In her Excuses, excuses article, Carolyn Wright says:
I went to Sony v. Universal City Studios decision, and looked up the quoted phrases. To my surprise, I don't find them.
Please check out: "vicarious" appears only in several places, and none is the language "quoted" in the article.
I googled for the whole phrase: https://goo.gl/XO27Qp and all results seem to be from PhotoAttorney herself.
I googled for the last part of the phrase, to make sure: https://goo.gl/iklBN8 and all results are again from PhotoAttorney. If I insisted to look at all, two extra results were from completely different materials (something with agency law, not copyright, and surely not the Supreme Court).
Am I missing something here? It would be shocking if an attorney is publicly "quoting" the Supreme Court, with words they never said.
The Sony decision is well known, and I thought it's a curious idea to "quote" it to talk about vicarious infringement because it actually stands for the proposition that Sony *was not* liable for what users were doing with its device:
"If vicarious liability is to be imposed on Sony in this case, it must rest on the fact that it has sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact that its customers may use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. There is no precedent in the law of copyright for the imposition of vicarious liability on such a theory."
(this *IS* a real quote from Sony v. Universal, link above.)
Quote
The courts have held that “When a party has (1) the right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity; and (2) a direct financial benefit from that activity, the party is vicariously liable for the infringement.” See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 418, 104 S.Ct. 774, 777 (1984).
I went to Sony v. Universal City Studios decision, and looked up the quoted phrases. To my surprise, I don't find them.
Please check out: "vicarious" appears only in several places, and none is the language "quoted" in the article.
I googled for the whole phrase: https://goo.gl/XO27Qp and all results seem to be from PhotoAttorney herself.
I googled for the last part of the phrase, to make sure: https://goo.gl/iklBN8 and all results are again from PhotoAttorney. If I insisted to look at all, two extra results were from completely different materials (something with agency law, not copyright, and surely not the Supreme Court).
Am I missing something here? It would be shocking if an attorney is publicly "quoting" the Supreme Court, with words they never said.
The Sony decision is well known, and I thought it's a curious idea to "quote" it to talk about vicarious infringement because it actually stands for the proposition that Sony *was not* liable for what users were doing with its device:
"If vicarious liability is to be imposed on Sony in this case, it must rest on the fact that it has sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact that its customers may use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. There is no precedent in the law of copyright for the imposition of vicarious liability on such a theory."
(this *IS* a real quote from Sony v. Universal, link above.)