The United States Supreme Court has seen many copyright cases in history since the very first one in 1836 known as the Wheaton v. Peters. However, the recent decision in the case of Sony v. Universal seems to be the most important of all the cases involving copyright issues. In essence, the case held that it is a fair practice to record a program at home and watch it later, or what can be referred to as “time-shifting.” The case was the first ever in history where the courts demonstrated that a machine manufacturer should be held legally responsible for the way the public utilized it under the copyright law. The case, therefore, raised two main fundamental questions whose answers would define the future of America as far as the Copyright Act is concerned. First, is the noncommercial recording of broadcast material over the public airwaves regarded as fair use? Secondly, even if it was an unfair use, should a company be deemed liable for contributory infringement for their role in creating a machine that could record such as the video tape recorder (VTR)?
First, this was a complicated case whose decision required not only the application of the law but also the critical assessment of a real-life scenario. How practical would it have been possible to sue a company that had no reasonable knowledge of how the consumers were using its machine? Sony as a company produced its VTR strictly for entertainment purposes and it does not prescribe to the users how they are required to utilize the product. However, Universal wants the courts to take actions against the company for its alleged contributory infringement when the consumers engage in recording copyrighted material. The Supreme Court made the right decision at that moment because essentially, Universal questioned the manufacture of the machines more than the actions of Sony in selling the VTR to the people. However, this is not to cast a blind eye on Universal which had legitimate concerns regarding their material that was getting recorded by consumers utilizing Sony's machines. Also of importance to note, there were assertions by the plaintiff that the consumers were recording the content and displaying them to the people in public areas such as hotels.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Although the Supreme Court made the most plausible decision, the 5-4 judgment signaled that many questions were left unanswered even if it was apparently clear that the plaintiff did not mount serious evidence. The case maybe could have been tilted had Universal proved that indeed the VTR was used for non-infringement purposes. One of the significant factors that contributed to the victory of Sony, in this case, was because it was able to negate the accusations over contributory infringement of copyrights since the machine was primarily used for many legitimate uses. Also, it remains vital to assess the function of the machine that was presented as the main point of concern in the court. It is undeniably true that part of the work of the VTR machine was to record content including that which is regarded as copyrighted. However, this was not enough to prove its illegality because "private, noncommercial time-shifting" was not considered an infringement of the Copyright laws. Also, it would be unrealistic to ban the use of a machine based on only one of its many characteristics. As such, many people would be inconvenienced by such a move.
Ethically speaking, the decision was not correct considering many factors. Television companies invest heavily in their products and as such, bank on the copyrights laws as a form of protection. Take for instance a situation where millions of people use their VTR machine to record TV and display it in public areas for commercial purposes. As such, this would be bad for many TV businesses such as Universal which has put their millions in such entities. It, therefore, sets a bad precedence for the manufacturers of electronic machines that are capable of recording or publishing content because they would not be held liable for any illegal or unethical actions of their consumers. The majority decision was based on the fact that the machine was "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." Such a clause can leverage manufacturers in the future to produce machines that can potentially break the copyright rules, but since they have other legitimate uses, they consumers are not held responsible for any violations on the copyright laws. It, therefore, means that the decision is a significant blow to the media and content creators due to the changed definition of fair use.
The decision, however, brings much joy to the American people who have an opportunity to record TV content for later use using their VTR machines. It gives them an increased level of flexibility and further ensures that they receive protection on any non-commercial and private recording of intellectual property. Companies such as Sony that continue to produce recording materials are also at a major advantage because they will not be legally accountable for any infringement actions by their consumers. Hypothetically, had the decision by the Courts of Appeal decision stood, it would have meant that companies such as Sony would have been punished for mistakes that were not of their own making but rather a manufacturing tenet that turns out to go against the law. It would also have restored ethics in dealing with the intellectual property as recording would have been illegalized.
