cyckV4

Fair Use, Technology and Contributory Infringement 427
Respondents offered no evidence of decreased television viewing by Betamax owners.
Sony introduced considerable evidence describing television programs that could
be copied without objection from any copyright holder, with special emphasis on sports,
religious, and educational programming. For example, their survey indicated that 7.3%
of all Betamax use is to record sports events, and representatives of professional baseball,
football, basketball, and hockey testified that they had no objection to the recording of
their televised events for home use.
Respondents offered opinion evidence concerning the future impact of the
unrestricted sale of VTR’s on the commercial value of their copyrights. The District
Court found, however, that they had failed to prove any likelihood of future harm from
the use of VTR’s for time-shifting. . . .
The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material
broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not
constitute copyright infringement. . . .
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judgment on respondents’
copyright claim. It did not set aside any of the District Court’s findings of fact. Rather, it
concluded as a matter of law that the home use of a VTR was not a fair use because it
was not a “productive use.” It therefore held that it was unnecessary for plaintiffs to prove
any harm to the potential market for the copyrighted works, but then observed that it
seemed clear that the cumulative effect of mass reproduction made possible by VTR’s
would tend to diminish the potential market for respondents’ works. . . .
II
Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution provides that: “The Congress shall have Power
. . . to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor
primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a
means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate
the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to
allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive
control has expired.
“The copyright law, like the patent statute, makes reward to the owner a
secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, Chief Justice
Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by
Congress, ‘The sole interest of the United States and the primary object
in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the
public from the labors of authors.’ It is said that reward to the author or
artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative
genius.” United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).
As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned
the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors
or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product.
Because this task involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and
inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand,
and society’s competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on
the other hand, our patent and copyright statutes have been amended repeatedly.
From its beginning, the law of copyright has developed in response to significant