## Facts

- Copyright owners of television programs broadcast over the public airwaves alleged that consumers used Sony Betamax video tape recorders (VTRs) to copy programs off television.
- The copyright owners claimed those consumer recordings infringed copyrights and that Sony and related entities were contributorily liable for marketing and selling the VTRs.
- The district court entered judgment for Sony, finding noncommercial home recording for later viewing (“time-shifting”) to be fair use and rejecting contributory infringement liability.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, held Sony liable for contributory infringement, and remanded for relief.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed whether consumers’ time-shifting infringed and whether Sony could be secondarily liable for selling the VTRs.

## Issues

1. Whether consumers’ noncommercial home recording of broadcast television for time-shifting constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act.
2. Whether the sale of a home VTR to the general public can constitute contributory copyright infringement when some purchasers use it to infringe.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated judgment for Sony (5–4, Justice Stevens).
- The Court held that noncommercial home time-shifting of broadcast television is fair use and therefore not direct infringement.
- The Court held Sony was not a contributory infringer because distribution of copying equipment does not create liability where the product is capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
- The Court rejected a rule that supplying the “means” to copy plus advertising is sufficient, without more, to establish contributory infringement.

## Legal Principles

- Fair use is a statutory limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights; uses qualifying as fair use are not within the owner’s exclusivity.
- Noncommercial, private time-shifting of free broadcast programming generally favors fair use, even if the entire program is copied, where the purpose is later viewing rather than redistribution.
- Market harm is central in fair use; absent proof of non-minimal harm to the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, fair use is more likely.
- The sale of copying equipment does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or is capable of substantial noninfringing uses (including commercially significant noninfringing uses).

## Conclusion

The Court held that private, noncommercial time-shifting of broadcast television is fair use and that a manufacturer is not contributorily liable for selling a device capable of substantial noninfringing uses, even if the device can also be used to infringe.


Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)