It is 1982 and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down their ruling in the case of  Universal v Sony  stating that Sony is liable for contributory infringement. Sony plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that court has not yet agreed to hear the case.

Y ou have been selected to write an op-ed article on the case for the   CS 306 Times . Your editor wants to know: 

• Was it the right decision, legally?
• Was it the right decision, ethically?
• What does the decision mean for the current state of the law and, perhaps more importantly, what will it mean for the American people, the technology industry, and media content creators?

Your article needs to provide a thoughtful, reflective discussion of these questions.  Readers of  CS 306 Times  are expecting and counting on you to give them the full story with all its implications.  How will the outcome of this case affect them?  (To fully consider this, you may want to imagine an alternate history in which the Supreme Court chose not to consider Sony's appeal, and the ruling of the 9th Circuit stood.  How would that ruling have impacted copyright law and society if the case history ended at the 9th circuit?)

The readers of the CS 306 Times have come to expect a high level of thoughtful reflection and analysis.  Don't let them down!  This is your chance to be creative, so feel free to add some journalistic flair along with your explanation and analysis.

 

Case Analysis on Legal and Ethical Principles of Court Ruling

In the case involving Sony Corporation, manufacturers of the home Videotape Recorders (VTR's) and Universal City Studios, Inc., owners of the copyrights in the local television programs, the Federal District Court primarily held that "if a device is sold for a legitimate purpose and substantively holds into non-infringing utilization, its manufacturer will not be held liable under copyright law for potential infringement by its users. However, respondents sought to bring action against the petitioners with an allegation that the consumers of the VTR were acting in violation of the copyrighted works.

Subsequently, the commercially sponsored television exhibiting the copyright did not consider the respondent's argument of the course of liability. According to the respondents, Sony Corporation is vicariously liable for its customers' copyright infringement. Undoubtedly, the Court of Appeal's reverse holding establishes the petitioner's liability for the contributory infringement quashed by the Federal District Court Ruling. Legally, the Court of Appeal ruling was not proper. As much as the Judges would argue that the Federal District Court ignored the copyright requirements, the burden does not directly fall rightfully to Sony Corporation. The firm's primary intent to market its products to its target consumers was arguably not to act to Universal City Studio's detriment. Therefore, a plan by Sony Corporation to appeal the ruling is justified, given the illegality of the outcome.

The rulings by the Federal District Court and the Court of Appeal are contradictory and thus do not apply in response to the previous court rulings of similar nature. About the case of Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, the holding by the judges fails to work in support of the novel theory that states that "supplying the 'means' to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement is sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement."  Conversely, the only point of contact between Sony Corporation and the consumers of VTRs was at the end of sale; hence the allegation that the company is vicariously liable for copyright infringement has no direct proof to substantiate the holding by the Court of Appeal.

However, looking at the outcome of the case from an ethical perspective, it is right to say that the reversal of the ruling by the Appellate Court was moral as it sought to protect the existing copyrights of the respondents. Consequently, there are some questions that one should ask themselves regarding the case outcome's legality and ethical consideration. Was the respondent justified to hurl all the blame of the civil circumstance on the petitioner? Does the petitioner have the capacity to control the consumers of its product against copyrights infringement?

According to Universal City Studios Inc., Sony Corporation was contributing directly to the copyright infringement. Applying ethics in justifying a ruling falls under the consideration of action, intention, and the outcome. Different philosophers developed arguments to explain their points of view about the reason for a specific action and the impact of the result. Therefore, the ethical consideration of the appeal ruling sought to indicate that an action by an individual entity, however legal it is, should work to act upon rightfulness and fair treatment above all else. Additionally, the private, non-commercial time-shift provides satisfactory standards for non-infringement of copyrights, thus denying the respondent the right to determine capacity for contributory infringement.

The theory of duty- Deontology by Immanuel Kant of 1724-1804 would apply to this case analysis. The approach brings up the concept of duty applicable for one collective entity, say in this case, a company or a firm and others, to represent 'People' consumers of a product. The appropriateness of rule application is dependent on the magnitude and gravity of a situation. As opposed to the direct application of existing law, ethics relies on an argument founded on principles of life and relations. Kant's theory of Deontology is not concerned with the consequences of an action but the intent in performing such action. The theory omitted the need for moral luck. Concerning the case of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, it is important to note that Sony's intention to market its product to its consumers cannot be attributed to the need to infringe on the television copyrights of City Universal Studios. The outcome occurs out of control and completely away from the primary intent. The theory holds "if someone intends to do their duty, then an unexpected harm would not transform an otherwise ethical action into something unethical."

Kant's argument of the Categorical Imperative sets the standards for objective necessity by considering the rightfulness of taking action. The requirement of treating as ends in themselves and universalizing an ethical rule acts according to the maxims of making the formulations relevant to both applications of law and ethics. The essence of Deontology is to offer respect to people's values rather than an individual. 

Correspondingly, the respondent's argument derives its basis from the fact that the petitioner had a role in controlling its consumer of VTRs to not infringe on the copyrights of its televised works. The decision by the Court of Appeal is negatively precedent to the current state of the law. The Supreme Court may base their ruling according to the previous charges applicable to the petitions presented into court. Furthermore, the court ruling means a great deal of dissatisfaction to apply the law on account of American People dependent on their interpretation of the law and the verdict outcome. Additionally, the technology industry is affected and slowed down for fear that any firm seeking to develop a technology must seek the consent of an unrelated but consequential party seeking to maintain a homogenous industry and market control.  On the other hand, media content creators must work to enhance content sieving and copyright protection. Therefore, this is to say, the application liability on legal matters affects content creation.

The interpretation of the case and the ruling outcome determine the reader's perspective about law and philosophical ethics. The Supreme Court's reluctance to consider Sony's appeal impacts the Copyright Law and Society significantly. In this case, the history would end with the 9^th circuit, thus raising the illegality of Sony's action to market its product to customers infringing into the copyrights of Universal City Studios. However, the future reference on legal matters would not be dependent on the application of law but judges to base their ruling on philosophy. Conjoiners and dissenting opinions apply the individual argument by judges

Outline: Case Analysis on Legal and Ethical Principles of Court Ruling

1. Introduction

In the case involving Sony Corporation, manufacturers of the home Videotape Recorders (VTR's) and Universal City Studios, Inc., owners of the copyrights in the local television programs, the Federal District Court primarily held that "if a device is sold for a legitimate purpose and substantively holds into non-infringing utilization, its manufacturer will not be held liable under copyright law for potential infringement by its users.

2. Body Paragraph 1

Subsequently, the commercially sponsored television exhibiting the copyright did not consider the respondent's argument of the course of liability. According to the respondents, Sony Corporation is vicariously liable for its customers' copyright infringement.

3. Body Paragraph 2

The rulings by the Federal District Court and the Court of Appeal are contradictory and thus do not apply in response to the previous court rulings of similar nature. About the case of Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, the holding by the judges fails to work in support of the novel theory that states that "supplying the 'means' to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement is sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement." 

4. Body Paragraph 3

According to Universal City Studios Inc., Sony Corporation was contributing directly to the copyright infringement. Applying ethics in justifying a ruling fall under the consideration of action, intention, and the outcome.

5. Body Paragraph 4

The theory of duty- Deontology by Immanuel Kant of 1724-1804 would apply to this case analysis. The approach brings up the concept of duty applicable for one collective entity, say in this case, a company or a firm and others, to represent 'People' consumers of a product.

6. Body Paragraph 5

Correspondingly, the respondent's argument derives its basis from the fact that the petitioner had a role in controlling its consumer of VTRs to not infringe on the copyrights of its televised works. The decision by the Court of Appeal is negatively precedent to the current state of the law.

7. Body Paragraph 6

The interpretation of the case and the ruling outcome determine the reader's perspective about law and philosophical ethics.