Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc./Dissent Blackmun

, with whom, , and join, dissenting.

A restatement of the facts and judicial history of this case is necessary, in my view, for a proper focus upon the issues. Respondents’ position is hardly so “unprecedented,” ante, at 421, in the copyright law, nor does it really embody a “gross generalization,” ante, at 436, or a “novel theory of liability,” ante, at 437, and the like, as the Court, in belittling their claims, describes the efforts of respondents.

I
The introduction of the home videotape recorder (VTR) upon the market has enabled millions of Americans to make recordings of television programs in their homes, for future and repeated viewing at their own convenience. While this practice has proved highly popular with owners of television sets and VTR’s, it understandably has been a matter of concern for the holders of copyrights in the recorded programs. A result is the present litigation, raising the issues whether the home recording of a copyrighted television program is an infringement of the copyright, and, if so, whether the manufacturers and distributors of VTR’s are liable as contributory infringers. I would hope that these questions ultimately will be considered seriously and in depth by the Congress and be resolved there, despite the fact that the Court’s decision today provides little incentive for congressional action. Our task in the meantime, however, is to resolve these issues as best we can in the light of ill-fitting existing copyright law.

It is no answer, of course, to refer to and stress, as the Court does, this Court’s “consistent deference to Congress” whenever “major technological innovations” appear. Ante, at 431. Perhaps a better and more accurate description is that the Court has tended to evade the hard issues when they arise in the area of copyright law. I see no reason for the Court to be particularly pleased with this tradition or to continue it. Indeed, it is fairly clear from the legislative history of the 1976 Act that Congress meant to change the old pattern and enact a statute that would cover new technologies, as well as old.

II
In 1976, respondents Universal City Studios, Inc., and Walt Disney Productions (Studios) brought this copyright infringement action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against, among others, petitioners Sony Corporation, a Japanese corporation, and Sony Corporation of America, a New York corporation, the manufacturer and distributor, respectively, of the Betamax VTR. The Studios sought damages, profits, and a wide-ranging injunction against further sales or use of the Betamax or Betamax tapes.

The Betamax, like other VTR’s, presently is capable of recording television broadcasts off the air on videotape cassettes, and playing them back at a later time. Two kinds of Betamax usage are at issue here. The first is “time-shifting,” whereby the user records a program in order to watch it at a later time, and then records over it, and thereby erases the program, after a single viewing. The second is “library-building,” in which the user records a program in order to keep it for repeated viewing over a longer term. Sony’s advertisements, at various times, have suggested that Betamax users “record favorite shows” or “build a library.” Sony’s Betamax advertising has never contained warnings about copyright infringement, although a warning does appear in the Betamax operating instructions.

The Studios produce copyrighted “movies” and other works that they release to theaters and license for television broadcast. They also rent and sell their works on film and on prerecorded videotapes and videodiscs. License fees for television broadcasts are set according to audience ratings, compiled by rating services that do not measure any playbacks of videotapes. The Studios make the serious claim that VTR recording may result in a decrease in their revenue from licensing their works to television and from marketing them in other ways.

After a 5-week trial, the District Court, with a detailed opinion, ruled that home VTR recording did not infringe the Studios’ copyrights under either the Act of Mar. 4, 1909 (1909 Act), 35 Stat. 1075, as amended (formerly codified as 17 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), or the Copyright Revision Act of 1976 (1976 Act), 90 Stat. 2541, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (1982 ed.). The District Court also held that even if home VTR recording were an infringement, Sony could not be held liable under theories of direct infringement, contributory infringement, or vicarious liability. Finally, the court concluded that an injunction against sales of the Betamax would be inappropriate even if Sony were liable under one or more of those theories. 480 F. Supp. 429 (1979).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in virtually every respect. 659 F.2d 963 (1981). It held that the 1909 Act and the 1976 Act contained no implied exemption for “home use” recording, that such recording was not “fair use,” and that the use of the Betamax to record the Studios’ copyrighted works infringed their copyrights. The Court of Appeals also held Sony liable for contributory infringement, reasoning that Sony knew and anticipated that the Betamax would be used to record copyrighted material off the air, and that Sony, indeed, had induced, caused, or materially contributed to the infringing conduct. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for appropriate relief; it suggested that the District Court could consider the award of damages or a continuing royalty in lieu of an injunction. Id., at 976.

III
The Copyright Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, empowers Congress “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.” This Nation’s initial copyright statute was passed by the First Congress. Entitled “An Act for the encouragement of learning,” it gave an author “the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending” his “map, chart, book or books” for a period of 14 years. Act of May 31, 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 124. Since then, as the technology available to authors for creating and preserving their writings has changed, the governing statute has changed with it. By many amendments, and by complete revisions in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976, authors’ rights have been expanded to provide protection to any “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,” including “motion pictures and other audiovisual works.” (1982 ed.).

of the 1976 Act grants the owner of a copyright a variety of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work, including the right “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords.”

This grant expressly is made subject to §§ –, which create a number of exemptions and limitations on the copyright owner’s rights. The most important of these sections, for present purposes, is ; that section states that “the fair use of a copyrighted work…is not an infringement of copyright.”

The 1976 Act, like its predecessors, does not give the copyright owner full and complete control over all possible uses of his work. If the work is put to some use not enumerated in, the use is not an infringement. See Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390, 393–395 (1968). Thus, before considering whether home videotaping comes within the scope of the fair use exemption, one first must inquire whether the practice appears to violate the exclusive right, granted in the first instance by, “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords.”

A
Although the word “copies” is in the plural in, there can be no question that under the Act the making of even a single unauthorized copy is prohibited. The Senate and House Reports explain: “The references to ‘copies or phonorecords,’ although in the plural, are intended here and throughout the bill to include the singular .” S. Rep. No. 94-473, p. 58 (1975) (1975 Senate Report); H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 61 (1976) (1976 House Report). The Reports then describe the reproduction right established by :

“[T]he right ‘to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords’ means the right to produce a material object in which the work is duplicated, transcribed, imitated, or simulated in a fixed form from which it can be ‘perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.’ As under the present law, a copyrighted work would be infringed by reproducing it in whole or in any substantial part, and by duplicating it exactly or by imitation or simulation.” 1975 Senate Report 58; 1976 House Report 61.

The making of even a single videotape recording at home falls within this definition; the VTR user produces a material object from which the copyrighted work later can be perceived. Unless Congress intended a special exemption for the making of a single copy for personal use, I must conclude that VTR recording is contrary to the exclusive rights granted by.

The 1976 Act and its accompanying Reports specify in some detail the situations in which a single copy of a copyrighted work may be made without infringement concerns. , for example, permits a library or archives “to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work” for a patron, but only under very limited conditions; an entire work, moreover, can be copied only if it cannot be obtained elsewhere at a fair price. In other respects, the making of single copies is permissible only within the limited confines of the fair use doctrine. The Senate Report, in a section headed “Single and multiple copying,” notes that the fair use doctrine would permit a teacher to make a single copy of a work for use in the classroom, but only if the work was not a “sizable” one such as a novel or treatise. 1975 Senate Report 63–64; accord, 1976 House Report 68–69, 71. Other situations in which the making of a single copy would be fair use are described in the House and Senate Reports. But neither the statute nor its legislative history suggests any intent to create a general exemption for a single copy made for personal or private use.
 * see also (broadcaster  may “make no more than one copy or phonorecord of a particular transmission program,” and only under certain conditions).

Indeed, it appears that Congress considered and rejected the very possibility of a special private use exemption. The issue was raised early in the revision process, in one of the studies prepared for Congress under the supervision of the Copyright Office. A. Latman, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works (1958), reprinted in Study No. 14 for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Copyright Law Revision, Studies Prepared for the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1960) (Latman Fair Use Study). This study found no reported case supporting the existence of an exemption for private use, although it noted that “the purpose and nature of a private use, and in some cases the small amount taken, might lead a court to apply the general principles of fair use in such a way as to deny liability.” Id., at 12. After reviewing a number of foreign copyright laws that contained explicit statutory exemptions for private or personal use, id., at 25, Professor Latman outlined several approaches that a revision bill could take to the general issue of exemptions and fair use. One of these was the adoption of particularized rules to cover specific situations, including “the field of personal use.” Id., at 33.

Rejecting the latter alternative, the Register of Copyrights recommended that the revised copyright statute simply mention the doctrine of fair use and indicate its general scope. The Register opposed the adoption of rules and exemptions to cover specific situations, preferring, instead, to rely on the judge-made fair use doctrine to resolve new problems as they arose. See Register’s 1961 Report 25; Register’s Supplementary Report 27–28.

The Register’s approach was reflected in the first copyright revision bills, drafted by the Copyright Office in 1964. These bills, like the 1976 Act, granted the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, subject only to the exceptions set out in later sections. H.R. 11947/S. 3008, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., § 5(a) (1964). The primary exception was fair use, § 6, containing language virtually identical to of the 1976 Act. Although the copyright revision bills underwent change in many respects from their first introduction in 1964 to their final passage in 1976, these portions of the bills did not change. I can conclude only that Congress, like the Register, intended to rely on the fair use doctrine, and not on a per se exemption for private use, to separate permissible copying from the impermissible. In Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 74, 487 F.2d 1345 (1973), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 420 U.S. 376 (1975), decided during the process of the revision of the copyright statutes, the Court of Claims suggested that copying for personal use might be outside the scope of copyright protection under the 1909 Act. The court reasoned that because “hand copying” for personal use has always been regarded as permissible, and because the practice of making personal copies continued after typewriters and photostat machines were developed, the making of personal copies by means other than hand copying should be permissible as well. 203 Ct. Cl., at 84–88, 487 F.2d, at 1350–1352. There appear to me to be several flaws in this reasoning. First, it is by no means clear that the making of a “hand copy” of an entire work is permissible; the most that can be said is that there is no reported case on the subject, possibly because no copyright owner ever thought it worthwhile to sue. See Latman Fair Use Study 11–12; 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright § 13.05[E]4.[a] (1983). At least one early treatise asserted that infringement would result “if an individual made copies for his personal use, even in his own handwriting, as there is no rule of law excepting manuscript copies from the law of infringement.” A. Weil, American Copyright Law § 1066 (1917). Second, hand copying or even copying by typewriter is self-limiting. The drudgery involved in making hand copies ordinarily ensures that only necessary and fairly small portions of a work are taken; it is unlikely that any user would make a hand copy as a substitute for one that could be purchased. The harm to the copyright owner from hand copying thus is minimal. The recent advent of inexpensive and readily available copying machines, however, has changed the dimensions of the problem. See Register’s Second Supplementary Report, ch. III, p. 3; Hearings on H. R. 2223 before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 194 (1975) (1975 House Hearings) (remarks of Rep. Danielson); id., at 234 (statement of Robert W. Cairns); id., at 250 (remarks of Rep. Danielson); id., at 354 (testimony of Irwin Karp); id., at 467 (testimony of Rondo Cameron); id., at 1795 (testimony of Barbara Ringer, Register of Copyrights). Thus, “[t]he supposition that there is no tort involved in a scholar copying a copyrighted text by hand does not much advance the question of machine copying.” B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright 101–102 (1967).

When Congress intended special and protective treatment for private use, moreover, it said so explicitly. One such explicit statement appears in itself. The copyright owner’s exclusive right to perform a copyrighted work, in contrast to his right to reproduce the work in copies, is limited. grants a copyright owner the exclusive right to perform the work “publicly,” but does not afford the owner protection with respect to private performances by others. A motion picture is “performed” whenever its images are shown or its sounds are made audible. . Like “sing[ing] a copyrighted lyric in the shower,” Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 155 (1975), watching television at home with one’s family and friends is now considered a performance. 1975 Senate Report 59–60; 1976 House Report 63. Home television viewing nevertheless does not infringe any copyright—but only because contains the word “publicly.” See generally 1975 Senate Report 60–61; 1976 House Report 63–64; Register’s 1961 Report 29–30. No such distinction between public and private uses appears in ’s prohibition on the making of copies.

Similarly, an explicit reference to private use appears in. Under that section, a library can make a copy for a patron only for specific types of private use: “private study, scholarship, or research.” §§ ; see 37 CFR § 201.14(b) (1983). Limits also are imposed on the extent of the copying and the type of institution that may make copies, and the exemption expressly is made inapplicable to motion pictures and certain other types of works. . These limitations would be wholly superfluous if an entire copy of any work could be made by any person for private use.

B
The District Court in this case nevertheless concluded that the 1976 Act contained an implied exemption for “home-use recording.” 480 F. Supp., at 444–446. The court relied primarily on the legislative history of a 1971 amendment to the 1909 Act, a reliance that this Court today does not duplicate. Ante, at 430, n. 11. That amendment, however, was addressed to the specific problem of commercial piracy of sound recordings. Act of Oct. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 391 (1971 Amendment). The House Report on the 1971 Amendment, in a section entitled “Home Recording,” contains the following statement:

“In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of the Committee to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and the record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years.” H.R. Rep. No. 92-487, p. 7 (1971) (1971 House Report).

Similar statements were made during House hearings on the bill and on the House floor, although not in the Senate proceedings. In concluding that these statements created a general exemption for home recording, the District Court, in my view, paid too little heed to the context in which the statements were made, and failed to consider the limited purpose of the 1971 Amendment and the structure of the 1909 Act.

Unlike television broadcasts and other types of motion pictures, sound recordings were not protected by copyright prior to the passage of the 1971 Amendment. Although the underlying musical work could be copyrighted, the 1909 Act provided no protection for a particular performer’s rendition of the work. Moreover, copyrighted musical works that had been recorded for public distribution were subject to a “compulsory license”: any person was free to record such a work upon payment of a 2-cent royalty to the copyright owner. § 1(e), 35 Stat. 1075–1076. While reproduction without payment of the royalty was an infringement under the 1909 Act, damages were limited to three times the amount of the unpaid royalty. § 25(e), 35 Stat. 1081–1082; Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Goody, 248 F.2d 260, 262–263, 265 (CA2 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 952 (1958). It was observed that the practical effect of these provisions was to legalize record piracy. See S. Rep. No. 92-72, p. 4 (1971); 1971 House Report 2.

In order to suppress this piracy, the 1971 Amendment extended copyright protection beyond the underlying work and to the sound recordings themselves. Congress chose, however, to provide only limited protection: owners of copyright in sound recordings were given the exclusive right “[t]o reproduce [their works] and distribute [them] to the public.” 1971 Amendment, § 1(a), 85 Stat. 391 (formerly codified as 17 U.S.C. § 1(f)). This right was merely the right of commercial distribution. See 117 Cong. Rec. 34748–34749 (1971) (colloquy of Reps. Kazen and Kastenmeier) (“the bill protects copyrighted material that is duplicated for commercial purposes only”).

Against this background, the statements regarding home recording under the 1971 Amendment appear in a very different light. If home recording was “common and unrestrained” under the 1909 Act, see 1971 House Report 7, it was because sound recordings had no copyright protection and the owner of a copyright in the underlying musical work could collect no more than a 2-cent royalty plus 6 cents in damages for each unauthorized use. With so little at stake, it is not at all surprising that the Assistant Register “d[id] not see anybody going into anyone’s home and preventing this sort of thing.” 1971 House Hearings 23.

But the references to home sound recording in the 1971 Amendment’s legislative history demonstrate no congressional intent to create a generalized home-use exemption from copyright protection. Congress, having recognized that the 1909 Act had been unsuccessful in controlling home sound recording, addressed only the specific problem of commercial record piracy. To quote Assistant Register Ringer again, home use was “not what this legislation [was] addressed to.” Id., at 22.

While the 1971 Amendment narrowed the sound recordings loophole in then existing copyright law, motion pictures and other audiovisual works have been accorded full copyright protection since at least 1912, see Act of Aug. 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 488, and perhaps before, see Edison v. Lubin, 122 F. 240 (CA3 1903), appeal dism’d, 195 U.S. 625 (1904). Congress continued this protection in the 1976 Act. Unlike the sound recording rights created by the 1971 Amendment, the reproduction rights associated with motion pictures under are not limited to reproduction for public distribution; the copyright owner’s right to reproduce the work exists independently, and the “mere duplication of a copy may constitute an infringement even if it is never distributed.” Register’s Supplementary Report 16; see 1975 Senate Report 57 and 1976 House Report 61. Moreover, the 1976 Act was intended as a comprehensive treatment of all aspects of copyright law. The Reports accompanying the 1976 Act, unlike the 1971 House Report, contain no suggestion that home-use recording is somehow outside the scope of this all-inclusive statute. It was clearly the intent of Congress that no additional exemptions were to be implied.

I therefore find in the 1976 Act no implied exemption to cover the home taping of television programs, whether it be for a single copy, for private use, or for home use. Taping a copyrighted television program is infringement unless it is permitted by the fair use exemption contained in of the 1976 Act. I now turn to that issue.

IV
The doctrine of fair use has been called, with some justification, “the most troublesome in the whole law of copyright.” Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., 104 F.2d 661, 662 (CA2 1939); see Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 626 F.2d 1171, 1174 (CA5 1980); Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061, 1068 (CA2 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1013 (1978). Although courts have constructed lists of factors to be considered in determining whether a particular use is fair, no fixed criteria have emerged by which that determination can be made. This Court thus far has provided no guidance; although fair use issues have come here twice, on each occasion the Court was equally divided and no opinion was forthcoming. Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 74, 487 F.2d 1345 (1973), aff’d, 420 U.S. 376 (1975); Benny v. Loew’s Inc., 239 F.2d 532 (CA9 1956), aff’d ''sub nom. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew’s Inc.'', 356 U.S. 43 (1958).

Nor did Congress provide definitive rules when it codified the fair use doctrine in the 1976 Act; it simply incorporated a list of factors “to be considered”: the “purpose and character of the use,” the “nature of the copyrighted work,” the “amount and substantiality of the portion used,” and, perhaps the most important, the “effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” (emphasis supplied). . No particular weight, however, was assigned to any of these, and the list was not intended to be exclusive. The House and Senate Reports explain that does no more than give “statutory recognition” to the fair use doctrine; it was intended “to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way.” 1976 House Report 66. See 1975 Senate Report 62; S. Rep. No. 93-983, p. 116 (1974); H.R. Rep. No. 83, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 32 (1967); H.R. Rep. No. 2237, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 61 (1966).

A
Despite this absence of clear standards, the fair use doctrine plays a crucial role in the law of copyright. The purpose of copyright protection, in the words of the Constitution, is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” Copyright is based on the belief that by granting authors the exclusive rights to reproduce their works, they are given an incentive to create, and that “encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in ‘Science and the useful Arts.’” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). The monopoly created by copyright thus rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 156; Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127–128 (1932); see H.R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909).

There are situations, nevertheless, in which strict enforcement of this monopoly would inhibit the very “Progress of Science and useful Arts” that copyright is intended to promote. An obvious example is the researcher or scholar whose own work depends on the ability to refer to and to quote the work of prior scholars. Obviously, no author could create a new work if he were first required to repeat the research of every author who had gone before him. The scholar, like the ordinary user, of course could be left to bargain with each copyright owner for permission to quote from or refer to prior works. But there is a crucial difference between the scholar and the ordinary user. When the ordinary user decides that the owner’s price is too high, and forgoes use of the work, only the individual is the loser. When the scholar forgoes the use of a prior work, not only does his own work suffer, but the public is deprived of his contribution to knowledge. The scholar’s work, in other words, produces external benefits from which everyone profits. In such a case, the fair use doctrine acts as a form of subsidy—albeit at the first author’s expense—to permit the second author to make limited use of the first author’s work for the public good. See Latman Fair Use Study 31; Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural Analysis of the Betamax Case and its Predecessors, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 1600, 1630 (1982).

A similar subsidy may be appropriate in a range of areas other than pure scholarship. The situations in which fair use is most commonly recognized are listed in itself; fair use may be found when a work is used “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,…scholarship, or research.” The House and Senate Reports expand on this list somewhat, and other examples may be found in the case law. Each of these uses, however, reflects a common theme: each is a productive use, resulting in some added benefit to the public beyond that produced by the first author’s work. The fair use doctrine, in other words, permits works to be used for “socially laudable purposes.” See Copyright Office, Briefing Papers on Current Issues, reprinted in 1975 House Hearings 2051, 2055. I am aware of no case in which the reproduction of a copyrighted work for the sole benefit of the user has been held to be fair use.

I do not suggest, of course, that every productive use is a fair use. A finding of fair use still must depend on the facts of the individual case, and on whether, under the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the user to bargain with the copyright owner for use of the work. The fair use doctrine must strike a balance between the dual risks created by the copyright system: on the one hand, that depriving authors of their monopoly will reduce their incentive to create, and, on the other, that granting authors a complete monopoly will reduce the creative ability of others. The inquiry is necessarily a flexible one, and the endless variety of situations that may arise precludes the formulation of exact rules. But when a user reproduces an entire work and uses it for its original purpose, with no added benefit to the public, the doctrine of fair use usually does not apply. There is then no need whatsoever to provide the ordinary user with a fair use subsidy at the author’s expense.

The making of a videotape recording for home viewing is an ordinary rather than a productive use of the Studios’ copyrighted works. The District Court found that “Betamax owners use the copy for the same purpose as the original. They add nothing of their own.” 480 F. Supp., at 453. Although applying the fair use doctrine to home VTR recording, as Sony argues, may increase public access to material broadcast free over the public airwaves, I think Sony’s argument misconceives the nature of copyright. Copyright gives the author a right to limit or even to cut off access to his work. Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S., at 127. A VTR recording creates no public benefit sufficient to justify limiting this right. Nor is this right extinguished by the copyright owner’s choice to make the work available over the airwaves. of the 1976 Act grants the copyright owner the exclusive right to control the performance and the reproduction of his work, and the fact that he has licensed a single television performance is really irrelevant to the existence of his right to control its reproduction. Although a television broadcast may be free to the viewer, this fact is equally irrelevant; a book borrowed from the public library may not be copied any more freely than a book that is purchased.

It may be tempting, as, in my view, the Court today is tempted, to stretch the doctrine of fair use so as to permit unfettered use of this new technology in order to increase access to television programming. But such an extension risks eroding the very basis of copyright law, by depriving authors of control over their works and consequently of their incentive to create. Even in the context of highly productive educational uses, Congress has avoided this temptation; in passing the 1976 Act, Congress made it clear that off-the-air videotaping was to be permitted only in very limited situations. See 1976 House Report 71; 1975 Senate Report 64. And, the Senate Report adds, “[t]he committee does not intend to suggest…that off-the-air recording for convenience would under any circumstances, be considered ‘fair use.’” Id., at 66. I cannot disregard these admonitions.

B
I recognize, nevertheless, that there are situations where permitting even an unproductive use would have no effect on the author’s incentive to create, that is, where the use would not affect the value of, or the market for, the author’s work. Photocopying an old newspaper clipping to send to a friend may be an example; pinning a quotation on one’s bulletin board may be another. In each of these cases, the effect on the author is truly de minimis. Thus, even though these uses provide no benefit to the public at large, no purpose is served by preserving the author’s monopoly, and the use may be regarded as fair.

Courts should move with caution, however, in depriving authors of protection from unproductive “ordinary” uses. As has been noted above, even in the case of a productive use, requires consideration of “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” (emphasis added). “[A] particular use which may seem to have little or no economic impact on the author’s rights today can assume tremendous importance in times to come.” Register’s Supplementary Report 14. Although such a use may seem harmless when viewed in isolation, “[i]solated instances of minor infringements, when multiplied many times, become in the aggregate a major inroad on copyright that must be prevented.” 1975 Senate Report 65.

I therefore conclude that, at least when the proposed use is an unproductive one, a copyright owner need prove only a potential for harm to the market for or the value of the copyrighted work. See 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright 13.05[E]4.[c], p. 13-84 (1983). Proof of actual harm, or even probable harm, may be impossible in an area where the effect of a new technology is speculative, and requiring such proof would present the “real danger…of confining the scope of an author’s rights on the basis of the present technology so that, as the years go by, his copyright loses much of its value because of unforeseen technical advances.” Register’s Supplementary Report 14. Infringement thus would be found if the copyright owner demonstrates a reasonable possibility that harm will result from the proposed use. When the use is one that creates no benefit to the public at large, copyright protection should not be denied on the basis that a new technology that may result in harm has not yet done so.

The Studios have identified a number of ways in which VTR recording could damage their copyrights. VTR recording could reduce their ability to market their works in movie theaters and through the rental or sale of prerecorded videotapes or videodiscs; it also could reduce their rerun audience, and consequently the license fees available to them for repeated showings. Moreover, advertisers may be willing to pay for only “live” viewing audiences, if they believe VTR viewers will delete commercials or if rating services are unable to measure VTR use; if this is the case, VTR recording could reduce the license fees the Studios are able to charge even for first-run showings. Library-building may raise the potential for each of the types of harm identified by the Studios, and time-shifting may raise the potential for substantial harm as well.

Although the District Court found no likelihood of harm from VTR use, 480 F. Supp., at 468, I conclude that it applied an incorrect substantive standard and misallocated the burden of proof. The District Court reasoned that the Studios had failed to prove that library-building would occur “to any significant extent,” id., at 467; that the Studios’ prerecorded videodiscs could compete with VTR recordings and were “arguably…more desirable,” ibid.; that it was “not clear that movie audiences will decrease,” id., at 468; and that the practice of deleting commercials “may be too tedious” for many viewers, ibid. To the extent any decrease in advertising revenues would occur, the court concluded that the Studios had “marketing alternatives at hand to recoup some of that predicted loss.” Id., at 452. Because the Studios’ prediction of harm was “based on so many assumptions and on a system of marketing which is rapidly changing,” the court was “hesitant to identify ‘probable effects’ of home-use copying.” Ibid.

The District Court’s reluctance to engage in prediction in this area is understandable, but, in my view, the court was mistaken in concluding that the Studios should bear the risk created by this uncertainty. The Studios have demonstrated a potential for harm, which has not been, and could not be, refuted at this early stage of technological development.

The District Court’s analysis of harm, moreover, failed to consider the effect of VTR recording on “the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work,” as required by. The requirement that a putatively infringing use of a copyrighted work, to be “fair,” must not impair a “potential” market for the work has two implications. First, an infringer cannot prevail merely by demonstrating that the copyright holder suffered no net harm from the infringer’s action. Indeed, even a showing that the infringement has resulted in a net benefit to the copyright holder will not suffice. Rather, the infringer must demonstrate that he had not impaired the copyright holder’s ability to demand compensation from (or to deny access to) any group who would otherwise be willing to pay to see or hear the copyrighted work. Second, the fact that a given market for a copyrighted work would not be available to the copyright holder were it not for the infringer’s activities does not permit the infringer to exploit that market without compensating the copyright holder. See Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 621 F.2d 57 (CA2 1980).

In this case, the Studios and their amici demonstrate that the advent of the VTR technology created a potential market for their copyrighted programs. That market consists of those persons who find it impossible or inconvenient to watch the programs at the time they are broadcast, and who wish to watch them at other times. These persons are willing to pay for the privilege of watching copyrighted work at their convenience, as is evidenced by the fact that they are willing to pay for VTR’s and tapes; undoubtedly, most also would be willing to pay some kind of royalty to copyright holders. The Studios correctly argue that they have been deprived of the ability to exploit this sizable market.

It is thus apparent from the record and from the findings of the District Court that time-shifting does have a substantial adverse effect upon the “potential market for” the Studios’ copyrighted works. Accordingly, even under the formulation of the fair use doctrine advanced by Sony, time-shifting cannot be deemed a fair use.

V
From the Studios’ perspective, the consequences of home VTR recording are the same as if a business had taped the Studios’ works off the air, duplicated the tapes, and sold or rented them to members of the public for home viewing. The distinction is that home VTR users do not record for commercial advantage; the commercial benefit accrues to the manufacturer and distributors of the Betamax. I thus must proceed to discuss whether the manufacturer and distributors can be held contributorily liable if the product they sell is used to infringe.

It is well established that liability for copyright infringement can be imposed on persons other than those who actually carry out the infringing activity. Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55, 62–63 (1911); 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright 12.04[A] (1983); see Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 160, n.11; Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 198 (1931). Although the liability provision of the 1976 Act provides simply that “[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner…is an infringer of the copyright,” (1982 ed.), the House and Senate Reports demonstrate that Congress intended to retain judicial doctrines of contributory infringement. 1975 Senate Report 57; 1976 House Report 61.

The doctrine of contributory copyright infringement, however, is not well defined. One of the few attempts at definition appears in Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159 (CA2 1971). In that case the Second Circuit stated that “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer.” Id., at 1162 (footnote omitted). While I have no quarrel with this general statement, it does not easily resolve the present case; the District Court and the Court of Appeals, both purporting to apply it, reached diametrically opposite results.

A
In absolving Sony from liability, the District Court reasoned that Sony had no direct involvement with individual Betamax users, did not participate in any off-the-air copying, and did not know that such copying was an infringement of the Studios’ copyright. 480 F. Supp., at 460. I agree with the Gershwin court that contributory liability may be imposed even when the defendant has no formal control over the infringer. The defendant in Gershwin was a concert promoter operating through local concert associations that it sponsored; it had no formal control over the infringing performers themselves. 443 F.2d, at 1162–1163. See also Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 160, n.11. Moreover, a finding of contributory infringement has never depended on actual knowledge of particular instances of infringement; it is sufficient that the defendant have reason to know that infringement is taking place. 443 F.2d, at 1162; see Screen Gems-Columbia Music, Inc. v. Mark-Fi Records, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 399 (SDNY 1966). In the so-called “dance hall” cases, in which questions of contributory infringement arise with some frequency, proprietors of entertainment establishments routinely are held liable for unauthorized performances on their premises, even when they have no knowledge that copyrighted works are being performed. In effect, the proprietors in those cases are charged with constructive knowledge of the performances. See, e.g., Famous Music Corp. v. Bay State Harness Horse Racing & Breeding Assn., Inc., 554 F.2d 1213 (CA1 1977); Dreamland Ball Room, Inc. v. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 36 F.2d 354 (CA7 1929); M. Witmark & Sons v. Tremont Social & Athletic Club, 188 F. Supp. 787, 790 (Mass. 1960); see also Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 157 (1975); Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 198–199 (1931); 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright 12.04[A], p. 12-35 (1983). Courts have premised liability in these cases on the notion that the defendant had the ability to supervise or control the infringing activities, see, e.g., Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H. L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 307 (CA2 1963); KECA Music, Inc. v. Dingus McGee’s Co., 432 F. Supp. 72, 74 (WD Mo. 1977). This notion, however, is to some extent fictional; the defendant cannot escape liability by instructing the performers not to play copyrighted music, or even by inserting a provision to that effect into the performers’ contract. Famous Music Corp. v. Bay State Harness Horse Racing & Breeding Assn., Inc., 554 F.2d, at 1214–1215; KECA Music, Inc. v. Dingus McGee’s Co., 432 F. Supp., at 75; Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Veltin, 47 F. Supp. 648, 649 (WD La. 1942). Congress expressly rejected a proposal to exempt proprietors from this type of liability under the 1976 Act. See 1975 Senate Report 141–142; 1976 House Report 159–160; 1975 House Hearings 1812–1813 (testimony of Barbara Ringer, Register of Copyrights); id., at 1813 (colloquy between Rep. Pattison and Barbara Ringer). The Court’s attempt to distinguish these cases on the ground of “control,” ante, at 437, is obviously unpersuasive. The direct infringer ordinarily is not employed by the person held liable; instead, he is an independent contractor. Neither is he always an agent of the person held liable; Screen Gems makes this apparent.

Nor is it necessary that the defendant be aware that the infringing activity violates the copyright laws. Section 504(c)(2) of the 1976 Act provides for a reduction in statutory damages when an infringer proves he “was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright,” but the statute establishes no general exemption for those who believe their infringing activities are legal. Moreover, such an exemption would be meaningless in a case such as this, in which prospective relief is sought; once a court has established that the copying at issue is infringement, the defendants are necessarily aware of that fact for the future. It is undisputed in this case that Sony had reason to know the Betamax would be used by some owners to tape copyrighted works off the air. See 480 F. Supp., at 459–460.

The District Court also concluded that Sony had not caused, induced, or contributed materially to any infringing activities of Betamax owners. Id., at 460. In a case of this kind, however, causation can be shown indirectly; it does not depend on evidence that particular Betamax owners relied on particular advertisements. In an analogous case decided just two Terms ago, this Court approved a lower court’s conclusion that liability for contributory trademark infringement could be imposed on a manufacturer who “suggested, even by implication” that a retailer use the manufacturer’s goods to infringe the trademark of another. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 (1982); see id., at 860 (opinion concurring in result). I think this standard is equally appropriate in the copyright context.

The District Court found that Sony has advertised the Betamax as suitable for off-the-air recording of “favorite shows,” “novels for television,” and “classic movies,” 480 F. Supp., at 436, with no visible warning that such recording could constitute copyright infringement. It is only with the aid of the Betamax or some other VTR, that it is possible today for home television viewers to infringe copyright by recording off-the-air. Off-the-air recording is not only a foreseeable use for the Betamax, but indeed is its intended use. Under the circumstances, I agree with the Court of Appeals that if off-the-air recording is an infringement of copyright, Sony has induced and materially contributed to the infringing conduct of Betamax owners.

B
Sony argues that the manufacturer or seller of a product used to infringe is absolved from liability whenever the product can be put to any substantial noninfringing use. Brief for Petitioners 41–42. The District Court so held, borrowing the “staple article of commerce” doctrine governing liability for contributory infringement of patents. See. This Court today is much less positive. See ante, at 440–442. I do not agree that this technical judge-made doctrine of patent law, based in part on considerations irrelevant to the field of copyright, see generally Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176, 187–199 (1980), should be imported wholesale into copyright law. Despite their common constitutional source, see U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, patent and copyright protections have not developed in a parallel fashion, and this Court in copyright cases in the past has borrowed patent concepts only sparingly. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 345–346 (1908).

I recognize, however, that many of the concerns underlying the “staple article of commerce” doctrine are present in copyright law as well. As the District Court noted, if liability for contributory infringement were imposed on the manufacturer or seller of every product used to infringe—a typewriter, a camera, a photocopying machine—the “wheels of commerce” would be blocked. 480 F. Supp., at 461; see also Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S., at 62.

I therefore conclude that if a significant portion of the product’s use is noninfringing, the manufacturers and sellers cannot be held contributorily liable for the product’s infringing uses. See ante, at 440–441. If virtually all of the product’s use, however, is to infringe, contributory liability may be imposed; if no one would buy the product for noninfringing purposes alone, it is clear that the manufacturer is purposely profiting from the infringement, and that liability is appropriately imposed. In such a case, the copyright owner’s monopoly would not be extended beyond its proper bounds; the manufacturer of such a product contributes to the infringing activities of others and profits directly thereby, while providing no benefit to the public sufficient to justify the infringement.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Sony should be held liable for contributory infringement, reasoning that “[v]ideotape recorders are manufactured, advertised, and sold for the primary purpose of reproducing television programming,” and “[v]irtually all television programming is copyrighted material.” 659 F.2d, at 975. While I agree with the first of these propositions, the second, for me, is problematic. The key question is not the amount of television programming that is copyrighted, but rather the amount of VTR usage that is infringing. Moreover, the parties and their amici have argued vigorously about both the amount of television programming that is covered by copyright and the amount for which permission to copy has been given. The proportion of VTR recording that is infringing is ultimately a question of fact, and the District Court specifically declined to make findings on the “percentage of legal versus illegal home-use recording.” 480 F. Supp., at 468. In light of my view of the law, resolution of this factual question is essential. I therefore would remand the case for further consideration of this by the District Court.

VI
The Court has adopted an approach very different from the one I have outlined. It is my view that the Court’s approach alters dramatically the doctrines of fair use and contributory infringement as they have been developed by Congress and the courts. Should Congress choose to respond to the Court’s decision, the old doctrines can be resurrected. As it stands, however, the decision today erodes much of the coherence that these doctrines have struggled to achieve.

The Court’s disposition of the case turns on its conclusion that time-shifting is a fair use. Because both parties agree that time-shifting is the primary use of VTR’s, that conclusion, if correct, would settle the issue of Sony’s liability under almost any definition of contributory infringement. The Court concludes that time-shifting is fair use for two reasons. Each is seriously flawed.

The Court’s first reason for concluding that time-shifting is fair use is its claim that many copyright holders have no objection to time-shifting, and that “respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs.” Ante, at 442. The Court explains that a finding of contributory infringement would “inevitably frustrate the interests of broadcasters in reaching the portion of their audience that is available only through time-shifting.”

Ante, at 446. Such reasoning, however, simply confuses the question of liability with the difficulty of fashioning an appropriate remedy. It may be that an injunction prohibiting the sale of VTR’s would harm the interests of copyright holders who have no objection to others making copies of their programs. But such concerns should and would be taken into account in fashioning an appropriate remedy once liability has been found. Remedies may well be available that would not interfere with authorized time-shifting at all. The Court of Appeals mentioned the possibility of a royalty payment that would allow VTR sales and time-shifting to continue unabated, and the parties may be able to devise other narrowly tailored remedies. Sony may be able, for example, to build a VTR that enables broadcasters to scramble the signal of individual programs and “jam” the unauthorized recording of them. Even were an appropriate remedy not available at this time, the Court should not misconstrue copyright holders’ rights in a manner that prevents enforcement of them when, through development of better techniques, an appropriate remedy becomes available. Even if concern with remedy were appropriate at the liability stage, the Court’s use of the District Court’s findings is somewhat cavalier. The Court relies heavily on testimony by representatives of professional sports leagues to the effect that they have no objection to VTR recording. The Court never states, however, whether the sports leagues are copyright holders, and if so, whether they have exclusive copyrights to sports broadcasts. It is therefore unclear whether the sports leagues have authority to consent to copying the broadcasts of their events. Assuming that the various sports leagues do have exclusive copyrights in some of their broadcasts, the amount of authorized time-shifting still would not be overwhelming. Sony’s own survey indicated that only 7.3% of all Betamax use is to record sports events of all kinds. Tr. 2353, Defendants’ Exh. OT, Table 20. Because Sony’s witnesses did not represent all forms of sports events, moreover, this figure provides only a tenuous basis for this Court to engage in factfinding of its own. The only witness at trial who was clearly an exclusive copyright owner and who expressed no objection to unauthorized time-shifting was the owner of the copyright in Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. But the Court cites no evidence in the record to the effect that anyone makes VTR copies of that program. The simple fact is that the District Court made no findings on the amount of authorized time-shifting that takes place. The Court seems to recognize this gap in its reasoning, and phrases its argument as a hypothetical. The Court states: “If there are millions of owners of VTR’s who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational programs such as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice,” the sale of VTR’s “should not be stifled” in order to protect respondents’ copyrights. Ante, at 446 (emphasis supplied). Given that the Court seems to recognize that its argument depends on findings that have not been made, it seems that a remand is inescapable.

The Court’s second stated reason for finding that Sony is not liable for contributory infringement is its conclusion that even unauthorized time-shifting is fair use. Ante, at 447 et seq. This conclusion is even more troubling. The Court begins by suggesting that the fair use doctrine operates as a general “equitable rule of reason.” That interpretation mischaracterizes the doctrine, and simply ignores the language of the statute. Section 107 establishes the fair use doctrine “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,…scholarship, or research.” These are all productive uses. It is true that the legislative history states repeatedly that the doctrine must be applied flexibly on a case-by-case basis, but those references were only in the context of productive uses. Such a limitation on fair use comports with its purpose, which is to facilitate the creation of new works. There is no indication that the fair use doctrine has any application for purely personal consumption on the scale involved in this case, and the Court’s application of it here deprives fair use of the major cohesive force that has guided evolution of the doctrine in the past.

Having bypassed the initial hurdle for establishing that a use is fair, the Court then purports to apply to time-shifting the four factors explicitly stated in the statute. The first is “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” . The Court confidently describes time-shifting as a noncommercial, nonprofit activity. It is clear, however, that personal use of programs that have been copied without permission is not what protects. The intent of the section is to encourage users to engage in activities the primary benefit of which accrues to others. Time-shifting involves no such humanitarian impulse. It is likewise something of a mischaracterization of time-shifting to describe it as noncommercial in the sense that that term is used in the statute. As one commentator has observed, time-shifting is noncommercial in the same sense that stealing jewelry and wearing it—instead of reselling it—is noncommercial. Purely consumptive uses are certainly not what the fair use doctrine was designed to protect, and the awkwardness of applying the statutory language to time-shifting only makes clearer that fair use was designed to protect only uses that are productive.

The next two statutory factors are all but ignored by the Court—though certainly not because they have no applicability. The second factor—“the nature of the copyrighted work”—strongly supports the view that time-shifting is an infringing use. The rationale guiding application of this factor is that certain types of works, typically those involving “more of diligence than of originality or inventiveness,” New York Times Co. v. Roxbury Data Interface, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 217, 221 (NJ 1977), require less copyright protection than other original works. Thus, for example, informational works, such as news reports, that readily lend themselves to productive use by others, are less protected than creative works of entertainment. Sony’s own surveys indicate that entertainment shows account for more than 80% of the programs recorded by Betamax owners.

The third statutory factor—“the amount and substantiality of the portion used”—is even more devastating to the Court’s interpretation. It is undisputed that virtually all VTR owners record entire works, see 480 F. Supp., at 454, thereby creating an exact substitute for the copyrighted original. Fair use is intended to allow individuals engaged in productive uses to copy small portions of original works that will facilitate their own productive endeavors. Time-shifting bears no resemblance to such activity, and the complete duplication that it involves might alone be sufficient to preclude a finding of fair use. It is little wonder that the Court has chosen to ignore this statutory factor.

The fourth factor requires an evaluation of “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” This is the factor upon which the Court focuses, but once again, the Court has misread the statute. As mentioned above, the statute requires a court to consider the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyrighted work. The Court has struggled mightily to show that VTR use has not reduced the value of the Studios’ copyrighted works in their present markets. Even if true, that showing only begins the proper inquiry. The development of the VTR has created a new market for the works produced by the Studios. That market consists of those persons who desire to view television programs at times other than when they are broadcast, and who therefore purchase VTR recorders to enable them to time-shift. Because time-shifting of the Studios’ copyrighted works involves the copying of them, however, the Studios are entitled to share in the benefits of that new market. Those benefits currently go to Sony through Betamax sales. Respondents therefore can show harm from VTR use simply by showing that the value of their copyrights would increase if they were compensated for the copies that are used in the new market. The existence of this effect is self-evident.

Because of the Court’s conclusion concerning the legality of time-shifting, it never addresses the amount of noninfringing use that a manufacturer must show to absolve itself from liability as a contributory infringer. Thus, it is difficult to discuss how the Court’s test for contributory infringement would operate in practice under a proper analysis of time-shifting. One aspect of the test as it is formulated by the Court, however, particularly deserves comment. The Court explains that a manufacturer of a product is not liable for contributory infringement as long as the product is “capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” Ante, at 442 (emphasis supplied). Such a definition essentially eviscerates the concept of contributory infringement. Only the most unimaginative manufacturer would be unable to demonstrate that a image-duplicating product is “capable” of substantial noninfringing uses. Surely Congress desired to prevent the sale of products that are used almost exclusively to infringe copyrights; the fact that noninfringing uses exist presumably would have little bearing on that desire.

More importantly, the rationale for the Court’s narrow standard of contributory infringement reveals that, once again, the Court has confused the issue of liability with that of remedy. The Court finds that a narrow definition of contributory infringement is necessary in order to protect “the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce.” Ante, at 442. But application of the contributory infringement doctrine implicates such rights only if the remedy attendant upon a finding of liability were an injunction against the manufacture of the product in question. The issue of an appropriate remedy is not before the Court at this time, but it seems likely that a broad injunction is not the remedy that would be ordered. It is unfortunate that the Court has allowed its concern over a remedy to infect its analysis of liability.

VII
The Court of Appeals, having found Sony liable, remanded for the District Court to consider the propriety of injunctive or other relief. Because of my conclusion as to the issue of liability, I, too, would not decide here what remedy would be appropriate if liability were found. I concur, however, in the Court of Appeals’ suggestion that an award of damages, or continuing royalties, or even some form of limited injunction, may well be an appropriate means of balancing the equities in this case. Although I express no view on the merits of any particular proposal, I am certain that, if Sony were found liable in this case, the District Court would be able to fashion appropriate relief. The District Court might conclude, of course, that a continuing royalty or other equitable relief is not feasible. The Studios then would be relegated to statutory damages for proven instances of infringement. But the difficulty of fashioning relief, and the possibility that complete relief may be unavailable, should not affect our interpretation of the statute.

Like so many other problems created by the interaction of copyright law with a new technology, “[t]here can be no really satisfactory solution to the problem presented here, until Congress acts.” Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 167 (dissenting opinion). But in the absence of a congressional solution, courts cannot avoid difficult problems by refusing to apply the law. We must “take the Copyright Act…as we find it,” Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S., at 401–402, and “do as little damage as possible to traditional copyright principles…until the Congress legislates.” Id., at 404 (dissenting opinion).