SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITYSTUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J.,filed a dissenting opinion in which MARSHALL, POWELL, andREHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 457.JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.[1] Petitioners manufacture and sell home video tape recorders. Respondents own the copyrightson some of the television [p*420] programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Somemembers of the general public use video tape recorders sold by petitioners to record some of thesebroadcasts, as well as a large number of other broadcasts. The question presented is whether thesale of petitioners‘ copying equipment to the general public violates any of the rights conferredupon respondents by the Copyright Act.[2] Respondents commenced this copyright infringement action against petitioners in the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California in 1976. Respondents alleged that someindividuals had used Betamax video tape recorders (VTR’s) to record some of respondents‘copyrighted works which had been exhibited on commercially sponsored televisionand contendedthat these individuals had thereby infringed respondents’ copyrights. Respondents furthermaintained that petitioners were liable for the copyright infringement allegedly committed byBetamax consumers because of petitioners‘ marketing of the Betamax VTR’s. [n1] Respondentssought no relief against any Betamax consumer. Instead, they sought money damages and anequitable accounting of profits from petitioners, as well as an injunction against the manufactureand marketing of Betamax VTR‘s.[3] After a lengthy trial, the District Court denied respondents all the relief they sought andentered judgment for petitioners. 480 F.Supp. 429 (1979). The United States Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment on respondents‘ copyright claim, holdingpetitionersliable for contributory infringement and ordering the District Court to fashionappropriate relief. 659 F.2d 963 (1981). [p*421] We granted certiorari, 457 U.S. 1116 (1982);since we had not completed our study of the case last Term, we ordered reargument, 463 U.S.1226 (1983). We now reverse.[4] An explanation of our rejection of respondents’ unprecedented attempt to impose copyrightliability upon the distributors of copying equipment requires a quite detailed recitation of thefindings of the District Court. In summary, those findings reveal that the average member of thepublic uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and thento watch it once at a later time. This practice, known as "time-shifting," enlarges the televisionviewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used inthis manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the samereason, even the two respondents in this case, who do assert objections to time-shifting in thislitigation, were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercialvalue of theircopyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm. Given these findings, there is no basis inthe Copyright Act upon which respondents can hold petitioners liable for distributing VTR‘s tothe general public. The Court of Appeals’ holding that respondents are entitled to enjoin thedistribution of VTR‘s, to collect royalties on the sale of such equipment, or to obtain other relief,Page1of43SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)10/2/2007http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htmif affirmed, would enlarge the scope of respondents’ statutory monopolies to encompass controlover an article of commerce that is not the subject of copyright protection. Such an expansion ofthe copyright privilege is beyond the limits of the grants authorized by Congress.I[5] The two respondents in this action, Universal City Studios, Inc., and Walt Disney Productions,produce and hold the copyrights on a substantial number of motion pictures and other audiovisualworks. In the current marketplace, they can exploit their rights in these works in a number ofways: [p*422] by authorizing theatrical exhibitions, by licensing limited showings on cable andnetwork television, by selling syndication rights for repeated airings on local television stations,and by marketing programson prerecorded videotapes or videodiscs. Some works are suitable forexploitation through all of these avenues, while the market for other works is more limited.[6] The two respondents in this action, Universal City Studios, Inc., and Walt Disney Productions,produce and hold the copyrights on a substantial number of motion pictures and other audiovisualworks. In the current marketplace, they can exploit their rights in these works in a number ofways: [p*422] by authorizing theatrical exhibitions, by licensing limited showings on cable andnetwork television, by selling syndication rights for repeated airings on local television stations,and by marketing programson prerecorded videotapes or videodiscs. Some works are suitable forexploitation through all of these avenues, while the market for other works is more limited.[7] Petitioner Sony manufactures millions of Betamax video tape recorders and markets thesedevices through numerous retail establishments, some of which are also petitioners in this action.[n2] Sony’s Betamax VTR is a mechanism consisting of three basic components: (1) a tuner,which receives electromagnetic signals transmitted over the television band of the public airwavesand separates them into audio and visual signals; (2) a recorder, which records such signals on amagnetic tape; and (3) an adapter, which converts the audio and visual signals on the tape into acomposite signal that can be received by a television set.[8] Several capabilities of the machine are noteworthy. The separate tuner in the Betamax enablesit to record a broadcast off one station while the television set is tuned to another channel,permitting the viewer, for example, to watch two simultaneous news broadcasts by watching one"live" and recording the other for later viewing. Tapes may be reused, and programs that havebeen recorded may be erased either before or after viewing. A timer in the Betamax can be used toactivate and deactivate the equipment at
View Full Document
Unlocking...