Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984) was a landmark case where the Supreme Court ruled that videotaping TV programs for personal use did not constitute copyright infringement, nor can the manufacturers of video recording devices be sued for contributory infringement. The home VCR was originally developed by Ampex in the late 1960s but they opted not to put the device into production, believing there was no market for it. Japanese manufacturers took the technology and developed the first mass market VCRs starting in the late '70s, beginning with Sony's Betamax format. Universal and Disney distrusted them and feared they could be used for unauthorized duplication of their movies and TV programs. However, as Congress was then busy drafting the Copyright Act of 1976, the two media giants doubted if legislators would grant them any special protections.Universal and Disney promptly filed suit against Sony in US District Court in Los Angeles on the grounds that the VCR could be used for piracy, therefore Sony were liable for any losses they incurred. After three years, the court ruled in Sony's favor, arguing that home videotaping was fair use. The 9th Circuit Court overruled them and argued that Sony was liable and that the main use of a VCR was piracy. Sony appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Sony. Justice Stevens wrote the plurality opinion. He argued that videotaping a TV program for later viewing was fair and non-profit use and did not imply that one was distributing unauthorized copies of the show. Testifying on behalf of Sony was children's TV program host Fred Rogers of the PBS show Mr. Rogers, who said that he personally had no objection to his show being taped for later viewing. Other witnesses from the various professional sports leagues, the executive director of National Religious Broadcasters, and various educational communications agencies agreed with Rogers.Justice Blackmun wrote the dissent for the case. He argued that the text of the 1976 Copyright Act forbade so much as a single unauthorized copy from being made, that the act defined the rights that intellectual property owners had in regards to how their material could be used, and that this had been the case in US copyright law going back to the first Copyright Act of 1791. Blackmun was critical of the fair use doctrine, arguing that it was poorly defined and the Court was unable to reach a decision in the earlier Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States (1973), Benny v. Loew's Inc. (1956), and aff'd sub nom Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew's Inc. (1958) cases, and that the 1976 act also gave no clear definition of "fair use."
Almost as soon as the decision was handed down, Universal and Disney demanded Congress amend copyright laws to protect them from the effects of home copying. However, eight years had passed since the suit was initially filed in 1976 and by this time VCRs were an increasingly widespread mass market device, so Congress felt it was no longer possible to take any action against them. Failing that, the media companies asked if they might get an equivalent of the tape tax the record industry had demanded, where they would collect a fee from sales of blank videotapes but this also failed as Congress noted the boom in home movie rentals and sales. In short time the home video market was hugely profitable to studios. Sony themselves entered the movie business when they purchased Columbia Pictures a few years later.Later jurisprudence such as A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. dealt with the new medium of the Internet and its impact on intellectual property and piracy.
>>18547234>>18547235>>18547239Holy god, Disney's greed has always been off the charts hasn't it?
>>18547239>Sony themselves entered the movie business when they purchased Columbia Pictures a few years lateryou either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain
>>18547235>>18547234btw if you want to win a lawsuit against Disney et al, do not ever file it in California because they own all the courts there and they will always rule against you. file it in some place like West Virginia where media companies have no assets and the local hee-haw judge is more likely to take your side.
>>18547235nuts to you, Blackmun
>>18547324Ditto for 2nd Amendment cases, don't file them in San Francisco (are you stupid?), file them in a redneck flyover state with sympathetic courts.
>>18547239>Failing that, the media companies asked if they might get an equivalent of the tape tax the record industry had demanded, where they would collect a fee from sales of blank videotapes I knew theses creatures were greedy, but this is insane.
Disney always had a paranoid, hyper-controlling attitude towards their IPs, we knew that.
>>18547324on top of that you force their high-priced lawyers to travel to West Virginia and stay in the local Motel Six with methbillies outside instead of a 5 star hotel in Los Angeles
>>18547235based Mr. Rogers
>>18547234>The 9th Circuit Court overruled them and argued that Sony was liable and that the main use of a VCR was piracy
>>18547235>Fred Rogers of the PBS show Mr. Rogers,The name of the show is Mr Rogers' Neighborbood.
>>18548779Like he said, the courts on the West Coast are very in the pocket of Big Entertainment and will usually side with them in a legal case.
>>18548779i find it quite peculiar because the first VCRs in the 70s weren't even retail devices, they were very expensive and mostly sold to hotel chains. the consumer VCR you could have at home appeared in the early 80s.
