Connection lost
Server error
SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that Sony, manufacturer of the Betamax video recorder, was not liable for contributory copyright infringement. The device was capable of substantial noninfringing uses, including private, noncommercial “time-shifting” of television programs, which the Court deemed a fair use.
Legal Significance: Established the “Sony-Betamax” or “staple article of commerce” defense in copyright law, protecting technology providers from contributory liability if their products are capable of substantial noninfringing uses. It also affirmed private, noncommercial time-shifting as a fair use.
SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Universal City Studios and Walt Disney Productions (Respondents), owners of copyrights in various television programs, sued Sony Corporation (Petitioner), the manufacturer of the Betamax video tape recorder (VTR). Respondents alleged that consumers used Betamax VTRs to record their copyrighted programs broadcast over public airwaves, constituting direct copyright infringement. They argued that Sony was liable for contributory infringement by manufacturing and selling the equipment that enabled this activity. Sony did not dispute that consumers recorded programs but presented evidence that the primary use of the Betamax was “time-shifting”—recording a program to watch at a more convenient time and then erasing it. Sony also showed that many copyright holders, such as sports leagues and producers of educational and religious programming, did not object to this practice. The District Court found for Sony, concluding that time-shifting was a fair use. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that home taping was not a fair use and that Sony was liable for contributory infringement because the Betamax was not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the sale of home video recording equipment, which is capable of both infringing and substantial noninfringing uses, constitute contributory copyright infringement?
No. The Court held that Sony was not liable for contributory infringement. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the sale of home video recording equipment, which is capable of both infringing and substantial noninfringing uses, constitute contributory copyright infringement?
Conclusion
This landmark decision created a crucial safe harbor for creators of dual-use Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo cons
Legal Rule
The sale of copying equipment does not constitute contributory infringement if the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on establishing a standard for contributory infringement in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The sale of a copying device is not contributory copyright infringement