Supreme Court Case: Sony Corp Of America Vs. Universal City Studios

Sony Corp of America vs. Universal City Studios

In a 1984 Supreme Court hearing, defendant, Sony Corporation of America was being sued by Universal City Studios, Inc. The case was known as the "Betamax" case and ruled that the creation of copied television shows for purposes of time-shifting is in fact fair use. This included the manufacturers of home video recording equipment such as Betamax and other video tape recorders to not be held liable for any infringement. The courts came to this conclusion to form a general test to assist in determining whether or not a device with recording capabilities is infringing the law of copyright. This test has caused some disputes with other courts throughout the nation in utilizing the case to challenge
more recent infringement activities with sharing files on the internet.
To form some background for the case, Sony created a video tape format called Betamax in the 1970's.
Universal and Disney were not too sure of this innovation and its outcomes, but were aware of revisions to the copyright law being in their final stages with Congress. With that being said they knew Congress would be hesitant to undertake any new protections for the film industry. Instead both companies decided to sue Sony in the U.S. District Court of the Ninth Circuit in 1976 for making a device that can record and be used for copyright infringement as well as anyone who purchased such a device. Included in the complaint was an attempt to include a competition claim which fell under the Lanham Act of 1946 and was later dismissed.
The District Court ruled for Sony two years later in 1978. Non-commercial home only use recordings were considered fair use and impacts the First Amendment served by its use. A home user basically didn’t publically mass produce copies and attempt to make a profit, so they weren’t a threat at the time. The ruling was quickly reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals and held Sony accountable for contributory
infringement.
A majority of justices from the Supreme Court were supportive of the Ninth Circuit Court based on papers by Justice Thurgood Marshall which were released about 10 years later.
Two different Justices were selected to write the two sided opinion. Justice Blackmun was tasked with the majority and Justice John Paul Stevens, a dissention. Stevens wrote his dissent that read like a majority opinion knowing that several of the members of the Court might be swayed to reconsider their votes. With the substitution of several words it could be easily changed as such. Both Justice Stevens and Justice Brennan were leaning toward the plaintiff in the argument; however, they had different reasons. Stevens was increasingly concerned for the individual doing his thing at home for his own use. On the other hand, Brennan was supportive based on the presence of non-infringing uses of the equipment. Another factor that came into play was the fact that Justice White felt that home use wasn’t copyright infringement. White did point out that the case wasn’t concerning home users, just those companies that produce the technology.
The majority opinion came down to the Court stating that the equipment used to record television shows and movies does not infringe on any copyright laws. One of the conditions is to make sure the equipment being used is legitimate. One way to look at it is to consider the fact that you’re invited to watch the program for free, but can’t view it during its scheduled
time. You have a Betamax recording device and record the show for later viewing. In this situation the entire work is replicated and does not have its usual effect of weighing against a finding of fair use.
Justices Marshall, Powell, and Rehnquist join Justice Harry Blackmun in his dissention with regard to the issue of unauthorized time-shifting. The 1976 Act and its bylaws specific a single copy may be made without infringement of any copyright laws. There are some situations where the work can be used for comment, news reporting, or research. An injunction that would ban the sale of any video tape recording systems would in some way negatively impact those copyright holders who have no protest to their programs being taped.
Universal, immediately after their loss in the Supreme Court, lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would protect them from the effects of home copying. Eight years had passed and the use of home recording devices had become so widely used Congress was not ready to take on any action to the harm of the substantial amount of VCR owners. The film industry suggested that Congress impose a royalty to every blank tape sold, but Congress wouldn’t follow suit noting the increase in profits for film studios in the home video rental and sales market.
The bottom line is that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act modified the law based on the Sony decision in multiple ways. New versions are still being handed down and many of the same points are still being argued in a plethora of other cases. One of those cases is as recent as A&M Records v. Napster, Inc or MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.