464 U.S. 417, 435 & n.17 (1984)
In 1976, Universal City Studios, Inc., and Walt Disney Productions, owners of copyrights in motion pictures and other audiovisual works, commenced a copyright infringement action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Sony Corporation of America and related entities that manufacture and sell Betamax video tape recorders.1
The Betamax consists of a tuner that receives signals from the public airwaves, a recorder that places those signals on magnetic tape, and an adapter that converts the signals for playback on a television set.2 It includes a timer for unattended recording, a pause button to omit commercials, and a fast-forward control.3 Surveys of several hundred Betamax owners conducted by both parties in 1978 showed that the primary use for most owners was time-shifting, recording a program for single later viewing and then erasing it.4 Sony's survey indicated that over 80 percent of interviewees watched at least as much regular television as before owning a Betamax.5
Seven point three percent of use was to record sports events whose professional leagues had no objection to home recording, and representatives of religious and educational broadcasters also testified they had no objection.6 After a lengthy trial, the District Court in 1979 denied all relief to the respondents, finding that time-shifting was fair use, that Sony had no direct involvement with any infringing activity, and that the Betamax was a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing uses.7 The court noted Sony's instruction booklet warned that unauthorized recording of copyrighted material may violate copyright laws.8
The Ninth Circuit in 1981 reversed the District Court's judgment on the copyright claim, holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement without setting aside any findings of fact, and remanded for consideration of damages or a continuing royalty.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1982, ordered reargument in 1983, and issued its decision in January 1984.10
Whether the sale of home video tape recorders to the general public violates any of the rights conferred upon copyright owners by the Copyright Act?11
The Copyright Act does not impose liability for contributory infringement upon the distributors of copying equipment that is capable of substantial noninfringing uses.12
No. The District Court found after trial that the primary use of the Betamax was time-shifting for later private viewing.13 Surveys conducted by both parties in 1978 established that over 80 percent of owners watched at least as much regular television as before owning a Betamax. Seven point three percent of use involved sports events whose leagues consented to home recording.14 The Supreme Court held that these authorized and fair uses demonstrated substantial noninfringing uses, so Sony's sale of the equipment could not be enjoined or subjected to royalties.15
The Ninth Circuit's reversal was therefore erroneous because it failed to credit the District Court's undisturbed factual findings on the volume of consented and fair uses.16
The sale of Betamax video tape recorders to the general public does not violate the rights of copyright owners under the Copyright Act.17
Whether home time-shifting of copyrighted television programs constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act?18
Fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 is determined by weighing the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.19
Yes. Time-shifting is a noncommercial, nonprofit activity that merely enables a viewer to watch a program at a later time after being invited to view it free of charge on broadcast television.20 Although the entire work is reproduced, the District Court found no likelihood of harm to the potential market and noted that measurement technology already captured Betamax viewing in ratings.21 The first, second, and fourth statutory factors therefore favored fair use, and the Court of Appeals erred in requiring a productive use or proof of actual harm.22
Home time-shifting of copyrighted television programs constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Marshall, Powell, And Rehnquist
Justice Blackmun dissented on this issue. He maintained that time-shifting is an ordinary rather than productive use that simply reproduces the work for its intrinsic purpose without adding any benefit to the public.24 Because the use is consumptive and creates a potential market substitute, he would have required only a showing of potential harm and would have held that the Studios met that burden.25
He argued that the fair use doctrine is intended to facilitate the creation of new works and does not apply to purely personal consumption on the scale involved here.26 The fair use doctrine permits works to be used for socially laudable purposes, but time-shifting provides no added benefit to the public beyond that produced by the first author's work.27
Whether the Betamax video tape recorder is capable of substantial noninfringing uses?28
Copying equipment does not give rise to contributory infringement liability if it is capable of substantial noninfringing uses, even if some infringing uses also occur.29
Yes. The District Court credited evidence that substantial numbers of copyright holders, including professional sports leagues, religious broadcasters, and educational stations, authorized or had no objection to home recording of their programs.30 PBS guides showed that 58 percent of listed programs permitted some home taping.31 These findings established that the Betamax was widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes and therefore satisfied the staple-article standard borrowed from patent law.32
The Betamax video tape recorder is capable of substantial noninfringing uses.33
Whether manufacturers and distributors of copying equipment can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement based on the uses made by consumers?34
Contributory copyright infringement requires that the defendant have knowledge of the infringing activity and materially contribute to it; mere sale of equipment capable of both infringing and noninfringing uses does not suffice.35
No. Sony had no direct contact with Betamax purchasers after the point of sale and did not advertise or encourage infringing uses.36 Its instruction booklet warned against unauthorized recording.37 Because the product was capable of substantial noninfringing uses, Sony lacked the requisite intent or contribution to be held liable for the infringing acts of unknown consumers.38 The Ninth Circuit's imposition of liability on a theory of constructive knowledge was therefore reversed.39
Manufacturers and distributors of copying equipment cannot be held liable for contributory copyright infringement based solely on the uses made by consumers when the equipment is capable of substantial noninfringing uses.40
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Marshall, Powell, And Rehnquist
Justice Blackmun dissented on this issue as well. He argued that Sony advertised the Betamax for recording favorite shows and classic movies without warnings and that off-the-air recording was the intended and primary use.41 He would have found that Sony induced and materially contributed to infringement and would have remanded for further findings on the proportion of infringing versus noninfringing use.42
The District Court found that Sony had advertised the Betamax as suitable for off-the-air recording of favorite shows, novels for television, and classic movies with no visible warning that such recording could constitute copyright infringement.43 He concluded that if off-the-air recording is an infringement of copyright, Sony has induced and materially contributed to the infringing conduct of Betamax owners.44