This Case Commentary is written by Shittu Shijuade Sultan, a Third-Year Law Student of Lagos State University

CASE DETAILS :

Court - Supreme Court of the United States

Equivalent citation - 464 U.S. 417

Bench - Warren E. Burger

Decided on - January 17, 1984.

Case type - civil litigation

PARTIES:

Petitioners - Sony Corp of America

Respondent - Universal Studios Inc

INTRODUCTION

The case was argued on January 18 1983 and decided on January 17, 1935. Also known as the "BETAMAX CASE", this is a landmark case on copyright and copyright infringement. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of Lagos state, which ruled the act of making copies of a television show for storage personal use or time-shifting does not constitute a copyright infringement under the law, but is defended as fair use. The case was a landmark for the home video market as the court ruled that manufacturers of home video devices, such as BETAMAX and VCRs cannot be liable for contributory copyright infringement. The case precedent created a safe harbor for home video technologies.

THE FACT

The Sony company created the Betamax video tape recording format, a means of recording television shows which made Universal Studios and Walt Disney productions wary of its effect on their companies.

The U.S. Congress where in the final stages of reforming the copyright laws in the country but this could make them hesitant to find a fast remedy to the company's problem so they opted to sue Sony and its distributors in the US DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA in 1976. The companies claimed that since Sony created and distributed a device that could be used for copyright infringement, they should therefore be liable for any misuse or copyright infringement made by the users of the device. The companies also included an unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act, but this was dismissed early on.

About 2 years later the district court ruled in favor of Sony on the basis that the device was for non-commercial home recording which is considered fair use and access to free public information is a public interest served by this use.

However, this ruling was later reversed in part by the Ninth Circuit Court, which held Sony liable for contributory copyright infringement. The court also held that the main purpose of BETAMAX was copying and suggested that Sony pay damages, Injunction relief compulsory license, and other methods of relief. The court of appeal also held Sony's response upon their appeal. This made Sony appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

THE MAJOR ISSUE IN THE CASE

The major issue was whether Sony could be held liable for contributory copyright infringement. A focus of the Supreme Court in this case was whether Betamax is capable of commercially non-infringing use, which the company claims it is intended for.

A potential non-infringing use is "time shifting" in the home. The act of time-shifting is recording a televised show in its entirety to enable the viewer who was allowed to enjoy it to do so again, free of charge, and as a non-profit means constitutes fair use.

THE HOLDING

In a 5-4 to reverse the ninth circuit ruling in favor of Sony. Combining the non-commercial and non-profit nature of time shifting the Supreme Court held it consisted of fair use. Also considering the testimony of MR ROGERS a children's television personality who supported the manufacturing of VCRs, the high court stated that Rogers's view was an important piece of evidence that television producers would not be against private time shifting their shows

The Supreme Court held that manufacturers of home video recording machines were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for the potential use by its purchasers, because the devices were sold for legitimate purposes and had substantial non-infringing use. Personal use of the machine to record broadcast television programs for later viewing constitutes Fair use. And for this, the Ninth Circuit Court decision was reversed.

REASONING BEHIND THE DECISION

The fact that there is a significant and apparent likelihood that most copyright holders or television producers who broadcast their work for free would not object to private viewers time shifting for later use and the inability of universal studios to prove that time-shifting would cause substantial harm to their potential market or affect the copyright of the credibility or value to the owners. Justice Steven expressed that the sale of copying equipment doesn't constitute contributory infringement since the product is usually used or is intended for a legitimate and unobjectionable purpose or is capable of a substantial non-infringing use.

DISSENTING OPINION

Justice Blackmun dissented with regards to the issue of unauthorized time shifting, stating section 106 of the 1976 copyright act, which grants the owner of a copyright a variety of exclusive rights in a copyrighted work, including the right to reproduce copyrighted works and make copies or phonorecords.

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT

After the decision of the Supreme Court, the entertainment companies tried lobbying Congress to pass legislation that could protect their interests and copyright from home coping but due to the large popularity of VCRs in the following years, Congress could not prepare to legislate against its use, especially as it had gained more use and popularity since it first was introduced. The entertainment industry also tried to lobby Congress to impose minor statutory loyalty on the sale of blank videotapes but the Congress still didn't institute such legislation, noting the increase in profit for film studios due to home movie rentals and the sale market.

POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DECISION

It may argue that this rule may be exploited and used to promote privacy but it still doesn't give anybody freedom from the consequences of piracy.

It may also the argued that the topic of "substantial non-infringing use" is irrelevant to the capable effects of video recording devices on copyright Infringement, especially in modern society.

CONCLUSION

The case of Sony Corporation v Universal Studios Inc was a landmark case for copyright and it established that there is no liability of VCR distributors for contributory copyright infringement as the recorders have a substantial non-infringing use. The use of this product by an individual does not put liability on the makers or distributors.

While the boundaries of copyright and Intellectual property continue to expand this case is an important aspect of its development in ensuring fairness to all parties.

REFERENCES

· Sony corp v universal studios inc l., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

· 17 U.S.C. § 101 seq (copyright act 1976)

· Supreme justia.com

· Jeffrey P. Cunard (1996), " past as precedent: some thoughts on a novel approach to the nexus of digital technologies and the art"

· Pamela Samuelson (2006), the generativity of Sony v universal: the intellectual property legacy of justice Steven.

· Universal Studios v Sony Corporation of America (19th cir. 1982)