Talk:Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: American C‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comments

are you sure its VCR not VHS? Sony --> BetaMax JVC/Victor --> VHS

VCR is "video cassette recorder"122.106.255.204 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting hides edit buttons

Hm, the sidebar seems to push all of the edit buttons down to its bottom, so that they are not near the sections that they are supposed to help you edit. This doesn't seem to happen in other articles with sidebars, such as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_v._Grokster... why?

Statutory royalty on blank videotape?

Before reading this article, I was unaware of the statutory royalty on blank videotape. Can someone provide a citation to the relevant section of U.S. Code? --Brouhaha 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this claim was in error. I fixed it & added a reference. --Jajasoon 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the image

For some reason, I can't see the image of the tape. But if I go to other pages with the image, I see them perfectly fine. I've triedd FF and IE, and same results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XiaoweiT (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second External Link down

The link to http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm is broken -Mrseacow (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--looks like the Link Issue has been resolved. Works fine for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.157.227 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge citation

I noticed the latest edit, a moving of the introductory citation from the first line of the intro, down to the bottom of the second sub-section of the second section...seemingly just to prevent having two separate citations to the case file. This is certainly not necessary. At the very least there can be two separate citations to the same reference. But it seems as though the Rogers citation was a direct link to the relevant part of the document for that statement in the text. This seems more useful for the reader to me. I understand the interest in keeping things tidy, but at the end of the day the whole point is what is most useful to the reader. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cites were merged to avoid duplication. While cites aren't prohibited in lead sections, most articles that are not stubs do avoid them because of the principle that nothing significant should appear in a lead that doesn't also appear in the body.

You are right about the usefulness of linking directly to referenced parts of the decision when appropriate (especially when it did so previously), and have done so with the Rogers testimony; thank you for catching that. Ylee (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair use?

Can somebody explain something? How is it the VCR was fair use, but file sharing isn't? How is it Napster gets nailed for hosting? It amounts to making a bookstore owner liable if customers swap copies of a CD.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rewording

I plugged in the citation needed on the line: "Ironically, the popularity of VCRs significantly benefited the film industry through the sale of pre-recorded movies." The line assumes that a non-recordable technology, such as media on ROM or live streaming, would not have been better for the industry. Since it is not possible to say for sure, I would suggest rewording the line to something like "the sale of pre-recorded movies became a source of revenue for the film industry worth gajillionz of bux as of 1999", with source. Kid Bugs (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]