Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
From Internet Law Treatise
464 U.S. 417 (1984)
The Supreme Court addressed a claim that secondary liability for infringement can arise from the very distribution of a commercial product, in this case the Batamax VCR. The movie industry sued Sony as the manufacturer, claiming it was contributorily liable for infringement that occurred when VCR owners taped copyrighted programs because it supplied the means used to infringe, and it had constructive knowledge that infringement would occur.
The Supreme Court found that contributory infringement liability could not reach the manufacturer of a device that is "capable of substantial noninfringing use." In that case, the Court found that the VCR was capable of several noninfringing uses, including the time-shifting of television broadcasts by home viewers.
There was no evidence of stated or indicated intent to promote infringing uses, so the basis for imposing liability was on a theory of contributory infringement arising from its sale of VCRs to consumers with knowledge that some would use them to infringe. Id., at 439. Sony knew that its Betamax machines “would be used to record copyrighted programs” (id. at 426), and survey evidence showed that, almost certainly, most users were, at one time or another, using the machines to make copies other than simply to “time shift” (watch a program once, later than when it aired)—though such time shifting was “the primary use . . . for most owners.” Id. at 423.
But because the VCR was “capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses,” the Supreme Court held the manufacturer could not be faulted solely on the basis of its distribution. Id., at 442. Rather than focusing on the proportion of the uses are noninfringing, the Supreme Court adopted a standard that asks whether the technology is "merely capable" of substantial noninfringing uses. Thus, Sony’s rule limits imputing culpable intent as a matter of law from the characteristics or uses of a distributed product.
The studios brought up a number of possible modifications to the VCR, and the dissent noted that “Sony may be able. . . to build a {videorecorder] that enables broadcasters to scramble the signal of individual programs and ‘jam’ the unauthorized recording of them.” 464 U.S. at 494. Nevertheless, the majority opinion refused to require Sony to redesign the betamax.
Chapter 3 - Copyright
General
· Rights Acquisition
· Infringement Issues
· Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
· Non-Preemptable Common Law Claims
