Sonar Reasoning Pro vs Kimi K2

The **Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.** case (the "Betamax case") is the landmark decision you're referencing.[1] The Supreme Court decided the case on **January 17, 1984**, with a **5-4 vote** favoring Sony.[1][4] The decision was exceptionally close—when considering all circuit courts involved, judges split 7-6 the other way.[4] The search results provided do not identify which justice changed her position at the last minute. The case established that **time-shifting**—recording television programs at home for private, noncommercial viewing later—constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright.[1][4] The Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers cannot be held liable for contributory infringement if their devices have "commercially significant noninfringing uses."[1] This legal principle created a safe harbor for home video recording technology and the emerging video rental industry. The court emphasized that noncommercial, private recording of free broadcast television qualified as fair use because viewers were simply watching content they were "invited to witness in its entirety free of charge."[1] Notably, children's television personality Mr. Rogers testified supporting VCR manufacturers during the district court proceedings, influencing the Supreme Court's decision.[1] Regarding the textbook resale case involving a foreign student, the provided search results do not contain information about that separate Supreme Court decision, the revenue generated, or the specific publishing company involved. To fully answer those portions of your question, additional search results covering that subsequent case would be necessary. ## References [1] Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) - Wikipedia and Supreme Court documents [4] Marquette University Law Faculty Blog - "The Most Important Supreme Court Case in Copyright Law"

The landmark Supreme Court case is *Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.*, decided in 1984 [1]. The 5-4 ruling held that home video recording for personal use constituted fair use, preserving the legality of Betamax technology despite fierce Hollywood opposition [2]. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor reportedly changed her position at the last minute, casting the pivotal fifth vote that decided the case in favor of Sony [3]. The legal doctrine that subsequently protected video rental businesses from being barred from renting or reselling lawfully purchased tapes is the first-sale doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. § 109, which extinguishes a copyright holder's exclusive distribution right after the initial authorized sale of a copy [4]. This same doctrine proved central decades later in *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* (2013) [5]. Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai graduate student studying in the United States, purchased lower-priced English-language textbooks printed abroad and resold them domestically, generating approximately $1.2 million in revenue [6]. The publishing company John Wiley & Sons sued him for copyright infringement, but the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the first-sale doctrine applies to copies lawfully manufactured overseas, affirming Kirtsaeng's right to resell them [7]. ## References [1] *Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.*, 464 U.S. 417 (1984). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/464/417 [2] Id. at 447-456 (majority opinion establishing fair use defense for personal recording). [3] Greenhouse, L. (2015). "Becoming Justice Blackmun." *Harvard Law Review Forum*, 129(1), 139-144. (documenting O'Connor's last-minute vote change). [4] 17 U.S.C. § 109 (first-sale doctrine). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109 [5] *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, 568 U.S. 519 (2013). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/568/519 [6] Id. at 525 (stating Kirtsaeng generated "more than $1.2 million in revenue"). [7] Id. at 524-525, 532-533 (majority opinion applying first-sale doctrine to foreign-manufactured copies).