughesspokeasfollowsrespectingthecopyrightmonopolygrantedbyCongress," "ThesoleinterestoftheUnitedStatesandtheprimaryobjectinconferringthemonopoly lieinthegeneralbenefitsderivedbythepublicfromthelaborsofauthors." "Itissaidthatrewardtotheauthororartistservestoinducereleasetothepublicofthe productsofhiscreativegenius." UnitedStatesv.ParamountPictures,Inc., 334U.S.131,334U.S.158(1948). AsthetextoftheConstitutionmakesplain,itisCongressthathasbeenassignedthe taskofdefiningthescopeofthelimitedmonopolythatshouldbegrantedtoauthorsorto inventorsinordertogivethepublicappropriateaccesstotheirworkproduct.Because 10. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 10/78 thistaskinvolvesadifficultbalancebetweentheinterestsofauthorsandinventorsinthe controlandexploitationoftheirwritingsanddiscoveriesontheonehand,andsociety's competinginterestinthefreeflowofideas,information,andcommerceontheother hand,ourpatentandcopyrightstatuteshavebeenamendedrepeatedly.[Footnote10] Page464U.S.430 Fromitsbeginning,thelawofcopyrighthasdevelopedinresponsetosignificantchanges intechnology.[Footnote11]Indeed,itwastheinventionofanewformofcopying equipmenttheprintingpressthatgaverisetotheoriginalneedforcopyright protection.[Footnote12]Repeatedly,asnewdevelopmentshave Page464U.S.431 occurredinthiscountry,ithasbeentheCongressthathasfashionedthenewrulesthat newtechnologymadenecessary.Thus,longbeforetheenactmentoftheCopyrightAct of1909,35Stat.1075,itwassettledthattheprotectiongiventocopyrightsiswholly statutory.Wheatonv.Peters,8Pet.591,33U.S.661662(1834).Theremediesfor infringement"areonlythoseprescribedbyCongress."Thompsonv.Hubbard, 131U.S. 123,131U.S.151(1889). Thejudiciary'sreluctancetoexpandtheprotectionsaffordedbythecopyrightwithout explicitlegislativeguidanceisarecurringtheme.See,e.g.,TeleprompterCorp.v. ColumbiaBroadcastingSystem,Inc., 415U.S.394(1974)FortnightlyCorp.v.United ArtistsTelevision,Inc., 392U.S.390(1968)WhiteSmithMusicPublishingCo.v.Apollo Co., 209U.S.1(1908)Williams&WilkinsCo.v.UnitedStates,203Ct.Cl.74,487F.2d 1345(1973),aff'dbyanequallydividedCourt, 420U.S.376(1975).Soundpolicy,as wellashistory,supportsourconsistentdeferencetoCongresswhenmajortechnological innovationsalterthemarketforcopyrightedmaterials.Congresshastheconstitutional authorityandtheinstitutionalabilitytoaccommodatefullythevariedpermutationsof competingintereststhatareinevitablyimplicatedbysuchnewtechnology. Inacaselikethis,inwhichCongresshasnotplainlymarkedourcourse,wemustbe circumspectinconstruingthescopeofrightscreatedbyalegislativeenactmentwhich nevercontemplatedsuchacalculusofinterests.Indoingso,weareguidedbyJustice Stewart'sexpositionofthecorrectapproachtoambiguitiesinthelawofcopyright: "Thelimitedscopeofthecopyrightholder'sstatutorymonopoly,likethelimitedcopyright durationrequiredbytheConstitution,reflectsabalanceofcompetingclaimsuponthe publicinterest:creativeworkistobe Page464U.S.432 11. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 11/78 encouragedandrewarded,butprivatemotivationmustultimatelyservethecauseof promotingbroadpublicavailabilityofliterature,music,andtheotherarts.Theimmediate effectofourcopyrightlawistosecureafairreturnforan'author's'creativelabor.Butthe ultimateaimis,bythisincentive,tostimulateartisticcreativityforthegeneralpublicgood. 'ThesoleinterestoftheUnitedStatesandtheprimaryobjectinconferringthemonopoly,' thisCourthassaid,'lieinthegeneralbenefitsderivedbythepublicfromthelaborsof authors.'FoxFilmCorp.v.Doyal, 286U.S.123,286U.S.127.SeeKendallv.Winsor, 21How.322,62U.S.327328Grantv.Raymond,6Pet.218,31U.S.241242.When technologicalchangehasrendereditsliteraltermsambiguous,theCopyrightActmustbe construedinlightofthisbasicpurpose." TwentiethCenturyMusicCorp.v.Aiken, 422U.S.151,422U.S.156(1975)(footnotes omitted). Copyrightprotection"subsists...inoriginalworksofauthorshipfixedinanytangible mediumofexpression."17U.S.C.102(a)(1982ed.).Thisprotectionhasnever accordedthecopyrightownercompletecontroloverallpossibleusesofhiswork. [Footnote13]Rather,theCopyrightActgrantsthe Page464U.S.433 copyrightholder"exclusive"rightstouseandtoauthorizetheuseofhisworkinfive qualifiedways,includingreproductionofthecopyrightedworkincopies.106.[Footnote 14]Allreproductionsofthework,however,arenotwithintheexclusivedomainofthe copyrightownersomeareinthepublicdomain.Anyindividualmayreproducea copyrightedworkfora"fairuse"thecopyrightownerdoesnotpossesstheexclusive righttosuchause.Compare106with107. "Anyonewhoviolatesanyoftheexclusiverightsofthecopyrightowner,"thatis,anyone whotrespassesintohisexclusivedomainbyusingorauthorizingtheuseofthe copyrightedworkinoneofthefivewayssetforthinthestatute,"isaninfringerofthe copyright."501(a).Conversely,anyonewhoisauthorizedbythecopyrightownertouse thecopyrightedworkinawayspecifiedinthestatuteorwhomakesafairuseofthework isnotaninfringerofthecopyrightwithrespecttosuchuse. TheCopyrightActprovidestheownerofacopyrightwithapotentarsenalofremedies againstaninfringerofhiswork,includinganinjunctiontorestraintheinfringerfrom violating Page464U.S.434 hisrights,theimpoundmentanddestructionofallreproductionsofhisworkmadein violationofhisrights,arecoveryofhisactualdamagesandanyadditionalprofitsrealized 12. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 12/78 bytheinfringerorarecoveryofstatutorydamages,andattorney'sfees.502505. [Footnote15] ThetworespondentsinthiscasedonotseekreliefagainsttheBetamaxuserswhohave allegedlyinfringedtheircopyrights.Moreover,thisisnotaclassactiononbehalfofall copyrightownerswholicensetheirworksfortelevisionbroadcast,andrespondentshave norighttoinvokewhateverrightsothercopyrightholdersmayhavetobringinfringement actionsbasedonBetamaxcopyingoftheirworks.[Footnote16]Aswasmadeclearby theirownevidence,thecopyingoftherespondents'programsrepresentsasmallportion ofthetotaluseofVTR's.Itis,however,thetapingofrespondents'owncopyrighted programsthatprovidesthemwithstandingtochargeSonywithcontributoryinfringement. Toprevail,theyhavetheburdenofprovingthatusersoftheBetamaxhaveinfringedtheir copyrights,andthatSonyshouldbeheldresponsibleforthatinfringement. III TheCopyrightActdoesnotexpresslyrenderanyoneliableforinfringementcommittedby another.Incontrast,the Page464U.S.435 PatentActexpresslybrandsanyonewho"activelyinducesinfringementofapatent"as aninfringer,35U.S.C.271(b),andfurtherimposesliabilityoncertainindividuals labeled"contributory"infringers,271(c).Theabsenceofsuchexpresslanguageinthe copyrightstatutedoesnotprecludetheimpositionofliabilityforcopyrightinfringements oncertainpartieswhohavenotthemselvesengagedintheinfringingactivity.[Footnote 17]Forvicariousliabilityisimposedinvirtuallyallareasofthelaw,andtheconceptof contributoryinfringementismerelyaspeciesofthebroaderproblemofidentifyingthe circumstancesinwhichitisjusttoholdoneindividualaccountablefortheactionsof another. SuchcircumstanceswereplainlypresentinKalemCo.v.HarperBrothers, 222U.S.55 (1911),thecopyrightdecisionofthisCourtonwhichrespondentsplacetheirprincipal reliance.InKalem,theCourtheldthattheproducerofanunauthorizedfilmdramatization ofthecopyrightedbookBenHurwasliableforhissaleofthemotionpicturetojobbers, whointurnarrangedforthecommercialexhibitionofthefilm.JusticeHolmes,writingfor theCourt,explained: "Thedefendantnotonlyexpectedbutinvokedbyadvertisementtheuseofitsfilmsfor dramaticreproduction Page464U.S.436 13. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 13/78 ofthestory.Thatwasthemostconspicuouspurposeforwhichtheycouldbeused,and theoneforwhichespeciallytheyweremade.Ifthedefendantdidnotcontributetothe infringementitisimpossibletodosoexceptbytakingpartinthefinalact.Itisliableon principlesrecognizedineverypartofthelaw." Id.at222U.S.6263. TheuseforwhichtheitemsoldinKalemhadbeen"especially"madewas,ofcourse,to displaytheperformancethathadalreadybeenrecordeduponit.Theproducerhad personallyappropriatedthecopyrightowner'sprotectedworkand,astheownerofthe tangiblemediumofexpressionuponwhichtheprotectedworkwasrecorded,authorized thatusebyhissaleofthefilmtojobbers.Butthatuseofthefilmwasnothistoauthorize: thecopyrightownerpossessedtheexclusiverighttoauthorizepublicperformancesofhis work.Further,theproducerpersonallyadvertisedtheunauthorizedpublicperformances, dispellinganypossibledoubtastotheuseofthefilmwhichhehadauthorized. RespondentsarguethatKalemstandsforthepropositionthatsupplyingthe"means"to accomplishaninfringingactivityandencouragingthatactivitythroughadvertisementare sufficienttoestablishliabilityforcopyrightinfringement.Thisargumentrestsonagross generalizationthatcannotwithstandscrutiny.TheproducerinKalemdidnotmerely providethe"means"toaccomplishaninfringingactivitytheproducersuppliedthework itself,albeitinanewmediumofexpression.Sonyintheinstantcasedoesnotsupply Betamaxconsumerswithrespondents'worksrespondentsdo.Sonysuppliesapieceof equipmentthatisgenerallycapableofcopyingtheentirerangeofprogramsthatmaybe televised:thosethatareuncopyrighted,thosethatarecopyrightedbutmaybecopied withoutobjectionfromthecopyrightholder,andthosethatthecopyrightholderwould prefernottohavecopied.TheBetamaxcanbeusedto Page464U.S.437 makeauthorizedorunauthorizedusesofcopyrightedworks,buttherangeofitspotential useismuchbroaderthantheparticularinfringinguseofthefilmBenHurinvolvedin Kalem.Kalemdoesnotsupportrespondents'noveltheoryofliability. JusticeHolmesstatedthattheproducerhad"contributed"totheinfringementofthe copyright,andthelabel"contributoryinfringement"hasbeenappliedinanumberof lowercourtcopyrightcasesinvolvinganongoingrelationshipbetweenthedirectinfringer andthecontributoryinfringeratthetimetheinfringingconductoccurred.Insuchcases, asinothersituationsinwhichtheimpositionofvicariousliabilityismanifestlyjust,the "contributory"infringerwasinapositiontocontroltheuseofcopyrightedworksbyothers, andhadauthorizedtheusewithoutpermissionfromthecopyrightowner.[Footnote18] Thiscase,however,plainlydoesnotfall 14. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 14/78 Page464U.S.438 inthatcategory.TheonlycontactbetweenSonyandtheusersoftheBetamaxthatis disclosedbythisrecordoccurredatthemomentofsale.TheDistrictCourtexpressly foundthat "noemployeeofSony,SonamorDDBIhadeitherdirectinvolvementwiththeallegedly infringingactivityordirectcontactwithpurchasersofBetamaxwhorecordedcopyrighted worksofftheair." 480F.Supp.at460.Anditfurtherfoundthat "therewasnoevidencethatanyofthecopiesmadebyGriffithsortheotherindividual witnessesinthissuitwereinfluencedorencouragedby[Sony's]advertisements." Ibid. Page464U.S.439 IfvicariousliabilityistobeimposedonSonyinthiscase,itmustrestonthefactthatit hassoldequipmentwithconstructiveknowledgeofthefactthatitscustomersmayuse thatequipmenttomakeunauthorizedcopiesofcopyrightedmaterial.Thereisno precedentinthelawofcopyrightfortheimpositionofvicariousliabilityonsuchatheory. Theclosestanalogyisprovidedbythepatentlawcasestowhichitisappropriatetorefer becauseofthehistorickinshipbetweenpatentlawandcopyrightlaw.[Footnote19] Page464U.S.440 InthePatentAct,boththeconceptofinfringementandtheconceptofcontributory infringementareexpresslydefinedbystatute.[Footnote20]Theprohibitionagainst contributoryinfringementisconfinedtotheknowingsaleofacomponentespeciallymade foruseinconnectionwithaparticularpatent.Thereisnosuggestioninthestatutethat onepatenteemayobjecttothesaleofaproductthatmightbeusedinconnectionwith otherpatents.Moreover,theActexpresslyprovidesthatthesaleofa"staplearticleor commodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse"isnotcontributory infringement.35U.S.C.271(c). Whenachargeofcontributoryinfringementispredicatedentirelyonthesaleofanarticle ofcommercethatisusedbythepurchasertoinfringeapatent,thepublicinterestin accesstothatarticleofcommerceisnecessarilyimplicated.A Page464U.S.441 findingofcontributoryinfringementdoesnot,ofcourse,removethearticlefromthe 15. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 15/78 marketaltogetheritdoes,however,givethepatenteeeffectivecontroloverthesaleof thatitem.Indeed,afindingofcontributoryinfringementisnormallythefunctional equivalentofholdingthatthedisputedarticleiswithinthemonopolygrantedtothe patentee.[Footnote21] Forthatreason,incontributoryinfringementcasesarisingunderthepatentlaws,the Courthasalwaysrecognizedthecriticalimportanceofnotallowingthepatenteeto extendhismonopolybeyondthelimitsofhisspecificgrant.Thesecasesdenythe patenteeanyrighttocontrolthedistributionofunpatentedarticlesunlesstheyare "unsuitedforanycommercialnoninfringinguse."DawsonChemicalCo.v.Rohm&Hass Co., 448U.S.176,448U.S.198(1980).Unlessacommodity"hasnouseexcept throughpracticeofthepatentedmethod,"id.at448U.S.199,thepatenteehasnoright toclaimthatitsdistributionconstitutescontributoryinfringement."Toformthebasisfor contributoryinfringement,theitemmustalmostbeuniquelysuitedasacomponentofthe patentedinvention."P.Rosenberg,PatentLawFundamentals17.02[2](2ded.1982). "[A]saleofanarticlewhichthoughadaptedtoaninfringinguseisalsoadaptedtoother andlawfuluses,isnotenoughtomaketheselleracontributoryinfringer.Sucharule wouldblockthewheelsofcommerce." Henryv.A.B.DickCo., 224U.S.1,224U.S.48(1912),overruledonothergrounds, Page464U.S.442 MotionPicturePatentsCo.v.UniversalFilmMfg.Co., 243U.S.502,243U.S.517 (1917). Werecognizetherearesubstantialdifferencesbetweenthepatentandcopyrightlaws. Butinbothareas,thecontributoryinfringementdoctrineisgroundedontherecognition thatadequateprotectionofamonopolymayrequirethecourtstolookbeyondactual duplicationofadeviceorpublicationtotheproductsoractivitiesthatmakesuch duplicationpossible.Thestaplearticleofcommercedoctrinemuststrikeabalance betweenacopyrightholder'slegitimatedemandforeffectivenotmerelysymbolic protectionofthestatutorymonopoly,andtherightsofothersfreelytoengagein substantiallyunrelatedareasofcommerce.Accordingly,thesaleofcopyingequipment, likethesaleofotherarticlesofcommerce,doesnotconstitutecontributoryinfringementif theproductiswidelyusedforlegitimate,unobjectionablepurposes.Indeed,itneed merelybecapableofsubstantialnoninfringinguses. IV ThequestionisthuswhethertheBetamaxiscapableofcommerciallysignificant noninfringinguses.Inordertoresolvethatquestion,weneednotexploreallthedifferent 16. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 16/78 potentialusesofthemachineanddeterminewhetherornottheywouldconstitute infringement.Rather,weneedonlyconsiderwhether,onthebasisofthefactsasfound bytheDistrictCourt,asignificantnumberofthemwouldbenoninfringing.Moreover,in ordertoresolvethiscase,weneednotgiveprecisecontenttothequestionofhowmuch useiscommerciallysignificant.ForonepotentialuseoftheBetamaxplainlysatisfiesthis standard,howeveritisunderstood:private,noncommercialtimeshiftinginthehome.It doessoboth(A)becauserespondentshavenorighttopreventothercopyrightholders fromauthorizingitfortheirprograms,and(B)becausetheDistrictCourt'sfactualfindings revealthateventheunauthorizedhometimeshiftingofrespondents'programsis legitimatefairuse. Page464U.S.443 A.AuthorizedTimeShifting Eachoftherespondentsownsalargeinventoryofvaluablecopyrights,but,inthetotal spectrumoftelevisionprogramming,theircombinedmarketshareissmall.Theexact percentageisnotspecified,butitiswellbelow10%.[Footnote22]Iftheyweretoprevail, theoutcomeofthislitigationwouldhaveasignificantimpactonboththeproducersand theviewersoftheremaining90%oftheprogrammingintheNation.Nodoubt,many otherproducerssharerespondents'concernaboutthepossibleconsequencesof unrestrictedcopying.NeverthelessthefindingsoftheDistrictCourtmakeitclearthat timeshiftingmayenlargethetotalviewingaudience,andthatmanyproducersarewilling toallowprivatetimeshiftingtocontinue,atleastforanexperimentaltimeperiod. [Footnote23] TheDistrictCourtfound: "Evenifitweredeemedthathomeuserecordingofcopyrightedmaterialconstituted infringement,theBetamaxcouldstilllegallybeusedtorecordnoncopyrightedmaterialor materialwhoseownersconsentedtothecopying.Aninjunctionwoulddeprivethepublic oftheabilitytousetheBetamaxforthisnoninfringingofftheairrecording." Page464U.S.444 "Defendantsintroducedconsiderabletestimonyattrialaboutthepotentialforsuch copyingofsports,religious,educationalandotherprogramming.Thisincludedtestimony fromrepresentativesoftheOfficesoftheCommissionersoftheNationalFootball, Basketball,BaseballandHockeyLeaguesandAssociations,theExecutiveDirectorof NationalReligiousBroadcasters,andvariouseducationalcommunicationsagencies. Plaintiffsattacktheweightofthetestimonyoffered,andalsocontendthataninjunctionis warrantedbecauseinfringingusesoutweighnoninfringinguses." 17. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 17/78 "Whateverthefuturepercentageoflegalversusillegalhomeuserecordingmightbe,an injunctionwhichseekstodeprivethepublicoftheverytoolorarticleofcommerce capableofsomenoninfringingusewouldbeanextremelyharshremedy,aswellasone unprecedentedincopyrightlaw." 480F.Supp.at468. AlthoughtheDistrictCourtmadethesestatementsinthecontextofconsideringthe proprietyofinjunctiverelief,thestatementsconstituteafindingthattheevidence concerning"sports,religious,educationalandotherprogramming"wassufficientto establishasignificantquantityofbroadcastingwhosecopyingisnowauthorized,anda significantpotentialforfutureauthorizedcopying.Thatfindingisamplysupportedbythe record.InadditiontothereligiousandsportsofficialsidentifiedexplicitlybytheDistrict Court,[Footnote24]twoitemsintherecorddeservespecificmention. Page464U.S.445 FirstisthetestimonyofJohnKenaston,thestationmanagerofChannel58,an educationalstationinLosAngelesaffiliatedwiththePublicBroadcastingService.He explainedandauthenticatedthestation'spublishedguidetoitsprograms.[Footnote25] Foreachprogram,theguidetellswhetherunlimitedhometapingisauthorized,home tapingisauthorizedsubjecttocertainrestrictions(suchaserasurewithinsevendays),or hometapingisnotauthorizedatall.TheSpring,1978,editionoftheguidedescribed107 programs.Sixtytwoofthoseprogramsor58%authorizesomehometaping.Twentyone ofthem,oralmost20%,authorizeunrestrictedhometaping.[Footnote26] SecondisthetestimonyofFredRogers,presidentofthecorporationthatproducesand ownsthecopyrightonMisterRogers'Neighborhood.Theprogramiscarriedbymore publictelevisionstationsthananyotherprogram.Itsaudiencenumbersover3,000,000 familiesaday.Hetestifiedthathehadabsolutelynoobjectiontohometapingfor noncommercialuse,andexpressedtheopinionthatitisarealservicetofamiliestobe abletorecordchildren'sprogramsandtoshowthematappropriatetimes.[Footnote27] Page464U.S.446 IftherearemillionsofownersofVTR'swhomakecopiesoftelevisedsportsevents, religiousbroadcasts,andeducationalprogramssuchasMisterRogers'Neighborhood, andiftheproprietorsofthoseprogramswelcomethepractice,thebusinessofsupplying theequipmentthatmakessuchcopyingfeasibleshouldnotbestifledsimplybecausethe equipmentisusedbysomeindividualstomakeunauthorizedreproductionsof respondents'works.Therespondentsdonotrepresentaclasscomposedofallcopyright holders.Yetafindingofcontributoryinfringementwouldinevitablyfrustratetheinterests ofbroadcastersinreachingtheportionoftheiraudiencethatisavailableonlythrough 18. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 18/78 timeshifting. Ofcourse,thefactthatothercopyrightholdersmaywelcomethepracticeoftimeshifting doesnotmeanthatrespondentsshouldbedeemedtohavegrantedalicensetocopy theirprograms.Thirdpartyconductwouldbewhollyirrelevantinanactionfordirect infringementofrespondents'copyrights.Butinanactionforcontributoryinfringement againstthesellerofcopyingequipment,thecopyrightholdermaynotprevailunlessthe reliefthatheseeksaffectsonlyhisprograms,orunlesshespeaksforvirtuallyall copyrightholderswithaninterestintheoutcome.Inthiscase,therecordmakesit perfectlyclearthattherearemanyimportantproducersofnationalandlocaltelevision programswhofindnothingobjectionableabouttheenlargementinthesizeofthe televisionaudiencethatresultsfromthepracticeoftimeshiftingforprivatehomeuse. [Footnote28]Theselleroftheequipmentthatexpandsthoseproducers'audiences cannotbeacontributory Page464U.S.447 infringerif,asistrueinthiscase,ithashadnodirectinvolvementwithanyinfringing activity. B.UnauthorizedTimeShifting Evenunauthorizedusesofacopyrightedworkarenotnecessarilyinfringing.An unlicenseduseofthecopyrightisnotaninfringementunlessitconflictswithoneofthe specificexclusiverightsconferredbythecopyrightstatute.TwentiethCenturyMusic Corp.v.Aiken,422U.S.at422U.S.154155.Moreover,thedefinitionofexclusiverights in106ofthepresentActisprefacedbythewords"subjecttosections107through 118."Thosesectionsdescribeavarietyofusesofcopyrightedmaterialthat"arenot infringementsofcopyright""notwithstandingtheprovisionsofsection106."Themost pertinentinthiscaseis107,thelegislativeendorsementofthedoctrineof"fairuse." [Footnote29] Page464U.S.448 Thatsectionidentifiesvariousfactors[Footnote30]thatenableacourttoapplyan "equitableruleofreason"analysistoparticularclaimsofinfringement.[Footnote31] Althoughnotconclusive,thefirst Page464U.S.449 factorrequiresthat"thecommercialornonprofitcharacterofanactivity"beweighedin anyfairusedecision.[Footnote32]IftheBetamaxwereusedtomakecopiesfora commercialorprofitmakingpurpose,suchusewouldpresumptivelybeunfair.The 19. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 19/78 contrarypresumptionisappropriatehere,however,becausetheDistrictCourt'sfindings plainlyestablishthattimeshiftingforprivatehomeusemustbecharacterizedasa noncommercial,nonprofitactivity.Moreover,whenoneconsidersthenatureofa televisedcopyrightedaudiovisualwork,see17U.S.C.107(2)(1982ed.),andthattime shiftingmerelyenablesaviewertoseesuchaworkwhichhehadbeeninvitedtowitness initsentiretyfreeofcharge,thefactthat Page464U.S.450 theentireworkisreproduced,see107(3),doesnothaveitsordinaryeffectofmilitating againstafindingoffairuse.[Footnote33] Thisisnot,however,theendoftheinquiry,becauseCongresshasalsodirectedusto consider"theeffectoftheuseuponthepotentialmarketfororvalueofthecopyrighted work."107(4).Thepurposeofcopyrightistocreateincentivesforcreativeeffort.Even copyingfornoncommercialpurposesmayimpairthecopyrightholder'sabilitytoobtain therewardsthatCongressintendedhimtohave.Butausethathasnodemonstrable effectuponthepotentialmarketfor,orthevalueof,thecopyrightedworkneednotbe prohibitedinordertoprotecttheauthor'sincentivetocreate.Theprohibitionofsuch noncommercialuseswould Page464U.S.451 merelyinhibitaccesstoideaswithoutanycountervailingbenefit.[Footnote34] Thus,althougheverycommercialuseofcopyrightedmaterialispresumptivelyanunfair exploitationofthemonopolyprivilegethatbelongstotheownerofthecopyright, noncommercialusesareadifferentmatter.Achallengetoanoncommercialuseofa copyrightedworkrequiresproofeitherthattheparticularuseisharmfulorthat,ifitshould becomewidespread,itwouldadverselyaffectthepotentialmarketforthecopyrighted work.Actualpresentharmneednotbeshownsucharequirementwouldleavethe copyrightholderwithnodefenseagainstpredictabledamage.Norisitnecessarytoshow withcertaintythatfutureharmwillresult.Whatisnecessaryisashowingbya preponderanceoftheevidencethatsomemeaningfullikelihoodoffutureharmexists.If theintendeduseisforcommercialgain,thatlikelihoodmaybepresumed.Butifitisfora noncommercialpurpose,thelikelihoodmustbedemonstrated. Inthiscase,respondentsfailedtocarrytheirburdenwithregardtohometimeshifting. TheDistrictCourtdescribedrespondents'evidenceasfollows: "Plaintiffs'expertsadmittedatseveralpointsinthetrialthatthetimeshiftingwithout libraryingwouldresultin'notagreatdealofharm.'Plaintiffs'greatestconcernabouttime shiftingiswith'apointofimportantphilosophythattranscendsevencommercial 20. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 20/78 judgment.'Theyfearthat,withanyBetamaxusage,'invisibleboundaries'arepassed: 'thecopyrightownerhaslostcontroloverhisprogram.'" 480F.Supp.at467. Page464U.S.452 Laterinitsopinion,theDistrictCourtobserved: "Mostofplaintiffs'predictionsofharmhingeonspeculationaboutaudienceviewing patternsandratings,ameasurementsystemwhichSidneySheinberg,MCA'spresident, callsa'blackart'becauseofthesignificantlevelofimprecisioninvolvedinthe calculations." Id.at469.[Footnote35] TherewasnoneedfortheDistrictCourttosaymuchaboutpastharm."Plaintiffshave admittedthatnoactualharmtotheircopyrightshasoccurredtodate."Id.at451. Onthequestionofpotentialfutureharmfromtimeshifting,theDistrictCourtoffereda moredetailedanalysisoftheevidence.Itrejectedrespondents' "fearthatpersons'watching'theoriginaltelecastofaprogramwillnotbemeasuredinthe liveaudience,andtheratingsandrevenueswilldecrease" byobservingthatcurrentmeasurementtechnologyallowstheBetamaxaudiencetobe reflected.Id.at466.[Footnote36]Itrejectedrespondents'prediction"thatlivetelevision Page464U.S.453 ormovieaudienceswilldecreaseasmorepeoplewatchBetamaxtapesasan alternative,"withtheobservationthat"[t]hereisnofactualbasisfor[theunderlying] assumption."Ibid.[Footnote37]Itrejectedrespondents'"fearthattimeshiftingwill reduceaudiencesfortelecastreruns,"andconcludedinsteadthat"givencurrentmarket practices,thisshouldaidplaintiffs,ratherthanharmthem."Ibid.[Footnote38]Andit declaredthatrespondents'suggestionthat"theaterorfilmrentalexhibitionofaprogram willsufferbecauseoftimeshiftrecordingofthatprogram""lacksmerit."Id.at467. [Footnote39] Page464U.S.454 Aftercompletingthatreview,theDistrictCourtrestateditsoverallconclusionseveral times,inseveraldifferentways."Harmfromtimeshiftingisspeculativeand,atbest, minimal."Ibid. 21. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 21/78 "Theaudiencebenefitsfromthetimeshiftingcapabilityhavealreadybeendiscussed.It isnotimplausiblethatbenefitscouldalsoaccruetoplaintiffs,broadcasters,and advertisers,astheBetamaxmakesitpossibleformorepersonstoviewtheir broadcasts." Ibid."Nolikelihoodofharmwasshownattrial,andplaintiffsadmittedthattherehadbeen noactualharmtodate."Id.at468469. "TestimonyattrialsuggestedthatBetamaxmayrequireadjustmentsinmarketing strategy,butitdidnotestablishevenalikelihoodofharm." Id.at469. "Televisionproductionbyplaintiffstodayismoreprofitablethanithaseverbeen,and,in fiveweeksoftrial,therewasnoconcreteevidencetosuggestthattheBetamaxwill changethestudios'financialpicture." Ibid. TheDistrictCourt'sconclusionsarebuttressedbythefactthattotheextenttimeshifting expandspublicaccesstofreelybroadcasttelevisionprograms,ityieldssocietalbenefits. InCommunityTelevisionofSouthernCaliforniav.Gottfried, 459U.S.498,459U.S. 508,n.12(1983),weacknowledgedthepublicinterestinmakingtelevisionbroadcasting moreavailable.Concededly,thatinterestisnotunlimited.Butitsupportsaninterpretation oftheconceptof"fairuse"thatrequiresthecopyrightholdertodemonstratesome likelihoodofharmbeforehemaycondemnaprivateactoftimeshiftingasaviolationof federallaw. Whenthesefactorsareallweighedinthe"equitableruleofreason"balance,wemust concludethatthisrecordamply Page464U.S.455 supportstheDistrictCourt'sconclusionthathometimeshiftingisfairuse.Inlightofthe findingsoftheDistrictCourtregardingthestateoftheempiricaldata,itisclearthatthe CourtofAppealserredinholdingthatthestatuteaspresentlywrittenbarssuchconduct. [Footnote40] Page464U.S.456 Insummary,therecordandfindingsoftheDistrictCourtleadustotwoconclusions.First, Sonydemonstratedasignificantlikelihoodthatsubstantialnumbersofcopyrightholders wholicensetheirworksforbroadcastonfreetelevisionwouldnotobjecttohavingtheir broadcaststimeshiftedbyprivateviewers.Andsecond,respondentsfailedto 22. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 22/78 demonstratethattimeshiftingwouldcauseanylikelihoodofnonminimalharmtothe potentialmarketfor,orthevalueof,theircopyrightedworks.TheBetamaxis,therefore, capableofsubstantialnoninfringinguses.Sony'ssaleofsuchequipmenttothegeneral publicdoesnotconstitutecontributoryinfringementofrespondents'copyrights. V "ThedirectionofArt.IisthatCongressshallhavethepowertopromotetheprogressof scienceandtheusefularts.When,ashere,theConstitutionispermissive,thesignof howfarCongresshaschosentogocancomeonlyfromCongress." DeepsouthPackingCo.v.LaitramCorp., 406U.S.518,406U.S.530(1972). OnemaysearchtheCopyrightActinvainforanysignthattheelectedrepresentativesof themillionsofpeoplewhowatchtelevisioneverydayhavemadeitunlawfultocopya programforlaterviewingathome,orhaveenactedaflatprohibitionagainstthesaleof machinesthatmakesuchcopyingpossible. ItmaywellbethatCongresswilltakeafreshlookatthisnewtechnology,justasitso oftenhasexaminedotherinnovationsinthepast.Butitisnotourjobtoapplylawsthat havenotyetbeenwritten.Applyingthecopyrightstatute,asitnowreads,tothefactsas theyhavebeendevelopedinthiscase,thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsmustbe reversed. Itissoordered. Page464U.S.457 [Footnote1] Therespondentsalsoassertedcausesofactionunderstatelawand43(a)ofthe TrademarkActof1946,60Stat.441,15U.S.C.1125(a).Theseclaimsarenotbefore thisCourt. [Footnote2] ThefourretailersareCarterHawleyHalesStores,Inc.,AssociatedDryGoodsCorp., FederatedDepartmentStores,Inc.,andHenry'sCameraCorp.Theprincipaldefendants areSonyCorporation,themanufactureroftheequipment,anditswhollyowned subsidiary,SonyCorporationofAmerica.TheadvertisingagencyofDoyleDane Bernback,Inc.,alsoinvolvedinmarketingtheBetamax,isalsoapetitioner.Anindividual VTRuser,WilliamGriffiths,wasnamedasadefendantintheDistrictCourt,but respondentssoughtnoreliefagainsthim.Griffithsisnotapetitioner.Forconvenience, weshallrefertopetitionerscollectivelyasSony. 23. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 23/78 [Footnote3] AsevidenceofhowaVTRmaybeused,respondentsofferedthetestimonyofWilliam Griffiths.Griffiths,althoughnamedasanindividualdefendant,wasaclientofplaintiffs' lawfirm.TheDistrictCourtsummarizedhistestimonyasfollows: "Heownsapproximately100tapes.WhenGriffithsboughthisBetamax,heintendednot onlytotimeshift(record,playbackandthenerase)butalsotobuildalibraryof cassettes.Maintainingalibrary,however,provedtooexpensive,andheisnowerasing someearliertapesandreusingthem." "Griffithscopiedabout20minutesofaUniversalmotionpicturecalled'NeverGiveAn Inch,'andtwoepisodesfromUniversaltelevisionseriesentitled'BaaBaaBlackSheep' and'HolmesandYoYo.'Hewouldhaveerasedeachofthesebutfortherequestof plaintiffs'counselthatitbekept.Griffithsalsotestifiedthathehadcopied,butalready erased,Universalfilmscalled'AlphaCaper'(erasedbeforeanyonesawit)and'Amelia Earhart.'Atthetimeofhisdeposition,GriffithsdidnotintendtokeepanyUniversalfilmin hislibrary." "Grifflthshasalsorecordeddocumentaries,newsbroadcasts,sportingeventsand politicalprogramssuchasarerunoftheNixon/Kennedydebate." 480F.Supp.429,436437(1979).Fourotherwitnessestestifiedtohavingengagedin similaractivity. [Footnote4] TheDistrictCourtsummarizedsomeofthefindingsinthesesurveysasfollows: "Accordingtoplaintiffs'survey,75.4%oftheVTRownersusetheirmachinestorecord fortimeshiftingpurposeshalformostofthetime.Defendants'surveyshowedthat96% oftheBetamaxownershadusedthemachinetorecordprogramstheyotherwisewould havemissed." "Whenplaintiffsaskedintervieweeshowmanycassetteswereintheirlibrary,55.8%said therewere10orfewer.Indefendants'survey,ofthetotalprogramsviewedby intervieweesinthepastmonth,70.4%hadbeenviewedonlythatonetime,andfor 57.9%,therewerenoplansforfurtherviewing." Id.at438. [Footnote5] "81.9%ofthedefendants'intervieweeswatchedthesameamountormoreofregular 24. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 24/78 televisionastheydidbeforeowningaBetamax.83.2%reportedtheirfrequencyofmovie goingwasunaffectedbyBetamax." Id.at439. [Footnote6] SeeDefendants'Exh.OT,Table20Tr.24472450,2480,24862487,25152516,2530 2534. [Footnote7] ThetrialalsobrieflytouchedupondemonstrationsoftheBetamaxbytheretailer petitionerswhichwereallegedtobeinfringementsbyrespondents.TheDistrictCourt heldagainstrespondentsonthisclaim,480F.Supp.at456457,theCourtofAppeals affirmedthisholding,659F.2d963,976(1981),andrespondentsdidnotcrosspetition onthisissue. [Footnote8] Thecourtalsofoundthatthis "accessisnotjustamatterofconvenience,asplaintiffshavesuggested.Accesshas beenlimitednotsimplybyinconvenience,butbythebasicneedtowork.Accesstothe betterprogramhasalsobeenlimitedbythecompetitivepracticeof counterprogramming." 480F.Supp.at454. [Footnote9] "Withouta'productiveuse,'e.g.,whencopyrightedmaterialisreproducedforitsintrinsic use,themasscopyingofthesortinvolvedinthiscaseprecludesanapplicationoffair use." 659F.2dat971972. [Footnote10] InitsReportaccompanyingthecomprehensiverevisionoftheCopyrightActin1909,the JudiciaryCommitteeoftheHouseofRepresentativesexplainedthisbalance: "TheenactmentofcopyrightlegislationbyCongressunderthetermsoftheConstitution isnotbaseduponanynaturalrightthattheauthorhasinhiswritings,...butuponthe groundthatthewelfareofthepublicwillbeservedandprogressofscienceanduseful 25. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 25/78 artswillbepromotedbysecuringtoauthorsforlimitedperiodstheexclusiverightsto theirwritings...." "Inenactingacopyrightlaw,Congressmustconsider...twoquestions:first,howmuch willthelegislationstimulatetheproducerandsobenefitthepublicand,second,how muchwillthemonopolygrantedbedetrimentaltothepublic?Thegrantingofsuch exclusiverights,underthepropertermsandconditions,confersabenefituponthepublic thatoutweighstheevilsofthetemporarymonopoly." H.R.Rep.No.2222,60thCong.,2dSess.,7(1909). [Footnote11] Thus,forexample,thedevelopmentandmarketingofplayerpianosandperforatedrolls ofmusic,seeWhiteSmithMusicPublishingCo.v.ApolloCo., 209U.S.1(1908), precededtheenactmentoftheCopyrightActof1909innovationsincopyingtechniques gaverisetothestatutoryexemptionforlibrarycopyingembodiedin108ofthe1976 revisionofthecopyrightlawthedevelopmentofthetechnologythatmadeitpossibleto retransmittelevisionprogramsbycableorbymicrowavesystems,seeFortnightlyCorp. v.UnitedArtistsTelevision,Inc., 392U.S.390(1968),andTeleprompterCorp.v. ColumbiaBroadcastingSystem,Inc., 415U.S.394(1974),promptedtheenactmentof thecomplexprovisionssetforthin17U.S.C.111(d)(2)(B)and111(d)(5)(1982ed.) afteryearsofdetailedcongressionalstudy,seeEasternMicrowave,Inc.v.Doubleday Sports,Inc.,691F.2d125,129(CA21982). ByenactingtheSoundRecordingAmendmentof1971,85Stat.391,Congressalso providedthesolutiontothe"recordpiracy"problemsthathadbeencreatedbythe developmentoftheaudiotaperecorder.Sonyarguesthatthelegislativehistoryofthat Act,seeespeciallyH.R.Rep.No.92487,p.7(1971),indicatesthatCongressdidnot intendtoprohibittheprivatehomeuseofeitheraudioorvideotaperecordingequipment. Inviewofourdispositionofthecontributoryinfringementissue,weexpressnoopinionon thatquestion. [Footnote12] "Copyrightprotectionbecamenecessarywiththeinventionoftheprintingpress,andhad itsearlybeginningsintheBritishcensorshiplaws.Thefortunesofthelawofcopyright havealwaysbeencloselyconnectedwithfreedomofexpression,ontheonehand,and withtechnologicalimprovementsinmeansofdissemination,ontheother.Successive ageshavedrawndifferentbalancesamongtheinterestofthewriterinthecontroland exploitationofhisintellectualproperty,therelatedinterestofthepublisher,andthe competinginterestofsocietyintheuntrammeleddisseminationofideas." 26. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 26/78 ForewordtoB.Kaplan,AnUnhurriedViewofCopyrightviiviii(1967). [Footnote13] See,e.g.,WhiteSmithMusicPublishingCo.v.ApolloCo.,209U.S.at209U.S.19cf. DeepSouthPackingCo.v.LaitramCorp., 406U.S.518,406U.S.530531(1972). Whilethelawhasneverrecognizedanauthor'srighttoabsolutecontrolofhiswork,the naturaltendencyoflegalrightstoexpressthemselvesinabsolutetermstotheexclusion ofallelseisparticularlypronouncedinthehistoryoftheconstitutionallysanctioned monopoliesofthecopyrightandthepatent.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Paramount Pictures,Inc., 334U.S.131,334U.S.156158(1948)(copyrightownersclaimingright totielicenseofonefilmtolicenseofanotherundercopyrightlaw)FoxFilmCorp.v. Doyal, 286U.S.123(1932)(copyrightownerclaimingcopyrightrendersitimmunefrom statetaxationofcopyrightroyalties)BobbsMerrillCo.v.Straus, 210U.S.339,210U. S.349351(1908)(copyrightownerclaimingthatarighttofixresalepriceofhisworks withinthescopeofhiscopyright)InternationalBusinessMachinesCorp.v.United States, 298U.S.131(1936)(patenteesclaimingrighttotiesaleofunpatentedarticleto leaseofpatenteddevice). [Footnote14] Section106oftheActprovides: "Subjecttosections107through118,theownerofcopyrightunderthistitlehasthe exclusiverightstodoandtoauthorizeanyofthefollowing:" "(1)toreproducethecopyrightedworkincopiesorphonorecords" "(2)topreparederivativeworksbaseduponthecopyrightedwork" "(3)todistributecopiesorphonorecordsofthecopyrightedworktothepublicbysaleor othertransferofownership,orbyrental,lease,orlending" "(4)inthecaseofliterary,musical,dramatic,andchoreographicworks,pantomimes,and motionpicturesandotheraudiovisualworks,toperformthecopyrightedworkpublicly and" "(5)inthecaseofliterary,musical,dramatic,andchoreographicworks,pantomimes,and pictorial,graphic,orsculpturalworks,includingtheindividualimagesofamotionpicture orotheraudiovisualwork,todisplaythecopyrightedworkpublicly." [Footnote15] Moreover,anyonewhowillfullyinfringesthecopyrighttoreproduceamotionpicturefor 27. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 27/78 purposesofcommercialadvantageorprivatefinancialgainissubjecttosubstantial criminalpenalties,17U.S.C.506(a)(1982ed.),andthefruitsandinstrumentalitiesof thecrimeareforfeiteduponconviction,506(b). [Footnote16] Inthisregard,werejectrespondents'attempttocastthisactionascomparabletoaclass actionbecauseofthepositionstakenbyamiciwithcopyrightinterestsandtheirattempt totreatthestatementsmadebyamiciasevidenceinthiscase.SeeBrieffor Respondents1,andn.1,6,52,53,andn.116.Thestateddesiresofamiciconcerning theoutcomeofthisoranylitigationarenosubstituteforaclassaction,arenotevidence inthecase,anddonotinfluenceourdecisionweexamineanamicuscuriaebriefsolely forwhateveraiditprovidesinanalyzingthelegalquestionsbeforeus. [Footnote17] AstheDistrictCourtcorrectlyobserved,however,"thelinesbetweendirectinfringement, contributoryinfringementandvicariousliabilityarenotclearlydrawn...."480F.Supp.at 457458.Thelackofclarityinthisareamay,inpart,beattributabletothefactthatan infringerisnotmerelyonewhousesaworkwithoutauthorizationbythecopyrightowner, butalsoonewhoauthorizestheuseofacopyrightedworkwithoutactualauthorityfrom thecopyrightowner. Wenotetheparties'statementsthatthequestionsofSony'sliabilityunderthe"doctrines" of"directinfringement"and"vicariousliability"arenotnominallybeforethisCourt. CompareBriefforRespondents9,n.22,41,n.90,withReplyBriefforPetitioners1,n.2. Wealsoobserve,however,thatreasonedanalysisofrespondents'unprecedented contributoryinfringementclaimnecessarilyentailsconsiderationofargumentsandcase lawwhichmayalsobeforwardedundertheotherlabels,andindeedthepartiestoa largeextentrelyuponsuchargumentsandauthorityinsupportoftheirrespective positionsontheissueofcontributoryinfringement. [Footnote18] Thesocalled"dancehallcases,"FamousMusicCorp.v.BayStateHarnessHorse Racing&BreedingAssn.,Inc.,554F.2d1213(CA11977)(racetrackretainedinfringerto supplymusictopayingcustomers)KECAMusic,Inc.v.DingusMcGee'sCo.,432 F.Supp.72(WDMo.1977)(cocktailloungehiredmusicianstosupplymusictopaying customers)DreamlandBallRoom,Inc.v.Shapiro,Bernstein&Co.,36F.2d354(CA7 1929)(dancehallhiredorchestratosupplymusictopayingcustomers),areoften contrastedwiththesocalledlandlordtenantcases,inwhichlandlordswholeased premisestoadirectinfringerforafixedrentalanddidnotparticipatedirectlyinany infringingactivitywerefoundnottobeliableforcontributoryinfringement.E.g.,Deutsch 28. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 28/78 v.Arnold,98F.2d686(CA21938). InShapiro,Bernstein&Co.v.H.L.GreenCo.,316F.2d304(CA21963),theownerof 23chainstoresretainedthedirectinfringertorunitsrecorddepartments.Therelationship wasstructuredasalicensingarrangement,sothatthedefendantborenoneofthe businessriskofrunningthedepartment.Instead,itreceived10%or12%ofthedirect infringer'sgrossreceipts.TheCourtofAppealsconcluded: "[Thedancehallcases]andthisoneliecloseronthespectrumtotheemployer employeemodel,thantothelandlordtenantmodel....[O]ntheparticularfactsbefore us,...Green'srelationshiptoitsinfringinglicensee,aswellasitsstrongconcernforthe financialsuccessofthephonographrecordconcession,rendersitliableforthe unauthorizedsalesofthe'bootleg'records." "****" "...[T]heimpositionofvicariousliabilityinthecasebeforeuscannotbedeemedunduly harshorunfair.Greenhasthepowertopolicecarefullytheconductofitsconcessionaire ...ourjudgmentwillsimplyencourageittodoso,thusplacingresponsibilitywhereit canandshouldbeeffectivelyexercised." Id.at308(emphasisinoriginal). InGershwinPublishingCorp.v.ColumbiaArtistsManagement,Inc.,443F.2d1159(CA2 1971),thedirectinfringersretainedthecontributoryinfringertomanagetheir performances.Thecontributoryinfringerwouldcontacteachdirectinfringer,obtainthe titlesofthemusicalcompositionstobeperformed,printtheprograms,andthensellthe programstoitsownlocalorganizationsfordistributionatthetimeofthedirect infringement.Id.at1161.TheCourtofAppealsemphasizedthatthecontributoryinfringer hadactualknowledgethattheartistsitwasmanagingwereperformingcopyrighted works,wasinapositiontopolicetheinfringingconductoftheartists,andderived substantialbenefitfromtheactionsoftheprimaryinfringers.Id.at1163. InScreenGemsColumbiaMusic,Inc.v.MarkFiRecords,Inc.,256F.Supp.399(SDNY 1966),thedirectinfringermanufacturedandsoldbootlegrecords.Indenyingamotionfor summaryjudgment,theDistrictCourtheldthattheinfringer'sadvertisingagency,the radiostationsthatadvertisedtheinfringer'sworks,andtheserviceagencythatboxed andmailedtheinfringinggoodscouldallbeheldliableifattrialitcouldbedemonstrated thattheykneworshouldhaveknownthattheyweredealinginillegalgoods. [Footnote19] E.g.,UnitedStatesv.ParamountPictures,Inc.,334U.S.at334U.S.158FoxFilm 29. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 29/78 Corp.v.Doyal,286U.S.at286U.S.131Wheatonv.Peters,8Pet.591,33U.S.657 658(1834).Thetwoareasofthelaw,naturally,arenotidenticaltwins,andweexercise thecautionwhichwehaveexpressedinthepastinapplyingdoctrineformulatedinone areatotheother.SeegenerallyMazerv.Stein, 347U.S.201,347U.S.217218(1954) BobbsMerrillCo.v.Straus,210U.S.at210U.S.345. Wehaveconsistentlyrejectedthepropositionthatasimilarkinshipexistsbetween copyrightlawandtrademarklaw,andintheprocessofdoingsohaverecognizedthe basicsimilaritiesbetweencopyrightsandpatents.TheTradeMarkCases, 100U.S.82, 100U.S.9192(1879)seealsoUnitedDrugCo.v.TheodoreRectanusCo., 248U.S. 90,248U.S.97(1918)(trademarkright"haslittleornoanalogy"tocopyrightorpatent) McLeanv.Fleming, 96U.S.245,96U.S.254(1878)CanalCo.v.Clark,13Wall.311, 80U.S.322(1872).Giventhefundamentaldifferencesbetweencopyrightlawand trademarklaw,inthiscopyrightcase,wedonotlooktothestandardforcontributory infringementsetforthinInwoodLaboratories,Inc.v.IvesLaboratories,Inc., 456U.S. 844,456U.S.854855(1982),whichwascraftedforapplicationintrademarkcases. Thereweobservedthatamanufacturerordistributorcouldbeheldliabletotheownerof atrademarkifitintentionallyinducedamerchantdownthechainofdistributiontopass offitsproductasthatofthetrademarkowner'sorifitcontinuedtosupplyaproductwhich couldreadilybepassedofftoaparticularmerchantwhomitknewwasmislabelingthe productwiththetrademarkowner'smark.IfInwood'snarrowstandardforcontributory trademarkinfringementgovernedhere,respondents'claimofcontributoryinfringement wouldmeritlittlediscussion.Sonycertainlydoesnot"intentionallyinduc[e]"itscustomers tomakeinfringingusesofrespondents'copyrights,nordoesitsupplyitsproductsto identifiedindividualsknownbyittobeengagingincontinuinginfringementof respondents'copyrights,seeid.at456U.S.855. [Footnote20] Title35U.S.C.271provides: "(a)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthistitle,whoeverwithoutauthoritymakes,usesor sellsanypatentedinvention,withintheUnitedStatesduringthetermofthepatent therefor,infringesthepatent." "(b)Whoeveractivelyinducesinfringementofapatentshallbeliableasaninfringer." "(c)Whoeversellsacomponentofapatentedmachine,manufacture,combinationor composition,oramaterialorapparatusforuseinpracticingapatentedprocess, constitutingamaterialpartoftheinvention,knowingthesametobeespeciallymadeor especiallyadaptedforuseinaninfringementofsuchpatent,andnotastaplearticleor commodityofcommercesuitableforsubstantialnoninfringinguse,shallbeliableasa 30. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 30/78 contributoryinfringer." "(d)Nopatentownerotherwiseentitledtoreliefforinfringementorcontributory infringementofapatentshallbedeniedreliefordeemedguiltyofmisuseorillegal extensionofthepatentrightbyreasonofhishavingdoneoneormoreofthefollowing: (1)derivedrevenuefromactswhichifperformedbyanotherwithouthisconsentwould constitutecontributoryinfringementofthepatent(2)licensedorauthorizedanotherto performactswhichifperformedwithouthisconsentwouldconstitutecontributory infringementofthepatent(3)soughttoenforcehispatentrightsagainstinfringementor contributoryinfringement." [Footnote21] ItseemsextraordinarytosuggestthattheCopyrightActconfersuponallcopyright ownerscollectively,muchlessthetworespondentsinthiscase,theexclusiverightto distributeVTR'ssimplybecausetheymaybeusedtoinfringecopyrights.That,however, isthelogicalimplicationoftheirclaim.Therequestforaninjunctionbelowindicatesthat respondentsseek,ineffect,todeclareVTR'scontraband.TheirsuggestioninthisCourt thatacontinuingroyaltypursuanttoajudiciallycreatedcompulsorylicensewouldbean acceptableremedymerelyindicatesthatrespondents,fortheirpart,wouldbewillingto licensetheirclaimedmonopolyinterestinVTR'stoSonyinreturnforaroyalty. [Footnote22] TherecordsuggeststhatDisney'sprogramsatthetimeoftrialconsistedof approximatelyonehouraweekofnetworktelevisionandonesyndicatedseries. Universal'spercentageintheLosAngelesmarketoncommercialtelevisionstationswas under5%.SeeTr.532533,549550. [Footnote23] TheDistrictCourtdidnotmakeanyexplicitfindingswithregardtohowmuch broadcastingiswhollyuncopyrighted.Therecorddoesincludetestimonythatatleast onemovieMyManGodfreyfallswithinthatcategory,id.at23002301,andcertain broadcastsproducedbytheFederalGovernmentarealsouncopyrighted.See17U.S.C. 105(1982ed.).Cf.Schnapperv.Foley,215U.S.App.D.C.59,667F.2d102(1981) (explainingdistinctionbetweenworkproducedbytheGovernmentandwork commissionedbytheGovernment).Totheextentsuchbroadcastingisnowsignificant,it furtherbolstersourconclusion.Moreover,sincecopyrightprotectionisnotperpetual,the numberofaudiovisualworksinthepublicdomainnecessarilyincreaseseachyear. [Footnote24] 31. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 31/78 SeeTr.24472450(AlexanderHadden,MajorLeagueBaseball)id.at2480,24862487 (JayMoyer,NationalFootballLeague)id.at25152516(DavidStern,National BasketballAssociation)id.at25302534(GilbertStein,NationalHockeyLeague)id.at 25432552(ThomasHansen,NationalCollegiateAthleticAssociation)id.at25652572 (BenjaminArmstrong,NationalReligiousBroadcasters).Thoseofficialswereauthorized tobetheofficialspokespersonsfortheirrespectiveinstitutionsinthislitigation.Id.at 2432,2479,25092510,2530,2538,2563.SeeFed.RuleCiv.Proc.30(b)(6). [Footnote25] Tr.28632902Defendants'Exh.PI. [Footnote26] SeealsoTr.28332844(similartestimonybyexecutivedirectorofNewJerseyPublic BroadcastingAuthority).Cf.id.at25922605(testimonybychiefofNewYorkEducation Department'sBureauofMassCommunicationsapprovinghometapingforeducational purposes). [Footnote27] "Somepublicstations,aswellascommercialstations,programthe'Neighborhood'at hourswhensomechildrencannotuseit.Ithinkthatit'sarealservicetofamiliestobe abletorecordsuchprogramsandshowthematappropriatetimes.Ihavealwaysfelt that,withtheadventofallofthisnewtechnologythatallowspeopletotapethe 'Neighborhood'offtheair,andI'mspeakingforthe'Neighborhood'becausethat'swhatI produce,thattheythenbecomemuchmoreactiveintheprogrammingoftheirfamily's televisionlife.Veryfrankly,Iamopposedtopeoplebeingprogrammedbyothers.My wholeapproachinbroadcastinghasalwaysbeen'Youareanimportantpersonjustthe wayyouare.Youcanmakehealthydecisions.'MaybeI'mgoingontoolong,butIjust feelthatanythingthatallowsapersontobemoreactiveinthecontrolofhisorherlife,in ahealthyway,isimportant." Id.at29202921.SeealsoDefendants'Exh.PI,p.85. [Footnote28] Itmayberareforlargenumbersofcopyrightownerstoauthorizeduplicationoftheir workswithoutdemandingafeefromthecopier.Inthecontextofpublicbroadcasting, however,theuserofthecopyrightedworkisnotrequiredtopayafeeforaccesstothe underlyingwork.Thetraditionalmethodbywhichcopyrightownerscapitalizeuponthe televisionmediumcommerciallysponsoredfreepublicbroadcastoverthepublic airwavesispredicatedupontheassumptionthatcompensationforthevalueof 32. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 32/78 displayingtheworkswillbereceivedintheformofadvertisingrevenues. Inthecontextoftelevisionprogramming,someproducersevidentlybelievethat permittinghomeviewerstomakecopiesoftheirworksofftheairactuallyenhancesthe valueoftheircopyrights.Irrespectiveoftheirreasonsforauthorizingthepractice,theydo so,andinsignificantenoughnumberstocreateasubstantialmarketforanoninfringing useoftheSonyVTR's.Noonecoulddisputethelegitimacyofthatmarketifthe producershadauthorizedhometapingoftheirprogramsinexchangeforalicensefee paiddirectlybythehomeuser.Thelegitimacyofthatmarketisnotcompromisedsimply becausetheseproducershaveauthorizedhometapingoftheirprogramswithout demandingafeefromthehomeuser.Thecopyrightlawdoesnotrequireacopyright ownertochargeafeefortheuseofhisworks,and,asthisrecordclearlydemonstrates, theownerofacopyrightmaywellhaveeconomicornoneconomicreasonsforpermitting certainkindsofcopyingtooccurwithoutreceivingdirectcompensationfromthecopier.It isnottheroleofthecourtstotellcopyrightholdersthebestwayforthemtoexploittheir copyrights:evenifrespondents'competitorswereilladvisedinauthorizinghome videotaping,thatwouldnotchangethefactthattheyhavecreatedasubstantialmarket foraparadigmaticnoninfringinguseofSony'sproduct. [Footnote29] TheCopyrightActof1909,35Stat.1075,didnothavea"fairuse"provision.Although thatAct'scompendiumofexclusiverights"toprint,reprint,publish,copy,andvendthe copyrightedwork"wasbroadenoughtoencompassvirtuallyallpotentialinteractionswith acopyrightedwork,thestatutewasneversoconstrued.Thecourtssimplyrefusedto readthestatuteliterallyineverysituation.WhenCongressamendedthestatutein1976, itindicatedthatit"intendedtorestatethepresentjudicialdoctrineoffairuse,notto change,narrow,orenlargeitinanyway."H.R.Rep.No.941476,p.66(1976). [Footnote30] Section107provides: "Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofsection106,thefairuseofacopyrightedwork, includingsuchusebyreproductionincopiesorphonorecordsorbyanyothermeans specifiedbythatsection,forpurposessuchascriticism,comment,newsreporting, teaching(includingmultiplecopiesforclassroomuse),scholarship,orresearch,isnotan infringementofcopyright.Indeterminingwhethertheusemadeofaworkinany particularcaseisafairusethefactorstobeconsideredshallinclude" "(1)thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,includingwhethersuchuseisofacommercial natureorisfornonprofiteducationalpurposes" 33. 4/3/2015 SonyCorp.v.UniversalCityStudios::464U.S.417(1984)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html 33/78 "(2)thenatureofthecopyrightedwork" "(3)theamountandsubstantialityoftheportionusedinrelationtothecopyrightedwork asawholeand" "(4)theeffectoftheuseuponthepotentialmarketfororvalueofthecopyrightedwork." 17U.S.C.107(1982ed.). [Footnote31] TheHouseReportexpresslystatedthatthefairusedoctrineisan"equitableruleof reason"initsexplanationofthefairusesection: "Althoughthecourtshaveconsideredandruleduponthefairusedoctrineoverandover again,norealdefinitionoftheconcepthaseveremerged.Indeed,sincethedoctrineis anequitableruleofreason,nogenerallyapplicabledefinitionispossible,andeachcase raisingthequestionmustbedecidedonitsownfacts...." "****" "Generalintentionbehindtheprovision" "Thestatementofthefairusedoctrineinsection107offerssomeguidancetousersin determiningwhentheprinciplesofthedoctrineapply.However,theendlessvarietyof situationsandcombinationsofcircumstancesthatcanriseinparticularcasesprecludes theformulationofexactrulesinthestatute.Thebillendorsesthepurposeandgeneral scopeofthejudicialdoctrineoffairuse,butthereisnodispositiontofreezethedoctrine inthestatute,especiallyduringaperiodofrapidtechnologicalchange.Beyondavery broadstatutoryexplanationofwhatfairuseisandsomeofthecriteriaapplicabletoit,the courtsmustbefreetoadaptthedoctrinetoparticularsituationsonacasebycase basis." H.R.Rep.No.941476,supra,at6566. TheSenateCommitteesimilarlyeschewedarigid,brightlineapproachtofairuse.The SenateReportendorsedtheview"thatofftheairrecordingforconvenience"couldbe considered"fairuse"undersomecircumstances,althoughitthenmadeitclearthatitdid notintendtosuggestthatofftheairrecordingforconvenienceshouldbedeemedfair useunderanycircumstancesimaginable.S.Rep.No.94473,pp.6566(1975).The latterqualifyingstatementisquotedbythedissent,postat464U.S.481,andifreadin isolation,wouldindicatethattheCommitteeintendedtocondemnallofftheairrecording forconvenience.Readincontext,however,itisquiteclearthatthatwasthefarthestthing fromtheCommittee'sintention.